Recently in Confessions Category

New York Times published this article talking about how innocent people confess to crimes they did not commit.  Anytime you are questioned, or think you are helping someone by giving information for a crime HAVE A LAWYER PRESENT!!! 

As stated in this article, "Proving innocence after a confession, however, is rare. Eight of the defendants in Professor Garrett's study had actually been cleared by DNA evidence before trial, but the courts convicted them anyway."

Look around this page and be sure to take the time to look at this article by Professor Garrett.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us/14confess.html?_r=1&no_interstitial

Would you confess to a crime you did not commit?  You may say you would never falsely confess to a crime under any circumstance (especially those with great penalties), but the truth is, false confessions happen more often than you realize. 

For instance, take the case of Eddie Lowery.  Although Eddie Lowery deep now knew he was innocent of rape, he inevitably confessed and consequently spent 10 years of his life in prison until DNA evidence and the help of the Innocence Project exonerated him.

False confessions can occur for numerous reasons and some people may be more susceptible to falsely confess.  For example, the mentally ill and children are highly influenced by police during interrogation and subsequently confess more often than individuals who are not mentally ill or are adults.  Other circumstances, such as being deprived of food, water, and the restroom, being interrogated for hours on end (which happened in Lowery's case - he was interrogated for more than 7  hours), and in some instances being beaten,  also lead to more false confessions.   

Interrogations can also plant false memories in the suspect's head to the extent to which they become real (much like the lost in the  mall study described in class).  According to Professor Garrett who studies cases such as Lowery's, facts about the case can be intentionally or accidentally brought up in interrogation which plants a seed in the suspect's memory.  With constant contamination to the suspect's memory, these "seeds" can grow into evidence that one would think only the person responsible for the crime would know. 

Much like you and me, Garrett was shocked by the amount of contamination that had occurred in the cases he studied.  Interestingly, more than half of the cases he studied, the suspect was "mentally ill, under the age of 18, or both."  Along with that, most of the interrogations were lengthy and held in a pressuring environment.  Even more interesting, none of the cases Garrett studied had a lawyer present during interrogation. 

Although in some cases evidence that is leaked during interrogations in accidentally, Eddie Lowery felt that the police intentionally contaminated his memories.  According to Lowery, after he confessed, the police insisted he recall the process of the crime and corrected him when he got key facts incorrect.  For example, Lowery recalled this from his interrogation: "How did he get in (police asking Lowery how the rapist got into the house)" "I kicked in the front door" - Lowery, "But the rapist had used the back door" - Police.  Consequently, Lowery changed his story and admitted to going through the back door.

Why are false confessions so important? -- because juries are highly influenced by them when deciding on a verdict.  Despite being cleared by DNA evidence prior to going on trial, 8 of the individuals in Garrett's study were still found guilty and sent to jail.  Because juries are mostly interested in the details of the case and because false memories have been implanted in the suspect's brain, jury members tend to ignore other facts in the case and focus on the highly detailed confession.

If false confession are so common, what can be done to prevent them?  Some police departments have started videotaping interrogations, especially ones that could result in severe punishments (death penalty).  Ten states require videotaping and many supreme courts are encouraging tapings of interrogations. 

Keeping the case of Eddie Lowery and many others in mind, how do you feel about videotaping interrogations?  Do you feel it is necessary for all interrogations (even those where the consequence if found convicted is not severe) or just crimes that could possibly cause someone to serve the rest of their life in prison or even be put to death?  Are there better ways to reduce the occurrence of false confessions?  What do you feel can and/or needs to be done to free the dozens of innocent people currently serving time behind bars?

 

Here is a link to the article and more about Eddie's case.

(Thank you Alyssa for sharing!)

Im sure everyone heard about the recent attempted terrorist attack in times square. I personally think it is pretty scary that after all the security precautions that are in use these days at airports and in the United States in general, this could still happen. It kinda makes you think there is really nothing that we can do about terrorism. This article explains that Faisal Shahzad was pulled off of a plane in which he was attempting to escape to the middle east after a car bomb that he had set up in the middle of Times Square inadvertantly didnt go off. Shahzad was on a plane that was taxxing down the run way attempting to take off when authorities demanded the plane be turned around. The FBI has associated Shahzad with the Pakistan Taliban. He has admitted on video that he was behind the attempted bombing. He is facing terrorism and weapons of mass destruction charges. Obama stated that 100s of lives were saved thanks so the actions of an ordinary citizen and law enforcement.  

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100504/ap_on_re_us/us_times_square_car_bomb

"April 10, 2010-A letter from 1985 shows Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- the future Pope Benedict XVI -- actively delayed in defrocking a priest who had been charged with molesting several young boys. One reason, according to the letter, which is signed by Ratzinger, is that the Vatican needed to "consider the good of the Universal Church."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125803561



     Imagine you occupy a high-ranking position within the Roman Catholic church, and it is your duty to address allegations of pedophilia involving Catholic priests.  In recent years, odds are you'd be hard pressed to make time for a vacation.

     In the last few weeks, documents have surfaced that seem to indicate prior to his appointment as the Holy Father, then Cardinal Ratzinger delayed the defrocking of a priest charged with molesting boys.  Should we be outraged?  Doesn't Pope Benedict deserve some sort of reprimand, or owe someone an apology?  I submit no, he does not. 

     Consider what we have been exposed to throughout this course, which I believe can be surmised in one word: DOUBT. 

     I remain in some sort of psychological Purgatory on my position or regard for the criminal justice system.  Things that I thought could be trusted, have been demonstrated to be untrustworthy.  Protocol and procedures I believed to be reliable and valid have been shown to be unreliable and false.  Issues that I previously thought to be "cut and dry" have been observed to be "loosey goosey". 

     In short, the "good guys" don't seem as good, and the "bad guys" don't seem as bad anymore.  There is always more to every story than anyone could ever know. 

     Back to the issue at hand, I submit the following scenarios, and plan to circle back to the Holy See.

SCENARIO #1: 
     Father Kiesle manipulates and endangers 6 young boys, molests them, gets caught, and pleads no contest to the charges.  This scenario is essentially what is presented in the article linked above.  "Bad guy" is caught, justice is served. 

SCENARIO#2: 
     During one of the "darker" times in the history of Psychology as a discipline, the creation of false memories of previous abuse were not that uncommon.  Dr. Samuel Saint, a young, aspiring, and charismatic school psychologist reads an article in the Times about a Catholic priest facing sexual abuse charges.  Samuel knows that many of the children in his school attend catechism classes at Our Lady of the Rosary parish, where Father Kiesle is a priest.
     Over the next few weeks, Samuel starts to pay close attention to the boys who frequently attend classes at Our Lady of the Rosary parish, and notices one of the boys, Nathan, is very quiet and distant, almost melancholy.  He asks Nathan's teacher, Mrs. Beckett about his performance in classes.  Mrs. Beckett tells Samuel "Nathan used to be one of my best students, always engaged in classwork, very eager to learn" she explained.  "In the last few months though, Nathan's performance has plummeted.  I've sent a few letters to his parents, asking about his situation at home, and offering extra help, but I've never received a response". 
     "Hmmm, something seems wrong here" Samuel thinks to himself, stirring a cup of stale Maxwell House in the teachers lounge.  Samuel writes a quick note to Mrs. Beckett, and drops it in her mailbox, asking her if she would mind sending Nathan to his office for a few minutes Thursday at first recess.
     In the days leading up to his meeting with Nathan, Samuel spends hours investigating pedophilia.  He reads accounts about the ways children are manipulated, and told to keep quiet.  He trudges through transcripts taken from interviews with convicted sex offenders, that reveal in tragic detail how these offenders touched, molested, and abused their victims.  In a phone call to his mother, Samuel remembers saying "If I find out one of my students has EVER been abused like this, I'm going to find the son of a b----- who did it, and make them pay". 
     Thursday morning, Mrs. Beckett peeks through the mini-blinds covering Samuels' office door, and Samuel motions her in.  "Nathan is here to see you Dr. Saint".  Nathan was wearing a red and yellow checkered shirt with what appeared to be a grape jelly stain on the sleeve.
     "Hi Nathan, I'm Sam, thanks for coming to see me" Samuel says in an upbeat voice.  "I've been speaking with Mrs. Beckett, and she tells me you're usually a great student, but lately you haven't been doing as well as she thinks you can.  My job here at the school is to talk to students, find out how they're doing, and see if there is anything we can help with" he explained.  "Has anything out of the ordinary happened that may be affecting your schoolwork?" 
     "No, everything is fine" Nathan replied quickly.  "Oh, well that's good to hear" said Samuel.  "You go to Our Lady of the Rosary right?" he asked Nathan.  "I used to, but I don't go anymore".  Samuel could feel his pulse through his shirt, "Why don't you go anymore Nathan?".  "Can I go to recess now?" Nathan asked.  "Sure, but would you mind meeting with me again next week?  I'd like to get to know you a little better, and if you come back you can have anything you want out of my candy jar" Samuel said quickly.  "Yeah, okay" replied Nathan.
     As Nathan walked to the playground, he wished that his Dad had never lost his job.  He wished that his Mom hadn't run out on them.  He wished that his Dad would start taking him to church again, as he missed his time with the kind and welcoming staff who worked there. 
     As soon as Nathan had left the office, Samuel picked up the phone and dialed.  "Our Lady of the Rosary parish, how can I help you" said the voice on the other end. "Yes, I'd like to talk to Father Kiesle please"....

     Now, I don't claim that this scenario is what happens every time.  I don't mean to exonerate every allegation against a priest.  And I certainly don't mean to negate or lessen or overlook those that have experienced such damaging and hurtful things as abuse. 
     But its possible that SCENARIO#2 could happen.  Maybe Father Kiesle was counseled by his superior, and was told "Hey, this is a ticking time bomb Father Kiesle.  If you plead guilty, we'll relocate you somewhere, and this will be behind you forever.  This guy, Dr. Samuel Saint is on some sort of crusade against us.  You just need to sign here and...."
    
     Now you're Pope Benedict, and you get a report about this situation on your desk.  You see the predicament?  As we have seen in the case with Michael Peterson, things may not always be what they seem.  So what do you do?  Maybe you will "consider the good of the Universal Church", while also considering the good of Father Kiesle. 

I remain, in "psychological purgatory" uncertain of who's right, who's wrong, who to believe, who to disregard, and looking for effective ways to address a science that shall ever be imperfect.   

Why on earth would somebody falsely confess to a crime they didn't commit, especially since they are aware of its consequences?  This website highlights some of the reasons why an individual may falsely confess.

This article points out some of the characteristics which make individuals vulnerable to interrogation and more likely to falsely confess.  Individuals with low IQs, suggestible personalities, anxiety problems, drug addictions, and children are more likely to confess for numerous reasons. 

Why are individuals who fit these categories more likely to confess?  It is suggested that when police bring about false evidence, vulnerable individuals may doubt their memories, fill in the gaps with the false evidence, and internalize the idea that they did indeed commit the crime.

Why would police departments purposefully introduce false evidence, offer compensation for telling the "truth," etc. when they know what they are doing isn't right?  Maybe some departments feel pressure to solve a case to put the public at ease and regain/maintain trust; however, I feel that it is very possible that the opposite can happen.  For example, after the department successfully gets somebody to falsely confess, they close the case leaving the actual perpetrator on the loose in society.  Let's say for instance that the real perpetrator commits another crime after the previous case has been closed, he is eventually convicted, and later admits to the crime that somebody was coerced into falsely confessing.  If I lived in that community, I would definitely lose respect for the department, especially if I found out that the police played a part in the confession.

Personally, I think that police shouldn't be given all the freedoms that we talked about in class (e.g. providing false information, interrogating for long hours, offering compensation) because I don't think it benefits anyone.  Hopefully someday psychology can do something to help put an end to police coercion!

 

   

After our class discussion on false confession during Tuesday's class I have been noticing the integration techniques we discussed is class. One news report on the E channel stood out above the rest. Kevin Fox's 3 year old girl was said to be missing on the morning of June 6^th 2004. Kevin's wife Melissa was in Chicago for the weekend therefore he was home by himself with Tyler and the later missing daughter Riley. Police investigated the crime scene however, when police continued the investigation they ignored a lot of the evidence indicated there was an intruder. Instead investigators went after father Kevin Fox. The interrogation of Kevin Fox lasted 14 ½ hours. Over this time Kevin had asked to speech to his brother and a lawyer. Police told him that he did not need to speech to anyone and just needed to confess that he killed and sexually assaulted his daughter Riley. Police used tactics such as telling Kevin that if he didn't confess then there were some inmates in jail that would make him pay for what he did. They even went as far as to lie by stating that Melissa was going to divorce him if he did not cooperate with them. The interesting this about this statement is that Melissa stayed by Kevin's side throughout the entire investigation and police never said she would divorce him if he didn't tell the truth, they said she would divorce him if he did "cooperate" with them.  Eventually after this horrible interrogation Kevin admitted to killing his daughter using the information authorities gave him during his interrelation to make up his story.

 

After the confession investigator told the FBI to stop DNA testing. Kevin spent 8 months in jail before he would be cleared through the DNA testing that the FBI stopped.  Interestingly enough this is also the same procedure that was used during the interrogation of JonBenet Ramsey. Both fathers in this cases we told the killing of their daughter was an accident and they were trying to cover it up, and both fathers were exonerated by DNA evidence that in both cases were originally never carried out.

 

 

Below are a couple of links to some highlights of the ABC broadcast of the situation. The whole hour version of the episode in the links below because they were presented in parts and I was unable to find all the video clips. However, if you are interested there is a lot of information about the case on the ABC website if you search for either Kevin Fox or Riley Fox.

 

Introduction to the Case and the 911 phone call

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=6210664

 

News article:Kevin Fox and his statements on the integration process.

http://www.truthinjustice.org/kevin-fox.htm

 

Video Clip about DNA exoneration of Kevin Fox

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=6210784

Gary Ridgway is what we would call an expert serial killer. He was the best of the best and killing was his "forte". During the late 70's and all throughout the 80's he was killing. Police were never able to solve the homicides of 50 plus women of the Green River murders. It was a chase that lasted over 20 years. It takes a certain person to become a serial killer. They have to have a certain and different psychological state of mind. In the case of Gary Ridgway, he underwent a psychological profile done my John Douglas of the FBI.

In the psychological profile it lists out what kind of person would do this. What there manner was, what they looked like, what kind of job they held etc. Once Ridgway was caught, he fit the profile almost to a tee. Take a look at this profile and see if you can get in the mind of Gary Ridgway, then watch the video clip on 60 Minutes

It wasn't until 2001 that something came up for detectives. DNA testing was at a peak and had excelled greatly since those 20 years. He was linked to seven of those murders through DNA, but detectives cut a deal with him. They would spare him the death penalty in exchange for the truth, facts and answers as to why he did this. They wanted to know his motive for why he did this and how he did this. They spent the next 6 months living with this killer and finding out answers. The show 60 Minutes was there to catch the action.

This website gives the interview by 60 Minutes; it also has a page giving somewhat of an overview of this.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/10/60II/main599266.shtml

http://karisable.com/grprofile.htm

False confessions are one way that innocent individuals find themselves behind bars, or even on death row. False confessions are even more reliable than eyewitness identification, so if someone makes the mistake of "confessing" they may be in for a long haul. The innocence project is striving to get more knowledge out about false confessions and also has ways in which the problem can be fixed. Below are a few links to their website. The first talks about false confessions, the second is a page dedicated to ways to fix the problem and the last link is to a video clip of a Texas man named Chris Ochoa who was exonerated after being in prison for a false confession!

 

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

 

http://www.innocenceproject.org/fix/False-Confessions.php

 

http://www.innocenceproject.org/news/playvideo.php?file=/Images/748/ochoa_c.wmv&title=&time=04:25

 

Talking Tuesday in class I realized how uneducated I am when it comes to police officers. I didn't know that they could lie to no end just to get a confession or anything else we really learned Tuesday. I decided to do some research on the topic. The site I found-- i'm not sure how credible-- reinstated a lot of the things we were told in class. For the record, I LOVE police officers! In the end they do accomplish a LOT of good through their jobs. They protect those who need protecting and uphold a lot of good in the world. So keep in mind while reading this= they are doing their jobs as they were taught to do. They don't know who is truly guilty or innocent and part of their job is to decipher the differance, through whatever means.

I do NOT agree however with the sites "golden rule:" Don't trust cops. Cops are there for the better of society as a whole and we should keep that in mind. At the end of the day, cops are the good guys. Good guys that just want answers. So while this site is informative I'm choosing not to believe everything in it because it seems very opinion based to me.

I was not aware that cops do not have to read you your Miranda Rights- I was under the impression that your rights were there for you regardless, yet they can still use whatever you say against you in court. From class I know that during interrogation they can lie to get any confession possible. I had never really thought about the lie they tell when they're going to charge someone for... who knows what. They can't charge us with anything! So why have we not learned this earlier? We wait until we're 20 years old to find this stuff out. What about those who still have no idea!?

But how fair is it for a police officer to trick an innocent citizen? A citizen who believes that he or she is in good hands. A citizen who believes they are being protected, not tricked. So it should be common sense to any judge or jury that any confession given should be looked at critically because people will say anything to "help" those who are supposed to "help" us.

http://www.rense.com/general72/howto.htm

In 2001 Rusty Yates received a call from his very calm, cool, and collected wife Andrea telling him that he needed to come home the children were dead. That day Andrea's plan that had been in progress finally happened. Andrea had been suffering for years from post-pardum depression and schizophrenia. She had been on medication for her illnesses and seeing a therapist, until recently when she just stopped helping herself all together. Her family attended church regularly and she, as a woman, was drilled with her being a bad mother. She heard it from her husband and her preacher, and the voice of the devil she heard in her head. She was told that since she was a bad mother her children would be eternally damned, and who wants that to be the fate of her children. So the devil agreed to help her solve her problem. If she killed her children- she was guaranteeing there way in to heaven instead of eternal damnation. So she planned for months the murder of her 5 children ranging from ages 6 months- 7 years. Finally the day came for her to execute her plan. SO she filled the bathtub full of water and drowned each one starting with the 2, 3, and 5 year olds followed by the baby and then her oldest son who actually managed to get free and run- where she chased him down and listened heartlessly to him crying and telling her he was sorry! She then called her husband and the police. She knew what she was doing was wrong, knew she was going to get punished, and was totally alright with what she'd done.

The following site leads to a full case run-down of the Andrea Yates trial: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/women/andrea_yates/5.html 

BBC host confesses to murder on air.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/16/bbc-presenter-ray-gosling_n_463626.html

He's later arrested.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/ray-gosling-arrested-bbc_n_466204.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-interrogation-on-film,0,1131791.story

I think that this is a great idea for the exact reasons that the ABA states: it will reduce the allegations by suspects that the detectives coerced them into a confession and it will help detect false confessions when they occur. I don't agree with the DEA that the videotapes will teach the criminals the detectives' techniques because from what I understand, these tapes won't be open to the public, and certainly not to  criminals.

The part that I like best is that it will prevent suspects and their attorneys to portray the police as abusive. I have full confidence that the "roughing up" that you sometimes see in TV shows rarely if ever occurs.

To touch on the innocence project, this could be another method to prove someone's innocence - by reviewing the interrogation tapes to see if they were in any way coerced to confess or if they seem mentally ill.

Veritaserum... Fact or Fiction?

After reading other people's posts this afternoon about lie detection, I started looking for real life chemicals that might make someone spill their secrets. Most of what I found led me to believe that truth serums are better left for pages in a science-fiction novel but I did find one article interesting, on Wikipedia of all places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_serum

Granted, Wikipedia's reliability isn't the greatest but generally speaking they are good for some stuff so I am going to take their word for it for arguments sake. According to this article, there are certain chemicals that can induce people to tell the truth. These chemicals have been deemed unethical under the grounds of torture in international law however they can be used for psychiatry purposes. The reliability of these drugs are called to question in this article as it states that the drugs do not actually cause people to tell the truth, it is the fact that the people the drugs are being administered to BELIEVE that they cannot tell a lie under the influence of the drug. It also states that the drugs causes people to talk more frequently thereby releasing more information and maybe telling more truths.

I found this information very interesting especially the part about it being illegal in international law. Now I am just as much for civil liberties as the next person but I do not feel that this should fall under the guidelines as torture from an international legal standard. I suppose one could argue that in a very contrived scenario where someone is administering truth serum on a governmental figure to obtain information (let's say codes to our nuclear weapons arsenal) then YES maybe then you can view truth serum as torture (although if someone wants access to our nukes then they probably don't care about international law anyway). What do you think? Is a truth serum unethical? If so why or why not?

 

(For those that didn't get the title reference, Veritaserum is a fictional truth serum)

 

In my effort to find an article about the psychology of interrogation I stumbled upon this article from 2006. A group of psychologists and former interrogators came to the conclusion that torture is ineffective at best and dangerous at worst. The group stated that in an effort to stop the pain of torture an innocent would make something up and someone trained to resist torture would twist the facts leaving you with false information to act on. Further they pointed out that the "Ticking Time Bomb" scenario in which a terrorist who knows the location of a bomb is tortured to get that information in time. The group points out that the terrorist only has to resist until the bomb goes off and further they state "Moreover, the torture would offer the terrorist a prime opportunity to deceive interrogators by falsely naming bomb locations of difficult access." The entire article can be found here. http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=20647

The life and story of the BTK killer, also known as Dennis Rader. This 53 page story takes you through everything! His life as the BTK killer in Wichita, Kansas and his life as Dennis Rader in Wichita, Kansas. This is a chilling story that gives you the complete facts, details, and photgraphs. It is worth reading!

 

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/unsolved/btk/index_1.html