Dellen Millard: Innocent Dupe? Alternative Theories

[Alethea Dice]

I will cave just for you AD. Just throwing these examples out there for you. What if TB and SB had a security/video surveillance system attached to their house and it captured clear images of DM and MS. Or what if SB just happened to have taken a picture of them at some point while on they were on her property without them knowing. Or would it be believable if TB had recorded the conversation (maybe an image of DM) with his cell phone (unknown to the perps). What if LE discovered DM's fingerprints on TB's phone found in Brantford, then LE received a tip from someone who knew DM and they reported him having that tattoo and suggested he was a suspect, LE then managed to lift DM's fingerprints from one of his vehicles door handles or BO's Dodge Ram door handle or steering wheel and when DM was brought in and booked he provided his fingerprints and LE found the prints matched. OR DM left shoe impressions somewhere on TB's property and when brought in for questioning, he happened to be wearing the same shoes that day that he wore the night Tim was murdered. The last example is what RW did; wore the same boots to the interrogation that he wore the night he broke into JL's house, raped her, took her away and eventually murdered her. They found his boot impressions somewhere on her property.

Yes intelligence only goes so far and to certain things. I don't believe the perps got that lucky to almost carry out the perfect murder. As we have found out, sounds like they left a pretty good trail of evidence just based on the things you listed. Think about the information the MSM had on MR before his trial. It was nothing compared to this case. BTW the burner phone wasn't in an unknown name; it was listed under a bogus name which was traced back to DM. HTH and MOO.

Thanks, Swedie. That's more what I was looking for - what they could have had that early, since you seemed to feel so sure that they had lots before they even made an arrest.

You know what name the burner phone was listed under?? I thought that was still unknown. Was that information released, because that is one of the things I would be interested in hearing - what that bogus name was that they used for the burner phone.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Which leads me to also give consideration to this following point; LE called R Williams and asked him to come in so they could talk to him. With such strong evidence they already had against him (rare tire tracks), why didn't they do that with DM and MS; call them asking them to come in?! Something tells me they did have solid evidence to hunt the accused down and bring them in. Why didn't LE follow R Williams for hours and then pull him over and take him into custody? To me it says solid evidence. PB or not, the fact these cases can end up in court, LE have to protect their investigation/evidence so the accused don't have their rights violated. This is all JMO.

It will be interesting to one day (maybe) to hear the interrogations LE had with DM and MS. Wow wasn't it something like twelve hours in which DM was subjected to questioning? That's an awfully long time if LE have nothing really to bring forth. Again MOO.

Personally, I think RW was asked to come in for questioning, rather than just arresting him, simply because of who he was. The same way they often do when the accused is a police officer.

If the two accused have not made any statements to the police, I doubt we will be hearing the interrogations in court. There would be nothing to hear.

DM's interrogation was reported to have been for almost 24 hours. That would have been because LE were still searching for TB, and at that point in time, probably had nothing to point them to where he might be.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/13/dellen-millard-charged-in-case-of-missing-ontario-father-tim-bosma/

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

Sorry AD, didn't get a chance to view the link.

Any prosecuting attorney that allows a preacher(forgiveness/never too late to rehabilitate) a teacher(too liberal and sympathetic) and doctors(treat not prosecute) in a juror pool is asleep at the wheel. It's even joked about in certain circles about who to dismiss on the first cut.

There is nothing wrong with those professions, they just make very poor jurors historically and Prosecutors know that, or should.

I have even been called for jury duty, stood and announced to the judge(per procedure) that I was LE(which he knew) and asked to be excused.

He refused and said I could be impartial, so I had to hang around until the defense attorney freaked sideways and dismissed me from consideration.

Yes most civilians never become a sitting juror on a case of any kind.

On the not giving a statement being used in court.... Surely a juror is smart enough to hear evidence from both sides and reach a reasonable conclusion that if all the "innocent" testimony and evidence proclaimed years after the event(during trial), along with no bail and constant incarceration, with a defense lawyer on the payroll, wouldn't reach an AHA!! moment and think gee, why didn't you or your lawyer tell this story a year or two ago if you're such an angel?

No way DM was uninvolved. He may be found not guilty, but he'll never be found innocent. Ask O.J. and Ms Anthony.

I'm surprised, as LE, that you were called for jury duty and made it through the first cut, since it appears that members of police departments are also exempt in the United States.

http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/JuryService/JurorQualificaitons.aspx

Even if the defendants told their story on arrest, the jury would not hear that unless it was an admission of guilt. Anything they said in their own defense would not be admissible. So really, they should not have an AHA moment, since they don't know whether the story was told earlier or not.

Also, the no bail in Canada really means nothing, especially in a first degree murder charge. Bail is being declined more and more often and/or conditions are so high that the accused end up back in jail for violations, and courts are taking longer to decide on bail. That is one of the biggest reasons for the over-crowding in the detention centres.

There were 18,969 admissions to remand custody across Canada in 1978-79 – but that figure rose to 153,774 over the next 30 years.

As a result, from 1986 to 2000, the number of accused offenders on some form of remand in jails across the country doubled. Then it doubled again from 2000 to 2010. Most were accused of non-violent offences.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/a-case-for-bail-reform/article4244210/?page=all

And for those who think your bail hearing comes right away in Canada:

According to the same report, 63 per cent of bail hearings were adjourned to another day in 2006, a jump from just 15 per cent in 1974. Before getting a bail disposition, an accused on average needed 7.7 appearances in 2001, the report notes, adding by 2007, that number went up to 9.4 appearances.

http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201307293362/headline-news/risk-aversion-stalls-bail-process-overcrowds-remand-prisons-group-says

Also interesting.....

In over 40 per cent of cases, all charges against remand prisoners are dropped.

JMO

 

[swedie]

Personally, I think RW was asked to come in for questioning, rather than just arresting him, simply because of who he was. The same way they often do when the accused is a police officer.

If the two accused have not made any statements to the police, I doubt we will be hearing the interrogations in court. There would be nothing to hear.

DM's interrogation was reported to have been for almost 24 hours. That would have been because LE were still searching for TB, and at that point in time, probably had nothing to point them to where he might be.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/13/dellen-millard-charged-in-case-of-missing-ontario-father-tim-bosma/

JMO

BBM Sorry I don't agree it was because of who RW was. And I do not believe if LE are going to arrest one of their own they give preferential treatment either. Maybe preferential treatment is given on certain issues but I don't believe so in cases of how arrest are handled. It all has to do with circumstances, JMO though. Do you have examples or information to back your assumption? TIA.

Meaning it would be interesting to hear the interrogation in regards to what interrogators revealed to DM and MS in regard to evidence (beyond the list you provided) LE had discovered before the accused arrests. Wonder if Sgt. Smyth was involved in their interrogations? I sure hope so. MOO.

Staff-Sgt. Jim Smyth: Master interrogator, humble cop
The running joke in justice circles is if you are in a police interview room and Staff-Sgt. Jim Smyth walks in, don't make any appointments for the next 25 years.

And certainly don't even bother trying to talk your way out of there.

Ask Michael Briere, Barry Manion or Russell Williams.

Certainly when people like Briere, Manion, Williams, McClintic and Rafferty are either dead or behind bars for life, Ontario is a safer place thanks to the super cops who do perhaps the most difficult job there is. There's nothing wrong with patting them on the back. They deserve it.

http://www.parisstaronline.com/2012/05/14/staff-sgt-jim-smyth-master-interrogator-humble-cop

 

[Alethea Dice]

BBM Sorry I don't agree it was because of who RW was. And I do not believe if LE are going to arrest one of their own they give preferential treatment either. Maybe preferential treatment is given on certain issues but I don't believe so in cases of how arrest are handled. It all has to do with circumstances, JMO though. Do you have examples or information to back your assumption? TIA.

Meaning it would be interesting to hear the interrogation in regards to what interrogators revealed to DM and MS in regard to evidence (beyond the list you provided) LE had discovered before the accused arrests. Wonder if Sgt. Smyth was involved in their interrogations? I sure hope so. MOO.

Staff-Sgt. Jim Smyth: Master interrogator, humble cop
The running joke in justice circles is if you are in a police interview room and Staff-Sgt. Jim Smyth walks in, don't make any appointments for the next 25 years.

And certainly don't even bother trying to talk your way out of there.

Ask Michael Briere, Barry Manion or Russell Williams.

Certainly when people like Briere, Manion, Williams, McClintic and Rafferty are either dead or behind bars for life, Ontario is a safer place thanks to the super cops who do perhaps the most difficult job there is. There's nothing wrong with patting them on the back. They deserve it.

http://www.parisstaronline.com/2012/05/14/staff-sgt-jim-smyth-master-interrogator-humble-cop

No problem, Swedie. You don't have to agree with me.

I don't believe that I need to show examples of why I have certain opinions, but here is one sample of why I think police who are charged are treated differently than the average joe. This is an extreme case that went much further than just allowing him to turn himself in.

Anybody know another example of someone charged with second-degree murder who was able to turn himself in at his own lawyer’s office, be processed there and then shuttled to court where two systems fast-tracked things to ensure a release on bail before the rush hour kicked in?

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/08/23/exonerated-murder-suspect-questions-special-treatment-of-const-james-forcillo

Forcillo surrendered Tuesday morning after arrangements were made through Brauti. He was then transported to Old City Hall.

Toronto police said he will remain suspended with pay throughout the court process.

Brauti said it’s not often that suspects facing a murder charge to be released so quickly, and credits the quiet summer court schedule for the quick process, adding that Forcillo was not given special treatment.

Really? No special treatment? And there's that bail situation again and whether it means anything to be denied bail for a murder charge.

The officer’s lawyer, Peter Brauti, said it’s rare for bail to be granted in murder cases, but this situation is unique.

“He’s somebody with no criminal record,” Brauti told reporters outside the courthouse. “He has an excellent policing background. He’s somebody who should be released.”

Maybe RW's situation was different and he was called in for questioning rather than being arrested because all they had was the tire tracks. But I can't help but wonder if his career also helped in how it was handled at the beginning. Again, that's just my opinion.

I also don't agree that the interrogation of DM and MS and what was revealed to them would be too interesting, if neither said anything themselves, but that's JMO. As we know from previous links, the police can say anything they want when they're trying to get a confession, it doesn't have to be the truth.

On that note, not everyone has such a high opinion of Jim Smyth's interrogation tactics.

Jim Smyth's interrogation techniques derail murder case

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/24/famed-detectives-interrogation-techniques-derail-murder-case/

But now Detective-Sergeant Smyth’s sly charm and relentless pursuit of confessions have derailed a major prosecution, leading a judge to rule a suspected murderer’s admission of guilt was involuntary and possibly false, and therefore inadmissible. With no other evidence against him, Cory Armishaw, 26, was cleared of second-degree murder over the 2006 shaking death of three-month-old Jaydin Lindeman in Guelph, Ont.

The Ontario Crown announced Monday it will not appeal the Sept. 26 decision of Mr. Justice Kenneth A. Langdon that Det.-Sgt. Smyth’s interrogation violated Mr. Armishaw’s Charter right to retain and instruct counsel.

That interrogation, in June 2007, lasted just over an hour and ended with a vague confession that the judge ruled was involuntary, “obtained by threats of harsh, severe and unsympathetic treatment from the courts if Mr. Armishaw did not give up the right to remain silent and confess.”

<snip>

A “recurring theme” in Det.-Sgt. Smyth’s interrogation was the false claim that the crime had already been solved, that forensic evidence had identified the killer and that resistance was futile.

More about the "Reid Technique"....

"This type of thing is designed to overcome the will of any person, and it may be good, it may be useful at getting confessions from people who are guilty," said defence lawyer James Foord.

"The problem is, it seems to be pretty good at getting people to say anything, so therein lies the difficulty."

"You can lie to the suspect and say you have evidence. The cop might bring in a box, which is empty, but he pretends it's full of evidence incriminating him, so the person begins to think, 'this is hopeless, we're screwed,'" said Foord.

http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/01/05/opp-detective-uses-reid-technique-to-get-russell-williams-to-confess

JMO

 

[swedie]

No problem, Swedie. You don't have to agree with me.

I don't believe that I need to show examples of why I have certain opinions, but here is one sample of why I think police who are charged are treated differently than the average joe. This is an extreme case that went much further than just allowing him to turn himself in.



http://www.torontosun.com/2013/08/23/exonerated-murder-suspect-questions-special-treatment-of-const-james-forcillo



Really? No special treatment? And there's that bail situation again and whether it means anything to be denied bail for a murder charge.



Maybe RW's situation was different and he was called in for questioning rather than being arrested because all they had was the tire tracks. But I can't help but wonder if his career also helped in how it was handled at the beginning. Again, that's just my opinion.

I also don't agree that the interrogation of DM and MS and what was revealed to them would be too interesting, if neither said anything themselves, but that's JMO. As we know from previous links, the police can say anything they want when they're trying to get a confession, it doesn't have to be the truth.

On that note, not everyone has such a high opinion of Jim Smyth's interrogation tactics.



http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/24/famed-detectives-interrogation-techniques-derail-murder-case/



More about the "Reid Technique"....





http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/01/05/opp-detective-uses-reid-technique-to-get-russell-williams-to-confess

JMO

BBM Aha we were all over this discussion regarding Sgt. Smyth on the Tori S forum approximately a year and a half ago including that particular case also if you recall. That was one judge's opinion on Sgt. Smyth, not society as a whole. Kudos to Sgt. Smyth for being able to get confessions for some very evil criminals and also for the discovery of precious Tori's remains. MOO.

&#8220;One does not need a diploma in psychology to understand that a person with the psychological and mental impairments [that Mr. Armishaw has] is a uniquely vulnerable individual when confronted with a vastly more clever interrogator who is in a position of authority in relation to him,&#8221; Judge Langdon wrote.

 

[swedie]

This is part of a document I found on the www under
Word - News in review - CBC Learning.
The highlighted the part I found interesting, just saying.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...c12confessions.doc+&cd=17&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

So what actual happens during a Canadian criminal investigation? The gathering of evidence from witnesses and forensics often results in a person being arrested for a crime. In Canadian criminal law, all accused persons are innocent until proven guilty, and they have the right to legal counsel (a lawyer) and to remain silent in the face of police questioning. Many people waive these rights and choose to cooperate with police through the process of an interview (in the US 75-80% of all suspects waive their right to silence and counsel). The decision to do so most likely arises from their belief that they can best argue their own innocence.

 

[Arnie M]

.

Innocent until proven guilty

is intended to be the opposite of

Guilty unless you can prove you are innocent


Back in the lawless days when a crime was committed a noose was around the neck pretty quick .... lynch mobs were often fueled by emotions , not facts.

For that reason society turned the tables and forced the accusers to prove guilt , rather than the innocent prove innocence

It is a good system , it allows clear heads to prevail , and that is the whole purpose

...... as to whether the person is actually guilty or innocent is completely beside the point.

 

[robynhood]

I will cave just for you AD. Just throwing these examples out there for you. What if TB and SB had a security/video surveillance system attached to their house and it captured clear images of DM and MS. Or what if SB just happened to have taken a picture of them at some point while on they were on her property without them knowing. Or would it be believable if TB had recorded the conversation (maybe an image of DM) with his cell phone (unknown to the perps). What if LE discovered DM's fingerprints on TB's phone found in Brantford, then LE received a tip from someone who knew DM and they reported him having that tattoo and suggested he was a suspect, LE then managed to lift DM's fingerprints from one of his vehicles door handles or BO's Dodge Ram door handle or steering wheel and when DM was brought in and booked he provided his fingerprints and LE found the prints matched. OR DM left shoe impressions somewhere on TB's property and when brought in for questioning, he happened to be wearing the same shoes that day that he wore the night Tim was murdered. The last example is what RW did; wore the same boots to the interrogation that he wore the night he broke into JL's house, raped her, took her away and eventually murdered her. They found his boot impressions somewhere on her property.

Yes intelligence only goes so far and to certain things. I don't believe the perps got that lucky to almost carry out the perfect murder. As we have found out, sounds like they left a pretty good trail of evidence just based on the things you listed. Think about the information the MSM had on MR before his trial. It was nothing compared to this case. BTW the burner phone wasn't in an unknown name; it was listed under a bogus name which was traced back to DM. HTH and MOO.

I remember very early in the case ...DM was asked to come back into the courts in PERSON....it was noted on here ...when the charges were changed to Murder...the crown wanted his "FINGER PRINTS"...so they did not want him on video link like we usually see...Go look way back it is on a thread on here ....I am sure other posters may add the exact link to verify it here...thanks ahead of time if any one can post the link!....Robynhood!

 

[Archangel7]

I'm surprised, as LE, that you were called for jury duty and made it through the first cut, since it appears that members of police departments are also exempt in the United States.

http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/JuryService/JurorQualificaitons.aspx

Even if the defendants told their story on arrest, the jury would not hear that unless it was an admission of guilt. Anything they said in their own defense would not be admissible. So really, they should not have an AHA moment, since they don't know whether the story was told earlier or not.

Also, the no bail in Canada really means nothing, especially in a first degree murder charge. Bail is being declined more and more often and/or conditions are so high that the accused end up back in jail for violations, and courts are taking longer to decide on bail. That is one of the biggest reasons for the over-crowding in the detention centres.





http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/a-case-for-bail-reform/article4244210/?page=all

And for those who think your bail hearing comes right away in Canada:



http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201307293362/headline-news/risk-aversion-stalls-bail-process-overcrowds-remand-prisons-group-says

Also interesting.....



JMO

BBM

Of course it would be heard by the jury, likely during cross.
How else would an accused's statement be revealed during discovery and admitted as evidence by the Crown without the Defense being able to cross examine the cop and bring out any advantage to the accused concerning the "statement"??

The only way it possibly wouldn't be used in court is if the accused told all before being given his/her formal rights under the Charter or Constitution.

So the part about anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law isn't really true?

I could see a hypothetical scenario possible where a confession was given yet the evidence so damning that the confession wasn't admitted or needed in court however.

 

[Miranda]

Deepak Paradkar, Mr. Millard&#8217;s lawyer, said his client attended court in person on a judge&#8217;s order because of a technicality: Police hadn&#8217;t obtained his fingerprints for the murder charge, but rather for an earlier forcible confinement charge, and the Crown wanted to rectify the oversight.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...families-of-homicide-victims/article13545420/

 

[Coldpizza]

Thanks for finding that Miranda and

:welcome: to WS

 

[Alethea Dice]

BBM

Of course it would be heard by the jury, likely during cross.
How else would an accused's statement be revealed during discovery and admitted as evidence by the Crown without the Defense being able to cross examine the cop and bring out any advantage to the accused concerning the "statement"??

The only way it possibly wouldn't be used in court is if the accused told all before being given his/her formal rights under the Charter or Constitution.

So the part about anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law isn't really true?

I could see a hypothetical scenario possible where a confession was given yet the evidence so damning that the confession wasn't admitted or needed in court however.

If the accused statement only included declarations of their innocence, why would the Crown admit that as evidence at trial? I highly doubt they would. And if it isn't presented at trial, how can the defence cross examine it? If it isn't presented, the jury doesn't hear it.

The only way I could see it coming out in court would be if the defense called the interrogating LE as a witness (hostile witness?) and/or the accused taking the stand himself (which also doesn't happen often in a murder trial).

What do you mean "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law isn't really true"? Of course it's true. The key word being used "against" you.

JMO

 

[Sillybilly]

The only way I could see it coming out in court would be if the defense called the interrogating LE as a witness (hostile witness?) and/or the accused taking the stand himself (which also doesn't happen often in a murder trial)

<rsbm>

I can't see the Crown NOT calling the interrogating officer(s), in which case the defence gets to cross-examine.

 

[Alethea Dice]

BBM Aha we were all over this discussion regarding Sgt. Smyth on the Tori S forum approximately a year and a half ago including that particular case also if you recall. That was one judge's opinion on Sgt. Smyth, not society as a whole. Kudos to Sgt. Smyth for being able to get confessions for some very evil criminals and also for the discovery of precious Tori's remains. MOO.

“One does not need a diploma in psychology to understand that a person with the psychological and mental impairments [that Mr. Armishaw has] is a uniquely vulnerable individual when confronted with a vastly more clever interrogator who is in a position of authority in relation to him,” Judge Langdon wrote.

Actually, it's not just one judge's opinion. And it's not his opinion on Det. Smyth, but rather on the interrogation technique that Smyth uses, the Reid Technique.

An Alberta judge has blasted a police interrogation technique used across North America because of the possibility it can lead to “overwhelmingly oppressive situations” and cause innocent people to make false or coerced confessions.

<snip>

Citing other court rulings that have been critical of the so-called Reid Technique of police interviewing and interrogation, the judge said, “I now add my voice to the chorus.”

“Although there is no law prohibiting the use of the Reid Technique, I find that it has the ability to extinguish the individual’s sacred legal rights to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and to remain silent in the face of police questioning.

“I denounce the use of this technique in the strongest terms possible and find that its use can lead to overwhelmingly oppressive situations that can render false confessions and cause innocent people to be wrongfully imprisoned.”

http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/iphone/news/latest/story.html?id=7223614

From the same article....

In an article published last year in the journal Criminal Law Quarterly, Timothy Moore, a professor of psychology at York University, wrote that reforms in interrogation practices in Canada and the U.S. have been "untenably slow."

The Alberta judge's ruling echoes misgivings social scientists have been expressing about the Reid Technique for years, Moore said this week.

"Stripped to its bare essentials, the Reid Technique is a guilt-presumptive, confrontational, psychologically manipulative procedure whose purpose is to extract a confession," he said.

And because of that Judge's ruling:

Calgary police Insp. Steven Barlow said Monday the force is reviewing its practices and training in light of the judge's ruling.

While the Reid Technique formed a significant part of interview training in the past, the department has veered away from it in recent years, favouring an approach that is less aggressive and involves building rapport with the suspect and "putting all the cards on the table," he said.

Vancouver Police reviewed PEACE training as a better alternative due to the controversy.

The Behavioural Analysis Interview and the Nine Steps to Interrogation, taught by Reid and Associates, has come under the scrutiny of psychologists and hence the courts, due largely to the lack of empirical and scientific research supporting the techniques. Also, it is argued that the use of techniques such as the alternative question and the direct positive confrontation have led to false confessions and ultimately wrongful convictions because the subject is overwhelmed by the tenacity of the interviewer, his perceived belief that the subject is guilty and that the interview will not stop until the subject admits guilt.

http://vancouver.ca/police/assets/pdf/foi/2012/interrogation-techniques.pdf

It has nothing to do with the intelligence of the accused. It is the conditions and the tactics used that is the problem.

http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/includes/pdf/CLQ-2.pdf

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

<rsbm>

I can't see the Crown NOT calling the interrogating officer(s), in which case the defence gets to cross-examine.

You really think the Crown would call the interrogating officer as a witness if the only response he received was:

a) "I'm innocent", or
b) "I refuse to say anything"

If they really did exercise their right to silence, I guess we may find out in 2015.

JMO

 

[swedie]

Actually, it's not just one judge's opinion. And it's not his opinion on Det. Smyth, but rather on the interrogation technique that Smyth uses, the Reid Technique.



http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/iphone/news/latest/story.html?id=7223614

From the same article....



And because of that Judge's ruling:



Vancouver Police reviewed PEACE training as a better alternative due to the controversy.



http://vancouver.ca/police/assets/pdf/foi/2012/interrogation-techniques.pdf

It has nothing to do with the intelligence of the accused. It is the conditions and the tactics used that is the problem.

http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/includes/pdf/CLQ-2.pdf

JMO

So are you saying that if you were accused of a crime and you knew you were innocent and considering you're of average intelligence, an interrogator could dupe you into a confession of guilt? IMO it certainly does have everything to do with the intelligence of the accused and nothing to do with the technique. Typically someone with average or high intelligence would know for fact they are innocent and not be swayed by an interrogator into making a false confession regardless of what truth or lies the interrogator told them. If totally innocent they would have the common sense to know they are not guilty, and know the interrogator is lying to them. I am basing my opinion on a person of the approximate age of the accused in the case you have referred to as we do know generally speaking, minors can be and have been intimidated by interrogators in the past because of their immaturity and lack of knowledge regarding laws. All JMO.

 

[swedie]

You really think the Crown would call the interrogating officer as a witness if the only response he received was:

a) "I'm innocent", or
b) "I refuse to say anything"

If they really did exercise their right to silence, I guess we may find out in 2015.

JMO

BBM and what IF your a) and b) were not the only response from the accused? Yes it's likely the Crown could call upon the interrogator. Just because MSM has reported the accused has used their right to remain silent, doesn't mean they actually did does it? The interrogator may not even be called upon even if the accused admitted to murder. I believe the video surveillance of the interrogation would be suffice to present to the jurors. MOO.

 

[Archangel7]

]If the accused statement only included declarations of their innocence, why would the Crown admit that as evidence at trial? I highly doubt they would. [/B] And if it isn't presented at trial, how can the defence cross examine it? If it isn't presented, the jury doesn't hear it.

The only way I could see it coming out in court would be if the defense called the interrogating LE as a witness (hostile witness?) and/or the accused taking the stand himself (which also doesn't happen often in a murder trial).

What do you mean "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law isn't really true"? Of course it's true. The key word being used "against" you.

JMO

The actions/conduct of the accused at time of arrest necessarily includes his relevant state of mind. As such, his conduct and actions, up to and including an omission or admission of guilt are admissible and generally always initially presented in Court by the Prosecuting Attorney or Crown.

It is almost impossible to "tell" the story in a courtroom of the investigation and arrest without uttering words about the accused's statement and reactions to arrest.

It is usually important to establish what the reaction to the evidence was when the defendant was questioned. It's revealing as determining relevant mindset and as we all know very telling when someone is confronted with evidence and their initial reaction.
This is true whether the reaction was because they are innocent or guilty.

I can't imagine the initial questioning and/or accused's statement wouldn't be included in court, whether he did or didn't do it.

Likely won't matter anyway. He and DP are probably doing the same thing as MS and his lawyer.....gaging the odds of a plea and selling the co-accused out vs. gambling on a jury returning a not guilty verdict.

 

[Alethea Dice]

So are you saying that if you were accused of a crime and you knew you were innocent and considering you're of average intelligence, an interrogator could dupe you into a confession of guilt? IMO it certainly does have everything to do with the intelligence of the accused and nothing to do with the technique. Typically someone with average or high intelligence would know for fact they are innocent and not be swayed by an interrogator into making a false confession regardless of what truth or lies the interrogator told them. If totally innocent they would have the common sense to know they are not guilty, and know the interrogator is lying to them. I am basing my opinion on a person of the approximate age of the accused in the case you have referred to as we do know generally speaking, minors can be and have been intimidated by interrogators in the past because of their immaturity and lack of knowledge regarding laws. All JMO.

Of course, the technique is more questionable when the accused is a young person or has some mental disabilities, but it can happen to anyone. You are manipulated psychologically. You're tired, stressed, alone, possibly being lied to about evidence that doesn't really exist. You're interrogated over hours and hours, rather than the normal 3 or 4 hours. You eventually break down emotionally and physically and just want it to stop.

There wasn't just the one case. The link I posted previously was a different case. There's three more here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/widely-used-police-interrogation-technique-can-result-in-false-confession-disclosure-1.389125

From Psychology Today:

Self-incriminating statements are often the result of a kind of cost-benefit analysis. "False confession is an escape hatch. It becomes rational under the circumstances," says Saul Kassin, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at Williams College in Massachusetts. The most common explanation given after the fact is that suspects "just wanted to go home."

This often indicates an inability to appreciate the consequences of a confession, a situation that police cultivate by communicating that a confession will be rewarded with lenient sentencing. Police may also offer mitigating factors—the crime was unintentional; the suspect was provoked.

The circumstances of interrogation are crucial. "Everybody has a breaking point. Nobody confesses falsely in an hour," says Kassin. The suspects in the Central Park case each spent between 14 and 30 hours under interrogation.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200304/the-false-confession

A study done by Iowa State University researchers:

"If you're brought in late at night and kept for several hours, you're exhausted, and you have these investigators who are in a position of power. They're challenging everything you say and they're not accepting anything you say," Guyll said. "That pressure starts to take a toll physiologically and there's a greater chance you'll give up and confess."

Madon said other researchers have studied false confession cases in which police recorded the length of the interrogation. Of those cases, they found people were questioned for up to 16 hours on average before admitting to a crime they did not commit.

"These people held out for a very long time, but they couldn't hold out forever," Madon said.

Typically, interrogations only last 30 minutes to 2.5 hours. But with some false confessions, suspects were questioned for up to 24 hours.

"Being in a police interrogation is a very powerful situation," Guyll said. "If you wear a person down you can probably get false confessions."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130911103329.htm