# Alibi: "Where were you on the night of..." **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 21, 2013, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alibi-where-were-you-on-the-night-of/671806 "2013-10-21T11:52:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alibi-where-were-you-on-the-night-of/671806/121 "2013-10-24T17:10:29Z")
> [@lazarus86](#): > > Or maybe the cop, who’s awake and energized and an expert at this, is going to beat your sorry ass at this game of wits. I like how it was described here: > [@](#): > > It is left to the detective to fire this warning shot [_Miranda_ rights] across the suspect’s bow, granting rights to a man that then will be tricked into relinquishing them. > … > > Trapped in that contradiction, a detective does his job in the only possible way. He follows the requirements of the law to the letter—or close enough as not to jeopardize his case. Just as carefully, he ignores that law’s spirit and intent. He becomes a salesman, a huckster as thieving and silver-tongued as any man who ever moved used cars or aluminum siding—more so, in fact, when you consider he’s selling long prison terms to customers who have no genuine need for the product. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alibi-where-were-you-on-the-night-of/671806/122 "2013-10-24T17:23:01Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Example #1 Canada, laws are different can’t comment. > > Example #2 Canada, laws are different can’t comment. > > Example #3 Richard Jewel. The FBI thoroughly investigated him. As they should have. He was completely exonerated by that investigation. So it worked the way it should have. The problem was not the investigation, it was the presumption of guilt by the media. It was the media’s treatment of him that was disgusting and he won several lawsuits because of it. Unfortunately it seems to have become the norm now. Nancy Grace, looking at you. > > Example #4 I’m not going to buy a book and read it so I can comment on this thread to you. > > Law and Order is entertainment. There is a lot they do for dramatic effect that does not make sense. Arresting someone publically like that is just dumb for many reasons. My point is not what was legal or not in different places, my point was that police in many jurisdictions will latch onto a suspect, sometimes incorrectly, and then do all they can to make a case that will stick - even as the contrary evidence mounts. Yes, eventually Richard Jewel was exonerated - finally. However, before that, the FBI was convinced that because he recognized the situation and moved people awy, he must have known about the bomb because he planted it. Before they finally admitted they were wrong, they tried every trick in the book for weeks to coerce him into confessing. They tried to use the budy, buddy routine to trip him up; they tried to trick him into signing a Miranda waiver by pretending it was part of a movie script that he had to sign it. They leaked his name to the media, implying he was guilty, to add pressure to him. The guy probably saved a few lives, maybe even a lot of lives. How did the country repay him? > [@](#): > > In July 1997, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, prompted by a reporter’s question at her regular weekly news conference, expressed regret over the FBI’s leak to the news media that led to the widespread presumption of his guilt, and apologized outright, saying, “I’m very sorry it happened. I think we owe him an apology. I regret the leak.”[18] “Leak” makes it sound like it was an accident, do you think it was an accident or a deliberate intimidation tactic? ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alibi-where-were-you-on-the-night-of/671806/123 "2013-10-24T18:30:47Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > My point is not what was legal or not in different places, my point was that police in many jurisdictions will latch onto a suspect, sometimes incorrectly, and then do all they can to make a case that will stick - even as the contrary evidence mounts. > > Yes, eventually Richard Jewel was exonerated - finally. However, before that, the FBI was convinced that because he recognized the situation and moved people awy, he must have known about the bomb because he planted it. > > Before they finally admitted they were wrong, they tried every trick in the book for weeks to coerce him into confessing. They tried to use the budy, buddy routine to trip him up; they tried to trick him into signing a Miranda waiver by pretending it was part of a movie script that he had to sign it. They leaked his name to the media, implying he was guilty, to add pressure to him. > > The guy probably saved a few lives, maybe even a lot of lives. How did the country repay him? > “Leak” makes it sound like it was an accident, do you think it was an accident or a deliberate intimidation tactic? It makes no sense to have him sign a Miranda warning in that manner. In no way could it hold up in court. And it makes no sense to leak the information and then try to trick him. They are contradictory. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alibi-where-were-you-on-the-night-of/671806/124 "2013-10-24T19:13:28Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > It makes no sense to have him sign a Miranda warning in that manner. In no way could it hold up in court. And it makes no sense to leak the information and then try to trick him. They are contradictory. Yeah, the general attitude of the court was “How dumb are these FBI agents???” Apparently, quite. From the article I read, they probably intended to use it to try to convince him that he had no choice but to talk and could not ask for his lawyer since he’d signed away that right. I assume they were thinking that once they got a confession in the biggest highest profile case in years, details like amendment rights would not be an impediment. They leaked the information when the interrogations went nowhere - whether to add pressure and maybe make him crack, or as a frustration and get-even ploy, who knows? Again, the point is that an entire bureau team lost its collective sense of proportion and was willing to break all the rules to obtain a confession because they “knew” their guy was guilty. Also, because it seems the most important thing is to get that confession. Conflicting evidence could be glossed over, the most important thing was to get a confession. Based on the screw-ups we read in the news, that seems to be the modus operandi of the police nowadays, and why the “Don’t talk…” is so important. Unless it’s a major case, the police seem to be more interested in coercing a confession than collecting all the forensic evidence and timeline details and other such proof of who committed the crime. To be fair and balanced, the majority of police are fair, honest and trying to do a good job. Dealing with low-life has to take its toll on that detemination. It’s the spectacular cases that make the news and undermine the trust. [http://publicintelligence.net/former-detective-testifies-nypd-routinely-plants-evidence-frames-people-to-reach-arrest-quotas/](http://publicintelligence.net/former-detective-testifies-nypd-routinely-plants-evidence-frames-people-to-reach-arrest-quotas/) ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alibi-where-were-you-on-the-night-of/671806/125 "2013-10-24T20:26:56Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > So Mr. Cad, you waited two days to tell us that your wife isn’t actually a Law Enforcement Officer? Did you suddenly just remember that? It became a convenient fact during this interview, didn’t it? Anything else you’d like to admit? This is your last chance to come clean while we can still help you. Next step is out of our hands. Wait. I never said she was a law enforcement officer. I wasn’t there that day. I mean I was but not when she was. And then . . . I’m so confused . . . I killed the Lindbergh baby! But he was coming after me. So you’ll help me right? You said if I told you that you’d help me. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alibi-where-were-you-on-the-night-of/671806/126 "2013-10-24T20:40:15Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Also, because it seems the most important thing is to get that confession. Conflicting evidence could be glossed over, the most important thing was to get a confession. > > Based on the screw-ups we read in the news, that seems to be the modus operandi of the police nowadays, and why the “Don’t talk…” is so important. Unless it’s a major case, the police seem to be more interested in coercing a confession than collecting all the forensic evidence and timeline details and other such proof of who committed the crime. Regardless of your later hand waving, your over generalization of things you have only read about strays very far from any GQ answers I can attempt to give you. Which seems to be your modus operandi. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alibi-where-were-you-on-the-night-of/671806/127 "2013-10-24T21:53:27Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > This is pretty much the exact hypothetical in Simon’s H:AYOTKS fatal stabbing _Miranda_ example: > > > [@](#): > > > > The first detective looks up from the form, his eyes soaked with innocence. “He came at you, huh?” > > > > “Yeah, he came at me.” > > > > Get used to small rooms, bunk, because you’re about to be drop kicked into the lost land of pretrial detention. Because it’s one thing to be a little murdering asshole from Southeast Baltimore, and it’s another to be stupid about it, and with those five little words you have just elevated yourself to the ranks of the truly witless. > > > > End of the road, pal. It’s over. It’s history. And if that police detective wasn’t so busy committing your weak bullshit to paper, he’d probably look you in the eye and tell you so. Yes, exactly. That’s how you do it. You don’t ask a suspect _if_ he committed a crime. You ask him _why_ he committed a crime. A guilty person will be so eager to explain why they committed the crime, they won’t realize their explanation contains a confession. Of course, this only works with guilty people. Innocent people didn’t commit the crime so they have nothing to explain. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alibi-where-were-you-on-the-night-of/671806/128 "2013-10-24T21:59:30Z")
I will give one situation where producing an alibi is a bad idea: over-alibing. I was once investigating an incident where a guy said he had an alibi and gave me five people who could testify he hadn’t been at the scene. So I questioned all of his witnesses and they all gave the guy an alibi. But they hadn’t worked on their stories so each of them gave the guy a different alibi and the alibis contradicted each other. I said it hundreds of times when I was working: you don’t encounter the smart criminals in prison. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alibi-where-were-you-on-the-night-of/671806/129 "2013-10-24T22:58:58Z")
> [@Sorgine](#): > > My preferred version is “no, Officer, is there a problem?” You should stay away from that oft-used line. The preferred response to that is, “Yes, there is. You!” I’ve been pulled over a few times, but I just politely answer “No” when asked if I know why I was pulled over. Even if I was driving 115mph while doing a line of cocaine off of the dashboard. (Not really. 🙂 ) “Do you know how fast you were going?” My answer is “No, but I was looking at the road and not at my speedometer. I always drive the speed limit. You think I was speeding?” “Yes, you were going 83 in a 70.” Me (with incredulous look): “'Well, I won’t argue with what you say, but I never drive that fast. That surprises me…but you saw what you saw on your radar gun, so I’m not going to argue with a man doing his job.” And for whatever seems like smartassery in those comments, I really mean them. I don’t think that the cop is making it up, I don’t usually speed, I wasn’t looking at my speedometer, nor will I argue with him. I’ll hope for a warning, and if I don’t get one, I’ll see if there is a way to challenge it in court. I paid a speeding ticket when I was 18, but since then I’m 2 for 2 in traffic court. A lot of roads simply are not properly posted and in the states where I have lived, that is a dismissal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alibi-where-were-you-on-the-night-of/671806.md?page=6)