Story

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Eddie Lowery lost 10 years of his life for a crime he did not commit. There was no physical evidence at his trial for rape, but one overwhelming factor put him away: he confessed.

At trial, the jury heard details that prosecutors insisted only the rapist could have known, including the fact that the rapist hit the 75-year-old victim in the head with the handle of a silver table knife he found in the house. DNA evidence would later show that another man committed the crime. But that vindication would come only years after Mr. Lowery had served his sentence and was paroled in 1991.

“I beat myself up a lot” about having confessed, Mr. Lowery said in a recent interview. “I thought I was the only dummy who did that.”

But more than 40 others have given confessions since 1976 that DNA evidence later showed were false, according to records compiled by Brandon L. Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. Experts have long known that some kinds of people — including the mentally impaired, the mentally ill, the young and the easily led — are the likeliest to be induced to confess. There are also people like Mr. Lowery, who says he was just pressed beyond endurance by persistent interrogators.

New research shows how people who were apparently uninvolved in a crime could provide such a detailed account of what occurred, allowing prosecutors to claim that only the defendant could have committed the crime.

An article by Professor Garrett draws on trial transcripts, recorded confessions and other background materials to show how incriminating facts got into those confessions — by police introducing important facts about the case, whether intentionally or unintentionally, during the interrogation.

To defense lawyers, the new research is eye opening. “In the past, if somebody confessed, that was the end,” said Peter J. Neufeld, a founder of the Innocence Project, an organization based in Manhattan. “You couldn’t imagine going forward.”

Complex confessions
The notion that such detailed confessions might be deemed voluntary because the defendants were not beaten or coerced suggests that courts should not simply look at whether confessions are voluntary, Mr. Neufeld said. “They should look at whether they are reliable.”

Professor Garrett said he was surprised by the complexity of the confessions he studied. “I expected, and think people intuitively think, that a false confession would look flimsy,” like someone saying simply, “I did it,” he said.

Instead, he said, “almost all of these confessions looked uncannily reliable,” rich in telling detail that almost inevitably had to come from the police. “I had known that in a couple of these cases, contamination could have occurred,” he said, using a term in police circles for introducing facts into the interrogation process. “I didn’t expect to see that almost all of them had been contaminated.”

Of the exonerated defendants in the Garrett study, 26 — more than half — were “mentally disabled,” under 18 at the time or both. Most were subjected to lengthy, high-pressure interrogations, and none had a lawyer present. Thirteen of them were taken to the crime scene.

Mr. Lowery’s case shows how contamination occurs. He had come under suspicion, he now believes, because he had been partying and ran his car into a parked car the night of the rape, generating a police report. Officers grilled him for more than seven hours, insisting from the start that he had committed the crime.

Mr. Lowery took a lie detector test to prove he was innocent, but the officers told him that he had failed it.

“I didn’t know any way out of that, except to tell them what they wanted to hear,” he recalled. “And then get a lawyer to prove my innocence.”

'They fed me the answers'
Proving innocence after a confession, however, is rare. Eight of the defendants in Professor Garrett’s study had actually been cleared by DNA evidence before trial, but the courts convicted them anyway.

In one such case involving Jeffrey Deskovic, who spent 16 years in prison for a murder in Poughkeepsie, prosecutors argued that the victim may have been sexually active and so the DNA evidence may have come from another liaison she had. The prosecutors asked the jury to focus on Mr. Deskovic’s highly detailed confession and convict him.

While Professor Garrett suggests that leaking facts during interrogations is sometimes unintentional, Mr. Lowery said that the contamination of his questioning was clearly intentional.

After his initial confession, he said, the interrogators went over the crime with him in detail — asking how he did it, but correcting him when he got the facts wrong. How did he get in? “I said, ‘I kicked in the front door.’ ” But the rapist had used the back door, so he admitted to having gone around to the back. “They fed me the answers,” he recalled.

Some defendants’ confessions even include mistakes fed by the police. Earl Washington Jr., a mentally impaired man who spent 18 years in prison and came within hours of being executed for a murder he did not commit, stated in his confession that the victim had worn a halter top. In fact, she had worn a sundress, but an initial police report had stated that she wore a halter top.

Steven A. Drizin, the director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at the Northwestern University School of Law, said the significance of contamination could not be understated. While errors might lead to wrongful arrest, “it’s contamination that is the primary factor in wrongful convictions,” he said. “Juries demand details from the suspect that make the confession appear to be reliable — that’s where these cases go south.”

Videotaped interrogations
Jim Trainum, a former policeman who now advises police departments on training officers to avoid false confessions, explained that few of them intend to contaminate an interrogation or convict the innocent.

“You become so fixated on ‘This is the right person, this is the guilty person’ that you tend to ignore everything else,” he said. The problem with false confessions, he said, is “the wrong person is still out there, and he’s able to reoffend.”

Mr. Trainum has become an advocate of videotaping entire interrogations. Requirements for recording confessions vary widely across the country. Ten states require videotaping of at least some interrogations, like those in crimes that carry the death penalty, and seven state supreme courts have required or strongly encouraged recording.

These days Mr. Lowery, 51, lives in suburban Kansas City, in a house he is renovating with some of the $7.5 million in settlement money he received, along with apologies from officials in Riley County, Kan., where he was arrested and interrogated.

He has trouble putting the past behind him. “I was embarrassed,” he said. “You run in to so many people who say, ‘I would never confess to a crime.’ ”

He does not argue with them, because he knows they did not experience what he went through. “You’ve never been in a situation so intense, and you’re naïve about your rights,” he said. “You don’t know what you’ll say to get out of that situation.”

Man - all I can say is lawyer up ASAP and on top of that, I doubt I'd confess to something I actually did do, much less something I didn't do.

Thats what happens when the police are sure the y have the right guy, they start lying saying they have all this evidence, then add sleep deprivation and threats that if they dont confess its death or 50+ unless they confess and get let off light etc and yet another reason I dont trust the Police

Do not talk to the cops 1

Do not talk to the cops 2

Honestly, if someone is dumb enough to confess then I really don't mind them going to prison.  Less chance of their DNA going towards future tard generations.

sadly I think you are correct. . where is that video of the Professor telling his students NOT to talk to the police under any circumstances? it needs to be posted here.
edit: all ready posted

I worked with a guy that went to the local PD (maybe it was the Sherriff Dept....can't remember) and confessed to a local high profile murder. He didn't do it, the cops figured it out in about 2 minutes flat, sent him to have his head shrunk and got him a cup of coffee and a ride home.

Nice enough guy, just not that bright. I have no idea why he did that other than attention seeking behavior.

Go be interrogated by the police for 24 hours straight then see how bad you want out, sure some people will do fine but most people are weak and just want out, plus if you get told something enough you start believing it, but by all means dont focus on the wrongdoers in this case the police and blame the guy they coerced into confessing

This was addressed in 1787. I don't know why they think it's recent.

This is 100% truth.  I got my mental ass handed to me by more than one person during survival school.  You'd be surprised what you can get out of someone when they're really sleep deprived, hungry and dehydrated.





 

I know the conviction rate is around that number(very high).  I am unsure of the confession rate though, I do know that various articles mention that people have just confessed cause either way it doesnt matter even if they are innocent.  One of the laws that deals with police is the "Obstruction of a Public Official in the course of his Duties."  Its very broad, but basically, a person can not be under arrest and the police are asking questions, and if that person leaves, he/she would get arrested under the Obstruction of a Public Official in the course of his Duties. That is how its explained atleast.   With the introduction of DNA testing, certain methods of interrogation (No video or audio required before, this is slowly changing), it is getting interesting, on top of the lay jury system that was introduced(and now the system is fighting it, according to various articles-).  An article about the lay juries:



from yomiuri.

Now, detained at the koban means that person has been arrested(police cannot make that person stay there, or go there, unless that person is  under arrest, or if that person goes willingly-).  Now, if that person does get arrested, the police can hold a person for up to 23 days, 3 days interrogation with 10 day extensions.  They do not read any rights, that person would not get a lawyer, can be denied legal counsel, outside contact (family members looking),  consular contact, keeping that person awake for days, denying restroom, physical assault in some cases, etc.  A paper will be presented mutliple times, the suspect will be asked to sign it, even if that person does not understand it.  The whole time the suspect is presumed to be guilty, and must prove his/her innocence.  There is alot more to it though.


ETA- replaced you, as i did not intend to accusative

People talk. Innocent , good people even more so. I've been through various interrogation training and would like to believe that I'd get through one on my own. BUT WOULD NEVER TRY IT.  In the above story the one thing take away is that NONE of the defendants studied had a lawyer present. None.

Mental stress is a bitch in these situations. NO WAY I'd sit down with the man without representation.

I agree.  I am 100% in favor of swift and certain death for certain crimes, however I do require hard evidence.  Innocent men have in fact been put to death, and certainly will again.  I am in favor of ALL death sentences not supported by 100% DNA or "caught bloody over the body" evidence to be stayed, pending such evidence.  Rolling forward, DNA or other inarguable evidence should result in a bullet to the head in a tiled room with a drain.  Immediately after sentencing.

Well no shit.



I'm reminded of the one with the diabetic kid where he couldn't talk to his parents.

Thanks for those videos, kind of eye opening.

This happens alot. Gresham wrote a non fiction book about it and there is the famous case of the West Memphis Three where the cops grilled for 12 hours a 15 year old with a IQ of 86 with no adult or lawyer present. No surprise that they got a confession out of him.
This really disturbes me, the cops that did this had to know that the kid did not commit the crime but they took him over the hurdles and processed his confession.
It was a high profile case and the cops needed to solve it, lots of pressure.
One of the kids is on death row the others are doing life for a crime they did not commit and the legal community seems to be ok with that.

If I had you in my control for 23 days, I could get you to admit just about anything I wanted you to admit.  People are not made for that sort of stress.

You sure they didn't commit it?  Eddie Vedder says so.  Anything Eddie Vedder says is true.  Natalie Maines also believes they are innocent, and she is an even BIGGER legal genius than Eddie Vedder.

Which case is that?

Cause De'Celebre for liberals with nothing better to do.  Stay the death sentence, and let it rest I says.  Eddie Vedder disagrees, however.

If I was brought in for interrogation, I'd probably have an anxiety attack and pass out, followed by cardiac arrest. I don't think I could handle that stress well. That being said, I don't think they could get me to say anything except "where is my lawyer."

What a remarkably stupid and indifferent attitude this is.  I pray you're not in law enforcement.

100% concur.  Tiled room with a drain in the floor, bullet, drain out, incinerate body, have a nice day.

I 2nd that motion

I learned this lesson at a very young age (6 yrs old).
At school, on bathroom break with a bunch of other kindergarteners and did my business (#1), washed my hands and went back out to get in line. A few minutes later the principal goes in and then comes back out and asks who spilled water and threw paper towels on the floor. Wasn't me so I didn't say anything, he keeps grilling us (10 boys) and finally settles on me as the "perp" for whatever reason.
Between him and the teacher asking me over and over if I had done it, telling me not to lie to them, pretty high pressure for a 6 year old, etc etc.
As a kid I made a calculated decision to just get it over with and confess even though I knew I hadn't done it. So what happened? I get the paddling.
Taught me a lesson for sure....DONT FUCKING CONFESS TO ANYTHING.

The only person who has your best interests at heart is YOU.

Sadly this does happen





I won't go into details of the case, but I once met a mentally handicapped kid who was coerced into testifying to a murder he never saw.



They put this poor fucker in jail in the booking area; a square room w/ cells w/ glass doors (usually for suicide watch).

Then they arrested his grandmother for obstruction or some such (charges were dropped) and put her in a cell facing his, so he could see his grandmother in jail w/ him



Then the detectives fed this kid lines for shit for days:



Look what you are doing to your grandma.

If you don't testify that you saw XXXX kill XXXX, you will go to the penitentiary and get ass-raped.

Everybody in this jail wants to kill/rape you, but we just want to help

Just say what we tell you and we'll send you to a nice camp in the North West and your grandma can go home.





Poor kid actually held out for a few days telling the cops the truth; that he didn't see anyone shot.



Finally he broke and agreed to testify and they sent him to some boys camp type thing as a form of "witness protection".





Stuff like that is just sad.
Speed

You're safe.  I'm not "the man."

As far as high-pressure interrogation goes, I can't see confessing to anything even if I did it.  A person who would do that is retarded.

40+ convictions/confessions overturned in the last 34 years out of how many hundreds of thousands? I'm not convinced that there's anything suspicious going on.

I was accused of a hit and run at a Dunkin Donuts years ago.  I was at home when a LEO called me, said she had an eyewitness and video evidence of me doing it and I need to come down to the station.  I was at DD that morning but didn't remember hitting anyone, and here is an LEO telling me they have all this evidence against me.  I spent the drive to the station thinking that I had hit someone and just didn't notice.



When I get to the station they look over my car, and notice it has no damage and no noticeable repairs.  So they have me wait while they figure shit out.  Finally they tell me they are sorry for the confusion and let me go.



What happened was that someone behind me in the drive through in the same make and color car, hit someone and drove off.  I was on the opposite side of the building, and when I came around to leave, the witness assumed I was the same person and wrote my plate down.  The video evidence did exist, and clearly showed that I was not the one they were looking for.  The cops had taken the witnesses statement as 100% true and didn't even bother watching the video till I showed up and their story didn't work anymore.



It has irked me ever since that a LEO would dismiss hard evidence like a video.

Justa_TXguy called you dumb.

Justa_TXguy sounds like a cop with his blame the victim mentality.z

Happened here quite a few times as wel, really sad.

Here the cause was in most cases:
-Sleep deprivation due to long sessions of questioning.
-The guys were good hard working guys who believed the questioning cops had their best intrests at heart (not a cop bash BTW)]
-The not shall we say the sharpest knives in the draw.

It has even been the case that the real killer went on to murder new victims .
story

Ooh at the time you dit not the right to have a lawyer present during questioning, this is now changed.

The problem is punishing the people responsible. Systemic problems like this get ignored or hidden.



There's a DA in Texas that did it for so long the Innocence Project had to open a branch office there.



And he died of old age.



Additionally, when this comes out, it taints everything touching it.



 

Beat me to it.

People in suits who carry guns and handcuffs can be very persuasive when federal pound me in the ass prison is being discussed.  If they want info, they will get it one way or another.  



Key thing is to get a lawyer (a good one) and follow instructions which generally is STFU.

This one is tough...

A detective interrogates a murderer, gets him to confess... the cop's a hero.

A detective interrogates an innocent man, gets him to confess... the cop's a goat.


Sure, if the cop knows the guy is innocent, and he still pushes the interrogation to a confession... that's wrong.

But, just how do you prove that?

Good luck with that. I won't be admitting to something I didn't do. Ever. Which means you would probably fuck me up pretty good.



However, if one HAD done something, I think it would only be a matter of time before they let the truth out. It's harder to hide behind a lie than the truth.



 

If you're sitting in a little room across from a detective, then you should remember-the cops are NOT your friend.

I 3rd that.
 

Some people just don't get this, though.

If you're in that little room, they think you did something... and they mean to prove it... and they'd just love your help.

And retarded people often do confess to something they didn't do.  An effective interrogator could make just about any one of us his bitch given time and a free hand.  The Constitution is the only thing that protects us from such treatment.

It's very important to them that *someone* take the blame for something bad, not necessarily the person who did it.  It's considered acceptable to convict the innocent because the fact someone took the fall for it is better for "the greater good" as it were.  This is common in most Asian cultures, as eastern moral/ethical philosophy places the collective whole above the individual, generally speaking.





 

A guy I went to HS with confessed to molesting his GF's little sister "to bring closure to the family" after she was found to have been abused but couldn't say who did it. I think the victim was pre-verbal at the time, I never got that part of the story.  

He wasn't very bright,  he honestly believed she'd still love him after he got out of prison, and many I know in the area still think she talked him into it.

Kharn

23 days and you'd confess.  Nobody can hold out that long my friend.

Ok - you say, but you have no idea what some people are capable of as far as torture.  There hasn't been a single case in history that I am aware of where a person didn't confess after sufficient time and energy.

Now me - I couldn't be that brutal

Also, it's important to mention that thousands, hell maybe millions? of folks "confessed" to crimes they never committed at the hands of communist regimes.



They were not always physically tortured either; may times they threatened the livelihoods of their loved ones, or through sleep deprivation and repetition created doubt in their confused and tormented minds that maybe they DID do what the "police" said?



Coercion takes on many forms and while I doubt US police are using overtly sinister tactics, they are trained to get confessions and may cross the line in doing so.
Speed

They'd give you a Mint Julep.

I think extension can be permitted after 23 days, also.  Even if  someone can make it to 23 days, they will just be re arrested or something along those lines.  

There was a 74 year old US citizen, had a pocketknife that over the legal length(which was changed, and the law was just going into affect-)- he went to jail/detention for 10 days. I am unsure if he confessed though.