I like how it was described here:
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.