# More on "Never talk to cops." **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 15, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886 "2014-01-15T17:26:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**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:** [January 17, 2014, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/61 "2014-01-17T14:38:53Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Loach, the one problem I have with your responses is the fact that while YOU know why you are asking me questions, I don’t. So when you come up to my door and ask, “Did you see anything suspicious around 8pm last night?” I have no clue if you are just looking for information or if I’m a suspect in a burglary two doors down. That knowledge of your motivation is asymmetrical so why should I put myself at risk if I don’t know if I’m a suspect or not? > > Take the example of pulling over a speeder. You say it’s just a conversation starter and I believe you. I was once pulled over in California about 10 miles from the Arizona border. The officer ask is I knew why I was being pulled over and I admitted I was speeding. When he wrote the ticket, I asked for it to be assigned to the county seat\* and the reply was, “You can’t fight it. I have it on tape that you admitted you were speeding.” So now tell me when YOU pull me over why I should talk to you? > > - California has an interesting law that when stopped for a ticket, you can request for it to be handled at the county seat. It has to be done at the time it is issued and in my case, meant I could go to the courthouse in Riverside (closer to my home) than Indio. I never once said you shouldn’t know and assert your rights. But as some have pointed out having a hard and fast rule against speaking to a police officer under any circumstances can run into being paranoid and is contrary to being a good citizen and member of the community. Without the cooperation of the community almost nothing will get solved. I don’t want to live in such a community. The vast majority of public interactions with the police are not suspect/cop confrontations. What he said was wrong. Of course you can fight it (at worst most courts encourage you to take a lesser charge to move things along). He is basing his ticket on the radar readings and his observation. If you go into court and in discovery found out he was never certified or it expired you win. If you find out the unit hadn’t been properly calibrated you win. If everything is in order and you were speeding you probably won’t. Regardless of what you said. No more than if you had said on tape “there is no way I was speeding” will get you out of it. Your statement can be dismissed as your untrained and inaccurate estimation of your speed. Even if you were looking at your speedometer, that isn’t calibrated scientifically. Traffic cases can be very hard to win as a defendant since they are very simple and there is not much that can go wrong or trip up the officer on the stand. “I saw the car going at a high rate of speed, the radar said 45mph, I pulled him over and wrote the ticket.” With a criminal jury trial that is not the case. I have spent 2 days on the stand. Its brutal. Trials are not fun. There is no way I would want to go through with a case I don’t believe in. ---
**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:** [January 17, 2014, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/62 "2014-01-17T14:46:52Z")
> [@Keeve](#): > > The trick, as I see it, is to volunteer as little information as possible, but to do it respectfully and cheerfully, and without being confrontational. When I’m pulled over and he asks “Do you know why?”, my answer is always, “I’m not really sure.” Regardless of whether it would count as a “confession”, why should I point out something that he might not be aware of? > > If you say that the question is merely a conversation starter, then I believe you. But I’ve never understood “small talk” and I prefer to get to business right away: “Good afternoon. I pulled you over because…” I see nothing wrong with that. I would sometimes say “I pulled you over because…” sometimes I would do it the other way. The former tends to be quicker so I would use it more when time was tight or I didn’t feel like talking. Like if I was on a mandated enforcement detail. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/63 "2014-01-17T15:00:06Z")
> [@Orwell](#): > > You are making a huge assumption there, and one that I certainly wouldn’t bet my freedom on. Once cops narrow their focus on a suspect, they get tunnel vision, and often look to make the facts fit. There are not multiple detectives looking at every angle and clue. There is typically one guy (he likely has help, but he’s in charge) who is trying to get an arrest as quickly and easily as possible. I find it difficult to believe that a detective is always going to assume that the most obvious suspect did it, and stop looking at anyone else. I am even talking about situations other than where I can tell the cops that the next door neighbor just got out of prison after serving four years for rape, or something like that. I find it hard to believe the cops would arrest me just because when they asked me “Did you and your wife ever argue” I said “Hell, we have been married for thirty years - sure we argued sometimes”. I understand that they are going to suspect the most obvious guy, but they also have to convict the most obvious guy, and that’s going to mean they need some evidence other than the fact that I don’t have an alibi or that I am the most obvious suspect. Because sure, the cops get tunnel vision, they focus on me. Then they comb thru my background and find me mind-crushingly drab and normal, that there’s never been a hint of trouble in my background, that I gave every indication of loving my wife, and they have nothing to show that I did it. Sooner or later they will either have to frame me, or look at other suspects. And it is hard for me to believe that sheer laziness, or the desire to close a case come what may, is enough to get the cops in my area to frame me instead of spending the same effort looking for the next most obvious suspect. You should understand that I live in the most white-bread suburb you can imagine. We haven’t had a murder here in thirty seven years, and our local crime report consists of people shoplifting at the local Target and drug dealers from the next city over. Maybe they aren’t experienced in investigating murders - but they sure as hell aren’t skilled in framing people for them. Regards, Shodan ---
**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:** [January 17, 2014, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/64 "2014-01-17T15:05:04Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > I never once said you shouldn’t know and assert your rights. But as some have pointed out having a hard and fast rule against speaking to a police officer under any circumstances can run into being paranoid and is contrary to being a good citizen and member of the community. Without the cooperation of the community almost nothing will get solved. I don’t want to live in such a community. The vast majority of public interactions with the police are not suspect/cop confrontations. But my point is that while you know whether or not I’m a suspect, I do not. Maybe paranoia is justified because if I think I’m being a good citizen and say the wrong thing, it’ll cost me my job, time in jail, tens of thousands of dollars, etc. And it is not a numbers game. It’s not like every 10 times I talk to the police I get 1 free “I killed the Lindburgh baby!”. The ONE time I say the wrong thing could be the time that costs me everything. And I would also ask if you or other investigators let people know if they are suspects before you talk to them? If you suspect me of a burglary, are you going to come out and say, “I think you broke into your neighbors house.” then ask me questions? Even if you would, do other investigators do? So the question to you is this. You come up to me and ask about suspicious activity. How do I know as a fact if you suspect me or not? ---
**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:** [January 17, 2014, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/65 "2014-01-17T15:27:52Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > But my point is that while you know whether or not I’m a suspect, I do not. Maybe paranoia is justified because if I think I’m being a good citizen and say the wrong thing, it’ll cost me my job, time in jail, tens of thousands of dollars, etc. And it is not a numbers game. It’s not like every 10 times I talk to the police I get 1 free “I killed the Lindburgh baby!”. The ONE time I say the wrong thing could be the time that costs me everything. > > And I would also ask if you or other investigators let people know if they are suspects before you talk to them? If you suspect me of a burglary, are you going to come out and say, “I think you broke into your neighbors house.” then ask me questions? Even if you would, do other investigators do? > > So the question to you is this. You come up to me and ask about suspicious activity. How do I know as a fact if you suspect me or not? In my state, if there is evidence that you are a suspect the interview has to be videotaped. Plenty of suspect interviews end with no one being arrested. If there is any indication that you were considered a suspect and the proper procedures were not followed the case will be quickly thrown out. I do have to emphasize that I live and work in probably the most suspect/criminal/defendant-friendly state in the country. Many of our court rulings go above and beyond SCOTUS precedent. One thing I hope you understand is that your rights can not be taken away and you can exercise your rights at any time. So if you are asked if you saw something down the street last night and tell them but then they ask if you own a pink top hat you can stop talking. Exercising your rights can not be held against you. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/66 "2014-01-17T15:56:56Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > In my state, if there is evidence that you are a suspect the interview has to be videotaped. I’m just curious how this works in the stage of an investigation where the detective is at least somewhat suspicious of person X but not ready for a full-blown accusatory sit-down at the station. Say, the detective realizes something inconsistent in X’s alibi, the kind of thing that might be easily explained and confirmed. Does the detective show up at X’s house or office with a video crew, or drag X down to the station to ask him one question? ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/67 "2014-01-17T16:25:31Z")
> [@grude](#): > > Everyone who thinks not being a criminal will protect them in a police encounter reminds me of some women thinking that since they aren’t “sluts” they are safe from rape. > > Just saying. Do you recommend that women never talk to a man because that man might rape them? > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I wish I could agree with you, but that’s just naive. I, too, have never done anything worse than a minor traffic violation, yet I’ve been unfortunate enough to be in situations where cops were making baseless assumptions about my activities. On one ocassion, I had a cop want to search my car simply because I was leaving a store where someone else had just been arrested for shoplifting. In another case, I had a cop want to search my car because I had just left a concert and he thought that meant I had pot in my car. Talking to a LEO doesn’t mean you have to let them search your car. If cops are looking for a shoplifter I believe it to be a perfectly reasonable request to look in your car. Feel free to say no (I would probably assent unless I was in a hurry) but agreeing to a search is different from talking to the cops. > [@buddha\_david](#): > > Of course he does. You can’t be a cop unless you believe there are no innocent people. I find this ironic in a thread where people assume that all cops are guilty. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/68 "2014-01-17T16:49:27Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Yeah, this is the Aaron Schwartz model of justice. > “We’ve charged you with enough crimes to send you to jail for 35 years for downloading publicly available scientific papers. Your choices are: > (a) take your chance with a tech-ignorant jury, get 35 years > (b) plead guilty and do 6 months > (c) suicide” > > Imagine how much less likely the chances of getting off at trial if the case involves little children instead. Hold on a second - The scientific papers were “publicly available” only in the sense that the fruit sitting out on an outside fruit stand is “publicly available”. It’s still a crime to take them. And by the time he was caught, Schwartz was doing stuff like entering network closets to get a hard link to the network, since MIT had blocked downloading the documents by wifi. Most of his defenders claim he didn’t do anything worth 35 years; very, very few claim he didn’t actually break any laws. > [@Learjeff](#): > > BTW, the best way not to get pulled over is to be a white man over 40 driving a minivan, or so it seems. _High five_ ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/69 "2014-01-17T16:58:01Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > I find this ironic in a thread where people assume that all cops are guilty. My barber knows he has to open the new blade in front of me before shaving me. Am I assuming he’s negligent or simply being cautious? Locking the door assumes all my neighbours and passersby are thieves? Also, defendng one’s rights needs no other explanation, they’re my rights. ---
**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:** [January 17, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/70 "2014-01-17T17:04:23Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > I’m just curious how this works in the stage of an investigation where the detective is at least somewhat suspicious of person X but not ready for a full-blown accusatory sit-down at the station. > > Say, the detective realizes something inconsistent in X’s alibi, the kind of thing that might be easily explained and confirmed. Does the detective show up at X’s house or office with a video crew, or drag X down to the station to ask him one question? There is a difference between a person of interest in an investigation and a suspect. I guess the easiest way to explain it would be if the investigation goes to the point where Miranda rights need to be read the interview needs to be on tape. If the detective tries to push the envelope and question a suspect improperly he runs the risk of the very likely possibility that all of the statements will be thrown out and the case irrevocably damaged. That’s a lot of time, effort and stress for nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/71 "2014-01-17T17:07:15Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > I don’t see how NOT to answer questions from the police. A traffic stop will certainly be more pleasant if you go along with the officer’s questioning, but **there is no legal penalty for refusing to answer questions posed by a police officer**. You can just be quiet, or you can say “I’m sorry officer, I won’t be answering any more questions tonight,” or “I would prefer that we deal with whatever infraction you stopped me for before we discuss anything else.” If you get stopped on your way home from a nice dinner with your spouse, and at some point the officer asks you “have you been drinking tonight?”, you don’t have to give him an answer. If you downed a six-pack with dinner, it’s probably not going to matter what you say or don’t say; there will be outward physical signs of your inebriation. But if you only had a beer or two with dinner, it’s advisable NOT to admit that, and it’s also advisable not to lie by saying “no.” Here’s an excellent example of [a driver at a DUI checkpoint](http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=053_1329365345) who steadfastly refuses to answer _any_ questions by the officers. They do their goddamdest to intimidate him, but in the end they let him on his way without incident. ---
**Author:** ![MLS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MLS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MLS)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/72 "2014-01-17T18:03:25Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Or maybe he was guilty. > > There is no lesser charge like inappropriate touching. Depending on the type of touching its either sexual assault or criminal sexual contact. Sexual contact is defined as: > > “an intentional touching by the victim ,either directly or through clothing, of the victim’s intimate parts for the purpose of degrading or humiliating the victim or sexually arousing or sexually gratifying the actor.” > > Unless they convinced him to say that he was touching the child for sexual purposes I don’t know what you think they got him to confess to. If the sexual gratification part of the definition is left out then I would have been guilty of this every time I changed my daughter’s diaper. Without being able to prove it was for sexual purposes there is no charge. > > And unless this was decades ago, NJ has probably the strictest rules in the country governing suspect interviews. Except under very specific circumstances all such interviews must be on video. And it is very easy to get confessions thrown out if there are any shenanigans. Well, it WAS decades ago, and as I said, this is all third-hand information. What I know for an absolute fact is that after the incident he did have to close down his daycare center, and he never had any jail time. The man was convinced afterward that he had pretty much convicted himself by talking too candidly to the police instead of getting legal help immediately. ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/73 "2014-01-17T18:17:13Z")
> [@MLS](#): > > Well, it WAS decades ago, and as I said, this is all third-hand information. What I know for an absolute fact is that after the incident he did have to close down his daycare center, and he never had any jail time. The man was convinced afterward that he had pretty much convicted himself by talking too candidly to the police instead of getting legal help immediately. That’s why, unless it’s the most casual sort of encounter, you should clam up and not talk to the cops. If you need to talk to the cops, hire a lawyer to represent you. They know what should and shouldn’t be said to the cops and prosecutors. ---
**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:** [January 17, 2014, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/74 "2014-01-17T18:55:47Z")
> [@Orwell](#): > > That’s why, unless it’s the most casual sort of encounter, you should clam up and not talk to the cops. If you need to talk to the cops, hire a lawyer to represent you. They know what should and shouldn’t be said to the cops and prosecutors. But according to Loach’s logic you should know if you are a suspect or a good citizen because HE knows whether or not you’re a suspect.\* \*In all fairness to Loach, it seems like he makes it pretty clear when you’re a suspect but not all LEOs do that. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/75 "2014-01-17T19:34:39Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > One thing I hope you understand is that your rights can not be taken away and you can exercise your rights at any time. So if you are asked if you saw something down the street last night and tell them but then they ask if you own a pink top hat you can stop talking. Exercising your rights can not be held against you. I don’t think this is precisely correct. Given precedent in [Berghuis v. Thompkins,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins) you must positively exert your right, you can not merely stop talking. And in [Salinas v. Texas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins#Further_ruling_in_Salinas_v._Texas), a person’s silence when they previously answered other questions can in fact be used against them. So the timeliness of exercising the right to silence is important, you can’t answer some questions and not others. I think it’s safer to treat it as all or nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/76 "2014-01-17T21:10:10Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > My barber knows he has to open the new blade in front of me before shaving me. > Am I assuming he’s negligent or simply being cautious? > Locking the door assumes all my neighbours and passersby are thieves? > Also, defendng one’s rights needs no other explanation, they’re my rights. It’s still borderline paranoia. To use an example brought up earlier, practically speaking any man can attempt to rape any woman. It is wise for women to exercise some caution but it would be paranoid to advise women to never talk to a man because she might be raped. > [@MLS](#): > > Well, it WAS decades ago, and as I said, this is all third-hand information. What I know for an absolute fact is that after the incident he did have to close down his daycare center, and he never had any jail time. The man was convinced afterward that he had pretty much convicted himself by talking too candidly to the police instead of getting legal help immediately. So really there’s no point in bringing this up. We have no way of asserting the facts and the convicted is hardly the most reliable source for why he was convicted. As far as we know he _was_ guilty of inappropriateness. ---
**Author:** ![Dana\_Scully](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5daacb/32.png) [@Dana\_Scully](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dana_Scully)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/77 "2014-01-17T22:01:42Z")
I would never, EVER talk to a cop without an attorney present. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/78 "2014-01-17T22:31:51Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > Hold on a second - The scientific papers were “publicly available” only in the sense that the fruit sitting out on an outside fruit stand is “publicly available”. It’s still a crime to take them. And by the time he was caught, Schwartz was doing stuff like entering network closets to get a hard link to the network, since MIT had blocked downloading the documents by wifi. Most of his defenders claim he didn’t do anything worth 35 years; very, very few claim he didn’t actually break any laws. No. From what I read, they made the papers database available to the public. they then found out he was using a script to download the papers wholesale rather than searching out a few and reading them one at a time like a tech-illiterate anticipated people would. If I leave a bowl of candy out on halloween with the sign “Help Yourself” it’s rude and inconsiderate to take them all, but it’s not felony theft. He plugged his computer into the network to downoad items he was entitled to download. In that case, does the act of plugging in represent bypassing computer security? Would you bet 35 years on arguing that in front of a jury of 12 grey-haired old ladies? > [@Shodan](#): > > I find it difficult to believe that a detective is always going to assume that the most obvious suspect did it, and stop looking at anyone else. I am even talking about situations other than where I can tell the cops that the next door neighbor just got out of prison after serving four years for rape, or something like that. > > I find it hard to believe the cops would arrest me just because when they asked me “Did you and your wife ever argue” I said “Hell, we have been married for thirty years - sure we argued sometimes”. I understand that they are going to suspect the most obvious guy, but they also have to convict the most obvious guy, and that’s going to mean they need some evidence other than the fact that I don’t have an alibi or that I am the most obvious suspect. > > Because sure, the cops get tunnel vision, they focus on me. Then they comb thru my background and find me mind-crushingly drab and normal, that there’s never been a hint of trouble in my background, that I gave every indication of loving my wife, and they have nothing to show that I did it. Sooner or later they will either have to frame me, or look at other suspects. And it is hard for me to believe that sheer laziness, or the desire to close a case come what may, is enough to get the cops in my area to frame me instead of spending the same effort looking for the next most obvious suspect. > > You should understand that I live in the most white-bread suburb you can imagine. We haven’t had a murder here in thirty seven years, and our local crime report consists of people shoplifting at the local Target and drug dealers from the next city over. Maybe they aren’t experienced in investigating murders - but they sure as hell aren’t skilled in framing people for them. > > Regards, > Shodan Hmmm… Google Paul Morin (Redrum the innocent). When Christine Jessop went missing, the cops focussed on the next-door neighbour because he came across as a little weird. They spent ages trying to rearrange the timelines and trick him into confessing, including the “cop with a wire in the next cell” who testified he confessed despite the wire being unintelligible. > [@](#): > > Morin, a 25-year-old furniture maker, was wrongfully convicted of rape and murder in the 1984 death of nine-year-old Christine Jessop near Queensville, Ont. In that case, two police officers decided that evidence given by Jessop’s mother, Janet, and brother, Ken, must have been wrong, Justice Fred Kaufman found in his 1997 report on the commission of inquiry into that wrongful conviction. > > The Jessops had originally said they arrived home at 4:10 p.m. on Oct. 3, 1984, to find that Christine was not there. Her body was found 56 kilometres away, almost three months later, on Dec. 31. > > Suspicion turned to Morin, who lived next door with his parents, but police determined that Morin punched out of work at 3:32 p.m. and could not have arrived home any sooner than 4:14 p.m. > > He and his parents said he stopped and bought groceries on the way home, so he would have arrived even later than 4:14. > > Either way, the Jessops got home before he did. > > According to Kaufman, when police returned to interview the Jessops on March 6, 1985, “the whole interview process was inappropriately calculated to persuade Ken and Janet Jessop that their earlier time were wrong and to modify those times.” > > During the 2 1/2 hour interview, “no formal statement was taken from them, nor did the officers preserve any detailed notes. (One of the investigating officers) admitted that they told the Jessops that their times were wrong,” the judge said. > > “After the interview, the officers recorded that it was found that the Jessops arrived home around 4:35 p.m. and that Janet Jessop said it was possible that her clock could have been slow,” Kaufman wrote. > **[Guy Paul Morin: Wrongly Convicted - Exonerated](https://injusticebusters.org/index.htm/Morin.htm)** > > Guy Paul Morin: Stunning dignity in the face of wrongful conviction. One of the best known wrongly convicted person exonerated in Canada. Compensation 1.25M This article also discusses the David Milgard case, where the police “persuaded” the witnesses they were mistaken in exonerating him. There was also Susan nelles and the baby deaths at the Toronto Childrens’ Hospital - the reason they suspected her was because she didn’t gasp, look startled, and start crying when they told her the babies had been murdered. It turns out there were plenty of eqqually likely suspects, and in the end, it was likely a lab error that wrongly concluded they had been poisoned. Basically some cops can get a bee in their bonnet about a suspect and spend their time proving it. If you end up the person in their crosshairs, you’re screwed. I’d like to think that the majority are decent and honest guys. Unfortunately, they have a job that puts them in contact with a large assortment of low-lifes, and that might skew their judgement of people and excite the righteous zeal of a few. I’d also like to think that based on the number of events in the news, tht number really is fairly small. ---
**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:** [January 17, 2014, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/79 "2014-01-17T22:44:17Z")
I just thought of something on the way home as a question for Loach. Internal Affairs calls you in and asks you the following questions about a fellow officer named Wilson: 1. Would you say you and Wilson are friends. 2. Have you noticed anything unusual or suspicious about Wilson’s behavior? 3. What other officers does Wilson hang around with? 4. Were you in the office at anytime between 10:00am and 11:30pm? 5. (Assuming yes) Did you notice anything unusual during that time? 6. (Assuming no) Are you normally out of the office during that time? 7. Have you talked to Wilson at anytime during the last two weeks? 8. (Assuming yes) What did you discuss? 9. (Assuming no) Isn’t that unusual to not speak to a fellow officer AT ALL in two weeks? Assuming you have the right to not answer the questions or for union representation, can you say you would be candid about all of the questions so you can help out IA? Or would there be any hesitation because something you say could get you in trouble? ---
**Author:** ![Marion\_Wormer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d07c76/32.png) [@Marion\_Wormer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marion_Wormer)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886/80 "2014-01-17T23:22:07Z")
I would be interested in knowing how much the [Reid Technique](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Technique)is used. I recognize the tactics from TV shows. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-on-never-talk-to-cops/678886.md?page=5)