Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
If arrested,
47 views
Skip to first unread message
Gus
Jun 15, 2013, 11:22:20 PM6/15/13
to
never waive your Miranda Rights, even if you are innocent.
"Because detailed confessions represent such powerful evidence, when defense
attorneys tried to challenge the confession evidence they all failed. This
was true even when there were some clear signs that these were confessions
proffered by vulnerable people who may have been subject to highly coercive
techniques. Of those 40 exonerees who confessed, for instance, 14 were
mentally disabled or borderline mentally disabled, and three more (at least)
were mentally ill. Thirteen of the 40 were juveniles. All but four were
interrogated for more than three hours at a sitting. Seven described their
involvement in the crime as coming to them in a "dream" or "vision." Seven
were told they had failed polygraph tests. Like Sterling, all of them waived
their Miranda rights. Despite all these hints that their confessions were
lengthy and coercive, and despite the fact that they were mostly vulnerable
individuals, none had any luck challenging their confessions before trial.
The confessions were thought to be such powerful evidence of guilt that
eight were convicted despite DNA tests at trial that in fact excluded them
as the culprit."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/features/2011/getting_it_wrong_convicting_the_innocent/who_confesses_to_a_crime_they_didnt_commit.html
"...more than 40 others [than Lowery] 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."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us/14confess.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Confessions are extremely persuasive evidence of guilt that can often make
or break a criminal case. Once a confession is given, it is difficult to
retract. Consequently, an admission of guilt can ultimately lead to
substantial fines, imprisonment and even execution. It's difficult for most
people to imagine why someone would risk such consequences and confess to
committing a crime they know for certain they didn't do. However, it happens
more frequently then you might think. Techniques utilized by inexperienced
or unscrupulous police interrogators, such as deception, fear tactics, long
interviews, sleep or food deprivation, and exaggerating or minimizing the
crime, are blamed for a majority of all documented false confessions.
Fear tactics such as direct threats, intimidation or actual physical abuse,
have been used to coerce suspects into falsely admitting guilt to a crime.
Such confessions are referred to as coerced-compliant confessions, Richard
Conti suggested in a 1999 article. One example of a coerced-compliant
confession occurred in March 1983, following the murder of a woman from
Pulaski County, Arkansas. Not long after the woman's murder, the police took
into custody Barry Lee Fairchild, a young, mentally handicapped black man.
Fairchild's lawyers said that while in custody, police interrogators forced
their client to confess to the crime after they allegedly placed telephone
books on his head and hit the books with blackjacks, Richard Lacayo reported
in a 1991 Time article. Lacayo quoted Fairchild's lawyer Steven Hawkins, who
claimed that the torturous method was likely used because it "leaves no
marks but causes excruciating pain." Fairchild was found guilty and executed
for the murder in 1995, even though he continued to profess his innocence to
the end. American Bar Association reporter Mark Hansen suggested in an
article that two area sheriffs later admitted that "beatings were a common
interrogation tactic at the time of Fairchild's arrest."
Physical abuse is undoubtedly one of the most barbaric methods used to
obtain a confession and is strictly illegal. But other successful
techniques, such as the use of deception, trickery and other similar
psychological tactics, are deemed more acceptable. John Painter Jr. quoted a
commonly used police textbook titled "Criminal Interrogation and
Confessions" by Fred E. Inbau, John E. Reid, and Joseph P. Buckley, which
states that the use of such tactics is "not only helpful but frequently
indispensable in order to secure incriminating information from the guilty,
or to obtain investigative leads from otherwise uncooperative witnesses or
informants."
One deceptive technique referred to as "maximization" can include
"exaggerating the evidence available, telling the person that the
interrogator knows he is guilty or stressing the consequences" of the crime,
Hollinda Wakefield and Ralph Underwager stated in a 1998 article in
Behavioral Sciences and the Law. The commonly used maximization method, such
as falsely telling suspects they have fingerprints linking them to the
crime, or that they failed a lie-detector test or an acquaintance of the
suspect witnessed them committing the crime, can lead to false confessions.
This occurs mostly in highly suggestible and confused suspects who actually
begin to believe that they are guilty of the crime they didn't commit, which
is known as coerced internalization.
During the interrogation process, interviewers can also use "minimization,"
whereby the seriousness of the crime is downplayed and the suspect believes
that they are less likely to get in trouble. This method can prompt a false
confession, especially if it is coupled with other coercive techniques.
Professor of Psychology Saul Kassin gave an example in a 2002 Talk of the
Nation interview with Neal Conan, saying that the interviewing detective
might say "You know, I think you're a really good person. I don't think you
intended to do the harm that occurred in this case. Maybe it was an
accident... maybe you were provoked... under the influence of some drug...".
The suspect may feel psychological pressure to satisfy the interrogator,
especially if they admire or fear them, or they may even believe what they
are being told and thus falsely confess to the crime.
Another method used to get suspects to confess is to make them sit through
long, drawn-out interrogations, which sometimes last more than hours. The
suspect often goes without sleep and/or food, and gets so worn down
emotionally and physically that he is more likely to give false statements
in an attempt to end the torture. During such confessions, the police may
"feed suspects bits of information, which are incorporated into a
confession," Dara Purvis reported in a 2002 University Wire Daily Trojan
article. Like physical torture, extended interrogations that are accompanied
by sleep and food deprivation are undoubtedly unethical and purely inhumane.
Unfortunately, these types of interrogations are not uncommon.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/not_guilty/coerced_confessions/index.html
"Because detailed confessions represent such powerful evidence, when defense
attorneys tried to challenge the confession evidence they all failed. This
was true even when there were some clear signs that these were confessions
proffered by vulnerable people who may have been subject to highly coercive
techniques. Of those 40 exonerees who confessed, for instance, 14 were
mentally disabled or borderline mentally disabled, and three more (at least)
were mentally ill. Thirteen of the 40 were juveniles. All but four were
interrogated for more than three hours at a sitting. Seven described their
involvement in the crime as coming to them in a "dream" or "vision." Seven
were told they had failed polygraph tests. Like Sterling, all of them waived
their Miranda rights. Despite all these hints that their confessions were
lengthy and coercive, and despite the fact that they were mostly vulnerable
individuals, none had any luck challenging their confessions before trial.
The confessions were thought to be such powerful evidence of guilt that
eight were convicted despite DNA tests at trial that in fact excluded them
as the culprit."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/features/2011/getting_it_wrong_convicting_the_innocent/who_confesses_to_a_crime_they_didnt_commit.html
"...more than 40 others [than Lowery] 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."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us/14confess.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Confessions are extremely persuasive evidence of guilt that can often make
or break a criminal case. Once a confession is given, it is difficult to
retract. Consequently, an admission of guilt can ultimately lead to
substantial fines, imprisonment and even execution. It's difficult for most
people to imagine why someone would risk such consequences and confess to
committing a crime they know for certain they didn't do. However, it happens
more frequently then you might think. Techniques utilized by inexperienced
or unscrupulous police interrogators, such as deception, fear tactics, long
interviews, sleep or food deprivation, and exaggerating or minimizing the
crime, are blamed for a majority of all documented false confessions.
Fear tactics such as direct threats, intimidation or actual physical abuse,
have been used to coerce suspects into falsely admitting guilt to a crime.
Such confessions are referred to as coerced-compliant confessions, Richard
Conti suggested in a 1999 article. One example of a coerced-compliant
confession occurred in March 1983, following the murder of a woman from
Pulaski County, Arkansas. Not long after the woman's murder, the police took
into custody Barry Lee Fairchild, a young, mentally handicapped black man.
Fairchild's lawyers said that while in custody, police interrogators forced
their client to confess to the crime after they allegedly placed telephone
books on his head and hit the books with blackjacks, Richard Lacayo reported
in a 1991 Time article. Lacayo quoted Fairchild's lawyer Steven Hawkins, who
claimed that the torturous method was likely used because it "leaves no
marks but causes excruciating pain." Fairchild was found guilty and executed
for the murder in 1995, even though he continued to profess his innocence to
the end. American Bar Association reporter Mark Hansen suggested in an
article that two area sheriffs later admitted that "beatings were a common
interrogation tactic at the time of Fairchild's arrest."
Physical abuse is undoubtedly one of the most barbaric methods used to
obtain a confession and is strictly illegal. But other successful
techniques, such as the use of deception, trickery and other similar
psychological tactics, are deemed more acceptable. John Painter Jr. quoted a
commonly used police textbook titled "Criminal Interrogation and
Confessions" by Fred E. Inbau, John E. Reid, and Joseph P. Buckley, which
states that the use of such tactics is "not only helpful but frequently
indispensable in order to secure incriminating information from the guilty,
or to obtain investigative leads from otherwise uncooperative witnesses or
informants."
One deceptive technique referred to as "maximization" can include
"exaggerating the evidence available, telling the person that the
interrogator knows he is guilty or stressing the consequences" of the crime,
Hollinda Wakefield and Ralph Underwager stated in a 1998 article in
Behavioral Sciences and the Law. The commonly used maximization method, such
as falsely telling suspects they have fingerprints linking them to the
crime, or that they failed a lie-detector test or an acquaintance of the
suspect witnessed them committing the crime, can lead to false confessions.
This occurs mostly in highly suggestible and confused suspects who actually
begin to believe that they are guilty of the crime they didn't commit, which
is known as coerced internalization.
During the interrogation process, interviewers can also use "minimization,"
whereby the seriousness of the crime is downplayed and the suspect believes
that they are less likely to get in trouble. This method can prompt a false
confession, especially if it is coupled with other coercive techniques.
Professor of Psychology Saul Kassin gave an example in a 2002 Talk of the
Nation interview with Neal Conan, saying that the interviewing detective
might say "You know, I think you're a really good person. I don't think you
intended to do the harm that occurred in this case. Maybe it was an
accident... maybe you were provoked... under the influence of some drug...".
The suspect may feel psychological pressure to satisfy the interrogator,
especially if they admire or fear them, or they may even believe what they
are being told and thus falsely confess to the crime.
Another method used to get suspects to confess is to make them sit through
long, drawn-out interrogations, which sometimes last more than hours. The
suspect often goes without sleep and/or food, and gets so worn down
emotionally and physically that he is more likely to give false statements
in an attempt to end the torture. During such confessions, the police may
"feed suspects bits of information, which are incorporated into a
confession," Dara Purvis reported in a 2002 University Wire Daily Trojan
article. Like physical torture, extended interrogations that are accompanied
by sleep and food deprivation are undoubtedly unethical and purely inhumane.
Unfortunately, these types of interrogations are not uncommon.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/not_guilty/coerced_confessions/index.html
Message has been deleted
Gus
Jun 16, 2013, 2:27:43 PM6/16/13
to
"Tim" <not...@someisp.net> wrote in message
news:9qlrr8lhlfedirkqu...@4ax.com...
> Miranda Rights when you're the only witness saying
> that you didn't waive them?
> --
> Tim
I've wondered that too... Check with the NSA?
news:9qlrr8lhlfedirkqu...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:22:20 -0400, "Gus"
> <G...@Overton.Com> wrote:
>
>>never waive your Miranda Rights, even if you are innocent.
>
> So how do you prove that you didn't waive your
> <G...@Overton.Com> wrote:
>
>>never waive your Miranda Rights, even if you are innocent.
>
> Miranda Rights when you're the only witness saying
> that you didn't waive them?
> --
> Tim
I've wondered that too... Check with the NSA?
D.F. Manno
Jun 16, 2013, 5:53:10 PM6/16/13
to
In article <9qlrr8lhlfedirkqu...@4ax.com>,
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
GOP delenda est!
Tim <not...@someisp.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:22:20 -0400, "Gus"
> <G...@Overton.Com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:22:20 -0400, "Gus"
> <G...@Overton.Com> wrote:
>
> >never waive your Miranda Rights, even if you are innocent.
>
>
> So how do you prove that you didn't waive your
> Miranda Rights when you're the only witness saying
> that you didn't waive them?
You didn't sign the waiver.
> Miranda Rights when you're the only witness saying
> that you didn't waive them?
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
GOP delenda est!
Message has been deleted
Gus
Jun 16, 2013, 7:22:49 PM6/16/13
to
"Tim" <not...@someisp.net> wrote in message
news:6ddsr81nvk2jg3117...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 17:53:10 -0400, "D.F. Manno"
> <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <9qlrr8lhlfedirkqu...@4ax.com>,
>> Tim <not...@someisp.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:22:20 -0400, "Gus"
>>> <G...@Overton.Com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >never waive your Miranda Rights, even if you are innocent.
>>>
>>> So how do you prove that you didn't waive your
>>> Miranda Rights when you're the only witness saying
>>> that you didn't waive them?
>>
>>You didn't sign the waiver.
>
> I'm pretty sure that people have been convicted
> <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <9qlrr8lhlfedirkqu...@4ax.com>,
>> Tim <not...@someisp.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:22:20 -0400, "Gus"
>>> <G...@Overton.Com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >never waive your Miranda Rights, even if you are innocent.
>>>
>>> So how do you prove that you didn't waive your
>>> Miranda Rights when you're the only witness saying
>>> that you didn't waive them?
>>
>>You didn't sign the waiver.
>
> based on statements they supposedly made while in
> police custody where there was no signed waiver.
> --
> Tim
I've been watching series Rectify, and the issues in it are interesting.
"...In recent years, the use of DNA evidence has allowed experts to identify
false confessions in unprecedented and disturbing numbers. In the past two
decades, researchers have documented some 250 instances of false
confessions, many resulting in life sentences and at least four in wrongful
executions. Of the 259 DNA exonerations tracked by a major advocacy group,
63 of them-or one out of every four-was found to have involved a false
confession. Counting just the homicide cases, the proportion shoots up to 58
percent of all exonerations. Even this number could be an underestimate.
"Most of the documented false confessions have been in highly publicized
murder cases," says Steven Drizin, of Northwestern Law School's Center on
Wrongful Convictions. "There is no reason not to think the same tactics
would be as effective if not more effective in lesser cases, where the
punishment that could flow from a confession would be less."
In the criminal-justice system, nothing is more powerful than a confession.
Decades of research on jury verdicts have demonstrated that no other form of
evidence-not eyewitnesses, not a video record of the crime, not even DNA-is
as convincing to a jury as a defendant who says "I did it." The police, of
course, understand the power of confessions and rely on interrogation
techniques to produce them quickly so they can clear their cases. This is
the stuff of countless TV procedurals-the small interrogation room with a
bare table and two-way mirror; the good-cop-bad-cop routine; the deployment
of outright lies like "You failed the polygraph" or "Your prints are on the
knife." As a society, we have come to view these as acceptable, if blunt,
tools of justice. We count on the integrity of police and safeguards like
Miranda rights to prevent abuses, and we take it on faith that innocent
people would never confess to crimes they haven't committed.
In 1931, a presidential panel known as the Wickersham Commission had exposed
abuses brought by the "third degree," the use of force by police to extract
confessions. Police across the country had held suspects' heads underwater,
hung them out of windows, and beaten them. In 1936, the Supreme Court
decision Brown v. Mississippi-the brutal case of three black men who were
beaten and whipped until they confessed-effectively outlawed confessions
brought by brute force. Crime labs like Chicago's began developing new, more
scientific means to solve cases: ballistics, document examination, and lie
detection.
Researchers who study false confessions say the roots of the problem lie in
the interrogation tactics themselves. The most influential such method is
the Reid technique, a decades-old nine-step procedure designed to isolate
and persuade a suspect to reveal his deceptions. Virtually every police
department in the country has been influenced, directly or indirectly, by
the Reid technique. Its defenders see it as the cornerstone of good police
work, but its detractors say it places too much power in the hands of
interrogating officers.
Reid was hailed in his time as the man who made the third degree obsolete.
But if his method wasn't physically coercive, it was certainly
psychologically so. The Supreme Court's 1966 Miranda decision singled out
the Reid method for creating a potentially coercive environment, citing it
as one reason suspects needed to be informed of their right to remain
silent. Reid and Inbau made minor modifications to the program, adding some
language about Miranda to the 1967 edition of their manual, but they
remained true believers. Criminal Interrogation and Confessions asserts that
Reid investigators could judge truth and deception with 85 percent accuracy,
a higher rate than anyone else has ever claimed to have achieved-or, as Reid
once put it, "better results than a priest."
"In 1962, Reid and his mentor, a Northwestern Law professor named Fred
Inbau, co-wrote the first edition of Criminal Interrogation and Confessions.
Criminologists and law historians credit their method with defining the
culture of police-interrogation training for the past half-century. The
procedure basically involves three stages meant to break down a suspect's
defenses and rebuild him as a confessor. First, the suspect is brought into
custody and isolated from his familiar surroundings. This was the birth of
the modern interrogation room. Next the interrogator lets the suspect know
he's guilty-that he knows it, the cops know it, and the interrogator doesn't
want to hear any lies. The interrogator then floats a theory of the case,
which the manual calls a "theme." The theme can be supported by evidence or
testimony the investigator doesn't really have. In the final stage, the
interrogator cozies up to the subject and provides a way out. This is when
the interrogator uses the technique known as "minimization": telling the
suspect he understands why he must have done it; that anyone else would
understand, too; and that he will feel better if only he would confess. The
interrogator is instructed to cut off all denials and instead float a menu
of themes that explain why the suspect committed the crime-one bad, and one
not so bad, but both incriminating, as in "Did you mean to do it, or was it
an accident?"
The article is much longer and is about one case in particular, but delves
into police
interrogation techniques in general...
http://nymag.com/news/crimelaw/68715/index2.html
Gus
Jun 17, 2013, 10:29:26 AM6/17/13
to
"Tim" <not...@someisp.net> wrote in message
news:6ddsr81nvk2jg3117...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 17:53:10 -0400, "D.F. Manno"
> <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
news:6ddsr81nvk2jg3117...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 17:53:10 -0400, "D.F. Manno"
> <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <9qlrr8lhlfedirkqu...@4ax.com>,
>> Tim <not...@someisp.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:22:20 -0400, "Gus"
>>> <G...@Overton.Com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >never waive your Miranda Rights, even if you are innocent.
>>>
>>> So how do you prove that you didn't waive your
>>> Miranda Rights when you're the only witness saying
>>> that you didn't waive them?
>>
>>You didn't sign the waiver.
>
>> Tim <not...@someisp.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:22:20 -0400, "Gus"
>>> <G...@Overton.Com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >never waive your Miranda Rights, even if you are innocent.
>>>
>>> So how do you prove that you didn't waive your
>>> Miranda Rights when you're the only witness saying
>>> that you didn't waive them?
>>
>>You didn't sign the waiver.
>
> I'm pretty sure that people have been convicted
> based on statements they supposedly made while in
> police custody where there was no signed waiver.
> --
> Tim
Always get a lawyer, being innocent isn't enough.
> based on statements they supposedly made while in
> police custody where there was no signed waiver.
> --
> Tim
I did not know when being interrogated that cops can out and out lie to a
person. They can lie that you did not pass a lie detector, that someone said
they saw you commit the crime, your blood is on a weapon and clothes, etc...
And since most people see cops as authority figures and many people think
they do not lie, it creates dissonance in them. Then the cop mentions that
people can black out, or suppress memories and the person starts to think
maybe they did do it. And after hours of questioning and going over the same
things over and over, they just want it to end. Then the police can ask
leading questions and consciously or unconsciously feed the person
information that only the person that committed the crime would know.
Leading to the person to confess and make it sound like they knew only
things that the person that did it would.
"Critics say the Reid technique is a major source of the problem. What was
once seen as the vanguard of criminal science, they argue, is nothing more
than a psychological version of the third degree. Even beyond the Reid
method, the courts have given police "carte blanche in the interrogation
room for any tactics shy of physical abuse," says Drizin. Others believe
police shouldn't be able to mislead suspects with lies or manipulate them by
suggesting that what they did isn't so bad. Great Britain's police aren't
allowed to employ those tactics, and Kassin says the best available data
suggest the efficacy with which they arrest and convict criminals isn't
diminished by that."
D.F. Manno
Jun 17, 2013, 6:20:28 PM6/17/13
to
In article <kpn6gh$muh$1...@news.albasani.net>, "Gus" <G...@Overton.Com>
wrote:
> I did not know when being interrogated that cops can out and out lie to a
> person.
You don't watch "Law & Order" then.
wrote:
> I did not know when being interrogated that cops can out and out lie to a
> person.
hymie!
Jun 17, 2013, 6:22:00 PM6/17/13
to
In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
mistaken?
--hymie! http://lactose.homelinux.net/~hymie hy...@lactose.homelinux.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim <not...@someisp.net>, who said:
>On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:22:20 -0400, "Gus"
><G...@Overton.Com> wrote:
>
>On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:22:20 -0400, "Gus"
><G...@Overton.Com> wrote:
>
>>never waive your Miranda Rights, even if you are innocent.
>
>
>So how do you prove that you didn't waive your
>Miranda Rights when you're the only witness saying
>that you didn't waive them?
I thought a Miranda waiver was a document that you signed. Am I
>Miranda Rights when you're the only witness saying
>that you didn't waive them?
mistaken?
--hymie! http://lactose.homelinux.net/~hymie hy...@lactose.homelinux.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hactar
Jun 17, 2013, 7:26:28 PM6/17/13
to
In article <dfmanno-C4BE14...@news.albasani.net>,
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
LIBRA: A big promotion is just around the corner for someone
much more talented than you. Laughter is the very best medicine,
remember that when your appendix bursts next week. -- Weird Al
D.F. Manno <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
> In article <kpn6gh$muh$1...@news.albasani.net>, "Gus" <G...@Overton.Com>
> wrote:
>
> > I did not know when being interrogated that cops can out and out lie to a
> > person.
>
> You don't watch "Law & Order" then.
*slaps head* Of course. It's a documentary.
> In article <kpn6gh$muh$1...@news.albasani.net>, "Gus" <G...@Overton.Com>
> wrote:
>
> > I did not know when being interrogated that cops can out and out lie to a
> > person.
>
> You don't watch "Law & Order" then.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
LIBRA: A big promotion is just around the corner for someone
much more talented than you. Laughter is the very best medicine,
remember that when your appendix bursts next week. -- Weird Al
Greg Goss
Jun 17, 2013, 9:27:38 PM6/17/13
to
hy...@lactose.homelinux.net (hymie!) wrote:
>In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
> Tim <not...@someisp.net>, who said:
>>On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:22:20 -0400, "Gus"
>><G...@Overton.Com> wrote:
>>
>>>never waive your Miranda Rights, even if you are innocent.
>>
>>So how do you prove that you didn't waive your
>>Miranda Rights when you're the only witness saying
>>that you didn't waive them?
>
>I thought a Miranda waiver was a document that you signed. Am I
>mistaken?
A Miranda waiver is basically continuing to talk after you were warned
>In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
> Tim <not...@someisp.net>, who said:
>>On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:22:20 -0400, "Gus"
>><G...@Overton.Com> wrote:
>>
>>>never waive your Miranda Rights, even if you are innocent.
>>
>>So how do you prove that you didn't waive your
>>Miranda Rights when you're the only witness saying
>>that you didn't waive them?
>
>I thought a Miranda waiver was a document that you signed. Am I
>mistaken?
and understood your rights. You basically exercise such a waiver, not
sign it.
My wife's second husband was murdered. This was a Canadian crime, but
the perp was an American. We have something like the Miranda right,
but it's a lot blurrier. When the perp was being extradited from the
US and was being interrogated in the US prior to bringing him back to
Canada, the detective was inexcusably sloppy about describing the
rights. The first judge allowed the statement (which differed from
his later statement in major ways), and eventually this led to a
voiding of the first trial and a whole new trial, which also led to a
conviction.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Shoe Chucker
Jun 18, 2013, 12:57:50 AM6/18/13
to
In article <4ii49a-...@pc.home>, ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar)
wrote:
> In article <dfmanno-C4BE14...@news.albasani.net>,
> D.F. Manno <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
> > In article <kpn6gh$muh$1...@news.albasani.net>, "Gus" <G...@Overton.Com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I did not know when being interrogated that cops can out and out lie to a
> > > person.
> >
> > You don't watch "Law & Order" then.
>
> *slaps head* Of course. It's a documentary.
sometimes you can avoid getting arrested by realizing that anything you
say to police can be used against you , even if just used in deciding if
you are going to be arrested. hint; they don't tell you that.
Keep you mouth shut. anything you say may be misquoted by the police and
it's their word against yours. maybe ask for a lawyer?
--
Politics; what a concept!
wrote:
> In article <dfmanno-C4BE14...@news.albasani.net>,
> D.F. Manno <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
> > In article <kpn6gh$muh$1...@news.albasani.net>, "Gus" <G...@Overton.Com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I did not know when being interrogated that cops can out and out lie to a
> > > person.
> >
> > You don't watch "Law & Order" then.
>
> *slaps head* Of course. It's a documentary.
say to police can be used against you , even if just used in deciding if
you are going to be arrested. hint; they don't tell you that.
Keep you mouth shut. anything you say may be misquoted by the police and
it's their word against yours. maybe ask for a lawyer?
--
Politics; what a concept!
BillTurlock
Jun 18, 2013, 1:45:33 AM6/18/13
to
Nostradamus
Jun 18, 2013, 6:03:01 AM6/18/13
to
"Supreme Court Rules That Pre-Miranda Silence Can Be Used In Court"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/supreme-court-silence_n_3453968.html
The case is Salinas v. Texas, 12-246.
--
My real domain is nostradamus.net.
Dhubghall
Jun 18, 2013, 8:36:09 AM6/18/13
to
I'm not sure if I posted this here before but if you have a bit of time
this is a really informative video for those of us leftpondians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Simple gist ..... "Don't talk to the police" especially if you are
innocent!
We like to prove we did nothing wrong but we can get wrapped up in a
nasty web even if you did nothing illegal. Semantics is the devil in
interrogations.
Dougall
this is a really informative video for those of us leftpondians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Simple gist ..... "Don't talk to the police" especially if you are
innocent!
We like to prove we did nothing wrong but we can get wrapped up in a
nasty web even if you did nothing illegal. Semantics is the devil in
interrogations.
Dougall
Gus
Jun 18, 2013, 11:01:29 AM6/18/13
to
"Shoe Chucker" <georg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:georgewk10-F7511...@news.toast.net...
A lot of people have the naive notion that if they are innocent, they don't
need a lawyer. And they are being helpful by talking showing they have
nothing to hide... There seems to be the feeling among many people that
not talking implies guilt. Such as when someone goes before congress and
exercises their fifth amendment. Many people think that means the person is
hiding something, and likely guilty.
I didn't realize police can blatantly lie to try and get a confession. That
seems very, very wrong. Many people see them as authority figures and want
to cooperate. People that have not had many dealings with the police or
court system, that is.
news:georgewk10-F7511...@news.toast.net...
need a lawyer. And they are being helpful by talking showing they have
nothing to hide... There seems to be the feeling among many people that
not talking implies guilt. Such as when someone goes before congress and
exercises their fifth amendment. Many people think that means the person is
hiding something, and likely guilty.
I didn't realize police can blatantly lie to try and get a confession. That
seems very, very wrong. Many people see them as authority figures and want
to cooperate. People that have not had many dealings with the police or
court system, that is.
Gus
Jun 18, 2013, 11:14:53 AM6/18/13
to
"Nostradamus" <n...@example.com> wrote in message
news:g0c0s891k85g84ppl...@4ax.com...
Scary. It's not a right unless you "claim it"... Do you have to say "Simon
says... I invoke my 5th Amendment" to make it really official? Should you
invoke the 5th anytime approached by a cop and say it immediately?
"Salinas' "Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke
the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's
question," Justice Samuel Alito said. "It has long been settled that the
privilege `generally is not self-executing' and that a witness who desires
its protection `must claim it.'"
news:g0c0s891k85g84ppl...@4ax.com...
says... I invoke my 5th Amendment" to make it really official? Should you
invoke the 5th anytime approached by a cop and say it immediately?
"Salinas' "Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke
the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's
question," Justice Samuel Alito said. "It has long been settled that the
privilege `generally is not self-executing' and that a witness who desires
its protection `must claim it.'"
D.F. Manno
Jun 18, 2013, 2:46:14 PM6/18/13
to
In article <51bf8c08$0$51511$862e...@ngroups.net>,
them to be able to document the waiver in court.
hy...@lactose.homelinux.net (hymie!) wrote:
> In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
> Tim <not...@someisp.net>, who said:
> >On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:22:20 -0400, "Gus"
> ><G...@Overton.Com> wrote:
> >
> >>never waive your Miranda Rights, even if you are innocent.
> >
> >So how do you prove that you didn't waive your
> >Miranda Rights when you're the only witness saying
> >that you didn't waive them?
>
> I thought a Miranda waiver was a document that you signed. Am I
> mistaken?
A written waiver is not required, but many police departments obtain
> In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
> Tim <not...@someisp.net>, who said:
> >On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:22:20 -0400, "Gus"
> ><G...@Overton.Com> wrote:
> >
> >>never waive your Miranda Rights, even if you are innocent.
> >
> >So how do you prove that you didn't waive your
> >Miranda Rights when you're the only witness saying
> >that you didn't waive them?
>
> I thought a Miranda waiver was a document that you signed. Am I
> mistaken?
them to be able to document the waiver in court.
BillTurlock
Jun 18, 2013, 3:22:53 PM6/18/13
to
On 18 Jun 2013 12:36:09 GMT, Dhubghall <dou...@eris.prismnet.com>
wrote:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Thank you
wrote:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Thank you
Gus
Jun 18, 2013, 4:17:03 PM6/18/13
to
"D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:dfmanno-A57A3D...@news.albasani.net...
What if no one is around, and you say "I invoke my right to the fifth
amendment" and the cop says "I invoke my right to wup your ass for not
talking."
news:dfmanno-A57A3D...@news.albasani.net...
amendment" and the cop says "I invoke my right to wup your ass for not
talking."
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Jun 18, 2013, 1:21:40 PM6/18/13
to
Are they allowed to lie to your lawyer as well?
Xho
D.F. Manno
Jun 18, 2013, 10:05:08 PM6/18/13
to
"Gus" <G...@Overton.Com> wrote:
> "D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
regardless of whatever safeguards, oversight and procedures are in place.
You have to have severe penalties in place for doing so.
And that's where the system falls apart. Prosecutors are loath to bring
cases against cops, and juries are far more likely to side with the cops
than the suspects.
--
D.F. Manno
> "D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
>> hy...@lactose.homelinux.net (hymie!) wrote:
>>> Tim <not...@someisp.net>, who said:
>>>> "Gus" <G...@Overton.Com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> never waive your Miranda Rights, even if you are innocent.
>>>>
>>>> So how do you prove that you didn't waive your
>>>> Miranda Rights when you're the only witness saying
>>>> that you didn't waive them?
>>>
>>> I thought a Miranda waiver was a document that you signed. Am I
>>> mistaken?
>>
>> A written waiver is not required, but many police departments obtain
>> them to be able to document the waiver in court.
>
> What if no one is around, and you say "I invoke my right to the fifth
> amendment" and the cop says "I invoke my right to wup your ass for not talking."
If a cop is bound and determined to abuse his authority, he'll find a way
>>> Tim <not...@someisp.net>, who said:
>>>> "Gus" <G...@Overton.Com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> never waive your Miranda Rights, even if you are innocent.
>>>>
>>>> So how do you prove that you didn't waive your
>>>> Miranda Rights when you're the only witness saying
>>>> that you didn't waive them?
>>>
>>> I thought a Miranda waiver was a document that you signed. Am I
>>> mistaken?
>>
>> A written waiver is not required, but many police departments obtain
>> them to be able to document the waiver in court.
>
> What if no one is around, and you say "I invoke my right to the fifth
> amendment" and the cop says "I invoke my right to wup your ass for not talking."
regardless of whatever safeguards, oversight and procedures are in place.
You have to have severe penalties in place for doing so.
And that's where the system falls apart. Prosecutors are loath to bring
cases against cops, and juries are far more likely to side with the cops
than the suspects.
--
D.F. Manno
John Mc.
Jun 19, 2013, 6:02:30 AM6/19/13
to
On 6/18/2013 10:05 PM, D.F. Manno wrote:
> "Gus" <G...@Overton.Com> wrote:
>
>> "D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
>>> hy...@lactose.homelinux.net (hymie!) wrote:
>>>> Tim <not...@someisp.net>, who said:
>>>>> "Gus" <G...@Overton.Com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> never waive your Miranda Rights, even if you are innocent.
>>>>>
>>>>> So how do you prove that you didn't waive your
>>>>> Miranda Rights when you're the only witness saying
>>>>> that you didn't waive them?
>>>>
>>>> I thought a Miranda waiver was a document that you signed. Am I
>>>> mistaken?
>>>
>>> A written waiver is not required, but many police departments obtain
>>> them to be able to document the waiver in court.
>>
>> What if no one is around, and you say "I invoke my right to the fifth
>> amendment" and the cop says "I invoke my right to wup your ass for not talking."
>
> If a cop is bound and determined to abuse his authority, he'll find a way
> regardless of whatever safeguards, oversight and procedures are in place.
> You have to have severe penalties in place for doing so.
>
I feel that if a policeman is found to have committed perjury or
> "Gus" <G...@Overton.Com> wrote:
>
>> "D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
>>> hy...@lactose.homelinux.net (hymie!) wrote:
>>>> Tim <not...@someisp.net>, who said:
>>>>> "Gus" <G...@Overton.Com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> never waive your Miranda Rights, even if you are innocent.
>>>>>
>>>>> So how do you prove that you didn't waive your
>>>>> Miranda Rights when you're the only witness saying
>>>>> that you didn't waive them?
>>>>
>>>> I thought a Miranda waiver was a document that you signed. Am I
>>>> mistaken?
>>>
>>> A written waiver is not required, but many police departments obtain
>>> them to be able to document the waiver in court.
>>
>> What if no one is around, and you say "I invoke my right to the fifth
>> amendment" and the cop says "I invoke my right to wup your ass for not talking."
>
> If a cop is bound and determined to abuse his authority, he'll find a way
> regardless of whatever safeguards, oversight and procedures are in place.
> You have to have severe penalties in place for doing so.
>
concealed evidence to obtain a conviction he gets serve the prisoner's
sentence. Same thing goes for prosecutors. Wont happen but I can dream.
> And that's where the system falls apart. Prosecutors are loath to bring
> cases against cops, and juries are far more likely to side with the cops
> than the suspects.
>
when asked my opinion of police officers and their veracity.
John Mc.
(Bunch of lying sacks of.....
Oh, is this thing still on?)
Greg Goss
Jun 19, 2013, 11:18:47 AM6/19/13
to
D.F. Manno <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
>If a cop is bound and determined to abuse his authority, he'll find a way
>regardless of whatever safeguards, oversight and procedures are in place.
>You have to have severe penalties in place for doing so.
>
>And that's where the system falls apart. Prosecutors are loath to bring
>cases against cops, and juries are far more likely to side with the cops
>than the suspects.
AOL
>If a cop is bound and determined to abuse his authority, he'll find a way
>regardless of whatever safeguards, oversight and procedures are in place.
>You have to have severe penalties in place for doing so.
>
>And that's where the system falls apart. Prosecutors are loath to bring
>cases against cops, and juries are far more likely to side with the cops
>than the suspects.
Message has been deleted
Padraigh ProAmerica
Jun 19, 2013, 2:59:19 PM6/19/13
to
If the interrogation is taped (audio or video). IMMEDIATELY demand a
lawyer after the introduction is taped. The questioning MUST STOP AT
THAT POINT until you are represented.
--
"Never try to outstubborn a cat."--
Robert A. Heinlein--
lawyer after the introduction is taped. The questioning MUST STOP AT
THAT POINT until you are represented.
--
"Never try to outstubborn a cat."--
Robert A. Heinlein--
Shoe Chucker
Jun 22, 2013, 11:01:05 AM6/22/13
to
In article <kppule$2vf$2...@news.albasani.net>, "Gus" <G...@Overton.Com>
wrote:
absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Police work attracts some small minds. maybe vindictive types.
Not to be trusted. 2 B sure.
wrote:
Police work attracts some small minds. maybe vindictive types.
Not to be trusted. 2 B sure.
Binyamin Dissen
Jun 26, 2013, 8:40:02 AM6/26/13
to
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:02:30 -0400 "John Mc." <jo...@tdcogre.com> wrote:
:>I feel that if a policeman is found to have committed perjury or
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
:>I feel that if a policeman is found to have committed perjury or
:>concealed evidence to obtain a conviction he gets serve the prisoner's
:>sentence. Same thing goes for prosecutors. Wont happen but I can dream.
That is Jewish law for certain kinds of false testimony.
:>sentence. Same thing goes for prosecutors. Wont happen but I can dream.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
0 new messages