False Confessions

[madmusic]

Missed it on TV, but very interesting.

The Crowe case. A 14 year old boy, Michael Crowe, was brought in for questioning about his sister’s death in the middle of the night and was hooked up to the CVSA. The boy denied the allegations. He was then told that he failed a VSA test. He was further told that it could pick up his subconscious. He was told the machine was very accurate. He then began to doubt his own memory. He ended up confessing to get out of the interrogation room feeling it was his only option. One week before his trial was suppose to begin, he was released after the real killer was identified by DNA evidence. The judge that released him said the machine was “no more reliable at truth detection than a Singer sewing machine.” The makers of the machine were sued by the family. The case was settled out of court. In the civil case, it was admitted by an executive in the company that the machine can only detect stress and can not detect a lie. On NITV’s website, they still say their machine was right and that the case was settled because their insurance company didn’t give them a chance to go to court.

OK, so now the viewer is sitting there thinking that these folks that confess are just idiots and that it couldn’t happen to them or someone that was smarter. Wrong. Next, they conduct experiments on some very bright college students. They set up a lab to look like an interrogation room. The students are brought in to see how fast they can type and are told whatever you do, don’t hit the “alt” key because it will cause the program to crash and computers to be damaged. If damaged the test taker will have to pay for that damage. The testers then set out to see if they can get them to confess to hitting the key, when they didn’t. One after another the students confess. The study found that the introduction of the false evidence (corroboration) increased the chances of a false confession.

Experts say there are two keys to false confessions. 1) an authority figure insisting on guilt; 2) providing false information to the suspect.

I think this is good information to get out to the public. Potential jurors come into court and give testimonial evidence so much weight when it is probably the least reliable evidence. Confessions are probably given more weight than any single piece of evidence by a jury. ABC seems to get it.

http://gacriminallawblog.com/2006/03/31/police-interrogation-techniques-false-confessions/

[havocmom]

1. The system is broken

[madmusic]

2. Actually,

A confession is never enough to convict, in and of itself. There has to be some corroborating evidence. Unfortunately, if the details are fed to the suspect around the corroborating evidence, then that makes it possible. For example, if Karr were 1000 miles away from the JonBonet residence the night of the murder, and it can be proved he never had the chance to be there long enough, then they cannot convict. But if they can build a theory based on his confession and the possibility, however slight, then they can try to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The Boulder prosecution is probably trying to determine if it were possible at all if Karr could have done it, and that is most likely why they haven't extradited him yet.

There is this check and balance built into the system, but most people think a confession proof enough in and of itself. What was most interesting is the new study indicating that a confessor doesn't have to be dimwitted at all.

So the two most reliable means of conviction in the past, confession and eye witness testimony, are now suspect. Maybe in the future forensic science will advance to the point neither will be needed.