Lee Boyd Malvo's confession...

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » May 6, 2003, 2:09 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/06/sprj. ... index.html

The decision by Circuit Judge Jane Marum Roush allows most of an interrogation session last November that Virginia police had with Lee Boyd Malvo to be allowed into his trial, set to begin November 10.

I'm opposed to the death penalty.

This kid's attitude makes me wonder though...

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 6, 2003, 2:13 pm

Metanis wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/06/sprj. ... index.html

The decision by Circuit Judge Jane Marum Roush allows most of an interrogation session last November that Virginia police had with Lee Boyd Malvo to be allowed into his trial, set to begin November 10.
I'm opposed to the death penalty.

This kid's attitude makes me wonder though...

I predict rolling brown outs in Virginia soon.

Mumblefug · Post by **Mumblefug** » May 7, 2003, 3:03 am

Fuck it, I say let him go now, on a technicality. An anonymous bullet is soooo much cheaper than letting the obviously guilty fiddle with all the little loopholes in the legal system for years before justice is done. Yeah I know they are neccessary for the very, very few falsely accused individuals, but it gives me an ulcer watching a confessed murderer play the system like a violin.

Mumble

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » May 7, 2003, 4:44 am

Um. I'm sure the kid knows enough about the system to play it. He was questioned without his attorney present. The judge ruled that his rights weren't violated because he wasn't formally charged with anything at the time.

Do I want to see the kid released? Hell no. Life in jail, no parole. Should the FBI and Police Officers who questioned him know better so possible technicalities can be avoided and he won't get off under some loophole? It's only their fucking job.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » May 7, 2003, 10:01 am

Crucify him.

Mumblefug · Post by **Mumblefug** » May 7, 2003, 11:23 am

When you are arrested your rights are read to you. If you choose to make a statement after that for any reason, hell yes it should be admittable. Obviously the judge feels the same way, thank god.

Mumble

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 7, 2003, 11:37 am

Kluden wrote:Crucify him.

/agree
We should have a Tree of Woe somewhere in D.C. for people like this.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 7, 2003, 1:42 pm

Police interrogation confessions without an attorney present should be inadmissable across the board.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 7, 2003, 2:11 pm

kyoukan wrote:Police interrogation confessions without an attorney present should be inadmissable across the board.

Unless he waived that right.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 7, 2003, 2:34 pm

kyoukan wrote:Police interrogation confessions without an attorney present should be inadmissable across the board.

Bullshit.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » May 7, 2003, 2:45 pm

Thank you Masteen, for getting that Conan reference

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 7, 2003, 3:02 pm

I learned everything I needed to know about life from that movie:

1) Crush your enemies.
2) See them driven before you.
3) Hear the lamentations of their women.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » May 7, 2003, 3:21 pm

He waived his right to have an attorney present three times, both before and during the confesion. He also agreed to having the confession recorded.

There is no reason to make the confession inadmissable.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » May 7, 2003, 3:24 pm

masteen wrote:
kyoukan wrote:Police interrogation confessions without an attorney present should be inadmissable across the board.
Bullshit.

Or at least a 3rd party that can verify that the accused is indeed waiving his/her rights.

Xyphir · Post by **Xyphir** » May 7, 2003, 3:46 pm

Considering the mountain of evidence against Malvo and Muhammed, the DA should just drop the possibility of the defense filing for an appeal and not even use the confession. What I find rediculas is the amount of tax payer money being thrown at this when it's a open and shut case. Is there really any reasonable doubt that they didn't do it? Whatever happened to a 'fair and speedy trial'? Furthermore, they're not going to be rehabilitated. Lock em up and throw away the key (in a Federal 'Pound Me In the Ass' Prison) with no chance for appeal. I'm against the death penalty, but these two almost make me change my mind.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 7, 2003, 4:59 pm

masteen wrote:
kyoukan wrote:Police interrogation confessions without an attorney present should be inadmissable across the board.
Bullshit.

Well I doubt I can counter such a well thought out and brilliantly presented argument from an itellectual heavyweight such as yourself, but I will try anyway.

Almost across the board, police departments use a method of interrogation called the Reid Method. It is a line of questioning that uses psychological tricks, lies, intimidation and certain types of wording that are designed to wring a confession out of anyone. Guilt or innocence is not an issue; the entire point of the Reid Method is to get someone to confess to a crime. That is a police interrogator's job. A good police interrogator that is well practiced in the Reid Method can get anybody to confess to anything.

I can pretty much guarantee you that an expert Reid interrogator could make you confess to the Kennedy assassination. And without a criminal defense attorney familiar with the interrogation process present to witness it you are susceptible to falling into the trap.

Ennia · Post by **Ennia** » May 7, 2003, 5:07 pm

surely that's an exageration Kyo, I seriously doubt anyone sober, sane and thinking clearly would admit anything if they didn't do it.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » May 7, 2003, 5:08 pm

Once again, bullshit.

The Reid method is designed to find disparities in a witness' testimony, because finding them at the time of interrogation beats the fuck out of having them thrown in your face in court.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 7, 2003, 5:14 pm

Ask any criminal defense lawyer or public defender, or even a detective what the Reid method is for and not a single one will say its to find disparities in a witness' testimony. The Reid Method's literature itself will tell you that the purpose of it is to get a suspect to confess.

Why do you even bother arguing with me? You're such a fucking stupid moron and I constantly make you look like an idiot in every single thread. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about, ever, and this is not an exception.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 7, 2003, 5:27 pm

kyoukan wrote:
masteen wrote:
kyoukan wrote:Police interrogation confessions without an attorney present should be inadmissable across the board.
Bullshit.
Well I doubt I can counter such a well thought out and brilliantly presented argument from an itellectual heavyweight such as yourself, but I will try anyway.

Almost across the board, police departments use a method of interrogation called the Reid Method. It is a line of questioning that uses psychological tricks, lies, intimidation and certain types of wording that are designed to wring a confession out of anyone. Guilt or innocence is not an issue; the entire point of the Reid Method is to get someone to confess to a crime. That is a police interrogator's job. A good police interrogator that is well practiced in the Reid Method can get anybody to confess to anything.

I can pretty much guarantee you that an expert Reid interrogator could make you confess to the Kennedy assassination. And without a criminal defense attorney familiar with the interrogation process present to witness it you are susceptible to falling into the trap.

If you're stupid enough to waive your right to a lawyer after being arrested, that's your fucking problem. Mandating the presence of a lawyer for the questioning of every two-bit hood would cripple our law enforcement and prosecutorial divisions.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » May 7, 2003, 5:32 pm

masteen wrote:
kyoukan wrote:
masteen wrote:
kyoukan wrote:Police interrogation confessions without an attorney present should be inadmissable across the board.
Bullshit.
Well I doubt I can counter such a well thought out and brilliantly presented argument from an itellectual heavyweight such as yourself, but I will try anyway.

Almost across the board, police departments use a method of interrogation called the Reid Method. It is a line of questioning that uses psychological tricks, lies, intimidation and certain types of wording that are designed to wring a confession out of anyone. Guilt or innocence is not an issue; the entire point of the Reid Method is to get someone to confess to a crime. That is a police interrogator's job. A good police interrogator that is well practiced in the Reid Method can get anybody to confess to anything.

I can pretty much guarantee you that an expert Reid interrogator could make you confess to the Kennedy assassination. And without a criminal defense attorney familiar with the interrogation process present to witness it you are susceptible to falling into the trap.
If you're stupid enough to waive your right to a lawyer after being arrested, that's your fucking problem. Mandating the presence of a lawyer for the questioning of every two-bit hood would cripple our law enforcement and prosecutorial divisions.

Not everyone arrested, just everyone arrested that supposedly waves their rights and "confesses" because the cops said so.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » May 7, 2003, 5:33 pm

Ennia wrote:surely that's an exageration Kyo, I seriously doubt anyone sober, sane and thinking clearly would admit anything if they didn't do it.

Actually I saw a documentary on TV about this very thing. You'd be amazed what people will admit to when deprived of sleep and food for so many hours. It does happen. Some poor teenager confessed to killing his little sister after such an interrogation when he didn't kill her. Same thing with a guy accused of killing his wife. The videos of the interrogations were pretty sick. Its psychological torture, especially on people who are already going through a lot losing a family member.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 7, 2003, 5:34 pm

Lots of people are interrogated before their attorney shows up. Many people agree to it because they feel they are innocent and want to co-operate with the police. They don't go into it thinking they are about to be psychologically manipulated into a confession via a method of interrogation that has been perfected over several decades of use and expertise.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 7, 2003, 5:53 pm

Ennia wrote:surely that's an exageration Kyo, I seriously doubt anyone sober, sane and thinking clearly would admit anything if they didn't do it.

You'd be surprised what people will confess to under high stress situations.

Imagine being arrested or even just taken down to the police station under the pretenses of being questioned about a crime and suddenly the cops there start blaming you for it. Not only are they blaming you for it but they are saying that they have enough evidence to put you away in prison for the rest of your life. Then they start lying and saying that the friend you were with at the time confessed too but is saying that you did everything and everything is your fault (and in another room another interrogator is saying the opposite to your friend - this is key to the reid method). So now not only are you being blamed for a crime and the cops supposedly are sure it was you, but your best friend is betraying you to save his or her own ass.

Now they give you an out. They plant the seed in your head that if you confess to the crime then they will go easy on you. Even though it is not up to the police as to what charges they will try you for they will say that you will just get a slap on the wrist. By this time you are desperate and will agree to just about anything because you just want to put the whole thing behind you. You confess, and the DA throws the book at you.

ALL OF THIS IS ADMISSIBLE IN A COURT OF LAW AS EVIDENCE AGAINST YOU.

A police officer's job is to arrest you and try to get the arrest to stick using any means possible. For a lot of cops guilt or innocence isn't an issue as much as getting another collar and making it stick. It's a numbers game, and the Reid Method increases the chance of getting a conviction in court.

The reason criminals have so many rights and priviledges is because they have been implemented one by one over the decades because of police incompetence, corruption and negligence. I'm not saying all cops are bad - far from it, but people who are accused of crimes are protected with so many rights not to protect the criminals, but to protect innocent people falsely accused of crimes.

The right to have an attorney present during any form of questioning should not be a right at all. It should be mandatory. It should be mandatory both to protect the accused rights to fair treatment and to protect the integrity of the investigation. It works both ways. Lots of criminals have gotten out of crimes they commited because of shenanigans in the interrogation room.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » May 7, 2003, 6:06 pm

Yes Kyou, obviously you are correct because I OBVIOUSLY DON'T WORK WITH COPS!

Christ you are stupid on a stick. They ought to market you.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 7, 2003, 6:08 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Yes Kyou, obviously you are correct because I OBVIOUSLY DON'T WORK WITH COPS!

You have a different job every week?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 7, 2003, 6:09 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Yes Kyou, obviously you are correct because I OBVIOUSLY DON'T WORK WITH COPS!

Christ you are stupid on a stick. They ought to market you.

They do, I get it everyday in my mailbox its called "Unwanted Spam"

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 7, 2003, 6:29 pm

kyoukan wrote:The right to have an attorney present during any form of questioning should not be a right at all. It should be mandatory. It should be mandatory both to protect the accused rights to fair treatment and to protect the integrity of the investigation.

You still haven't addressed the problem of paying for the fucking army of lawyers we'd need to have on staff at every precinct house in the country. See, here in the US, most lawyers are greedy fucks, and money doesn't grow on trees, no matter what Dubya says.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » May 7, 2003, 6:49 pm

Same job I have had for six years now, Miir. I am the IT manager for a police department.

Don't know where you got the "new job every week".

Kyoukan is saying despite several million defense lawyers in this country, the most popular interrogation technique is specifically targetted at wringing out a confession.

Think about that for a minute and tell me if you see a problem.

Adelrune Argenti · Post by **Adelrune Argenti** » May 7, 2003, 6:55 pm

If you want to see this style of interrogation in action, just watch NYPD Blue or any other of the myriad of police shows. They use it extensively.

I dont however believe that it is a some diabolical plan to get confessions out of innocent people. If you are innocent, you are usually not going to be saying you are guilty. Also, in most cases, most rational people ask for a lawyer as soon as it seems like the questioning is going a bit far.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » May 7, 2003, 7:03 pm

masteen wrote:
kyoukan wrote:The right to have an attorney present during any form of questioning should not be a right at all. It should be mandatory. It should be mandatory both to protect the accused rights to fair treatment and to protect the integrity of the investigation.
You still haven't addressed the problem of paying for the fucking army of lawyers we'd need to have on staff at every precinct house in the country. See, here in the US, most lawyers are greedy fucks, and money doesn't grow on trees, no matter what Dubya says.

See The 7th Day with Arnold.

We need virtual Lawyers

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 7, 2003, 10:09 pm

masteen wrote:You still haven't addressed the problem of paying for the fucking army of lawyers we'd need to have on staff at every precinct house in the country. See, here in the US, most lawyers are greedy fucks, and money doesn't grow on trees, no matter what Dubya says.

It costs less per year to pay a public defender's salary than it does to incarcerate someone in prison for having a dime bag of weed in their jacket pocket. Start there.

The US has the highest amount of people incarcerated per capita by something like 300%. Stop throwing your minorities in prison and use the money more effectively.

Is that good enough?

All I'm saying is that confessions made without the presence of an attorney should be inadmissable.

And yes Fallanthas I am sure you are an expert at police interrogation techniques because you fill the toner cartridges at the sherriff's office down in Dryhump Missouri or wherever the fuck a stupid redneck asshole like yourself is allowed to exist. I'm sure whatever iterrogation techniques in whatever squatwater trailer park town you are in involves a lot rubber hosing, phone books and swearing, so whatever. If you knew thing fucking one about the Reid Method you wouldn't be arguing with me.

Vaemas · Post by **Vaemas** » May 7, 2003, 10:42 pm

Acies wrote: See The 7th Day with Arnold.

We need virtual Lawyers

The movie's name is The 6th Day...

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » May 8, 2003, 12:07 am

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/crowe/

All the details of one of the murder cases I mentioned above. I had forgotten, but TWO boys confessed to this murder, which they didn't commit. Its perfectly legal for the police to lie to you during interrogation, to tell you they have witnesses and other evidence proving you are guilty, and they will.

Here's another case: 3 men confess to the rape & murder of a young girl when DNA evidence proved it was someone else.

Several others listed in this article.

If these cases had not been truly solved, these men would be in jail. How many never REALLY got solved? What if one of these men were your brother, father, son? Or you?

And, for those naive enough to think that people "just don't confess to something they aren't guilty of," false confession explained by Psychology Today

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » May 8, 2003, 12:11 am

the general's daughter

chick talks to the dude in the locker room with the pair of panties she just got at wal-mart like 10 minute prior. tells the dude they are from the crime scene...blah blah blah...the dude confesses.

Mumblefug · Post by **Mumblefug** » May 8, 2003, 4:31 am

The system is fucked on both sides. The same procedures set up to protect the very few falsely accused are used on a prodigous scale by the truly guilty to prolong their punishment or even avoid it entirely.
I completely agree that to a small number of police and DA's numbers are more important than innocence or guilt, and it's reprehensible. But the vast majority of these people are underpaid and overworked, and strive at an extremely dangerous job to protect us. I don't like them being made out to be a bunch of bat toting Klansmen out to get innocent people.
As I said BOTH sides are fucked. A small percentage of DA's prosecute someone they know is innocent, a LARGE percentage of defense attourneys do their damndest to set free people they KNOW are guilty, or at the least prolong the procedure. You are saying 'numbers' don't mean anything to them? Johnny Cochran defended OJ out of a strong sense of right and wrong? Who is more or less reprehensible? The ones who do their job with morals and ethics deserve our respect, and those who don't deserve a foot in the ass.
The whole criminal justice system needs to be reworked, it is outdated, clogged with bureaucracy, and infested with corruption, from the Bailbondsmen and Defense Attys, to the police and DA's, to the Judges and Wardens. But let's not forget the MOST corrupt are those who they protect us from daily.

Mumble

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 8, 2003, 7:04 am

a LARGE percentage of defense attourneys do their damndest to set free people they KNOW are guilty, or at the least prolong the procedure. You are saying 'numbers' don't mean anything to them? Johnny Cochran defended OJ out of a strong sense of right and wrong? Who is more or less reprehensible? The ones who do their job with morals and ethics deserve our respect, and those who don't deserve a foot in the ass.

Lawyers swear an oath to defend their client to the best of their ability.

Kguku · Post by **Kguku** » May 8, 2003, 10:20 am

Spangaloid_PE wrote:the general's daughter

chick talks to the dude in the locker room with the pair of panties she just got at wal-mart like 10 minute prior. tells the dude they are from the crime scene...blah blah blah...the dude confesses.

Why in god's name would you reference a scene from a distastefully done movie, in the middle of a spree of real life references, where the guy in said scene confesses to a crime he DID commit?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 8, 2003, 12:38 pm

kyoukan wrote:It costs less per year to pay a public defender's salary than it does to incarcerate someone in prison for having a dime bag of weed in their jacket pocket. Start there.

The US has the highest amount of people incarcerated per capita by something like 300%. Stop throwing your minorities in prison and use the money more effectively.

Is that good enough?

Yeah, I'm all for reform of the drug laws. I'm pretty confident that decriminalizing drugs would lower the rates of minorities in prison. No reason to buy crack on the street corner when you can get high quality Peruvian flake at the drug store.

This would free up a huge chunk of gov't money, but unless a lot of it was put into effective drug education (not more of those drugs = terrorism or reefer madness type shit), we'd end up with a country full of 18 year-old addicts. So it's not like we could just shuttle that money into the "Lawyers for Everybody" program under your solution either.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » May 8, 2003, 1:08 pm

This argument brings me to mind of an incident that happened to a friend of mine a couple years ago. He saw a vehicle pulled over at the side of the road, while he was en route to a rural landfill site. The driver "didn't look right" to him, so he pulled over to see if everything was OK. Turns out the driver ate a bullet, so my friend reports it to the RCMP.

They held him, and questioned him for about 10 hrs (part of this was undoubtedly b/c although there was a small detachment there, the closest major investigative detachment was in Edmonton, a 3 hr drive away). They didn't read him his rights, or arrest him. They did ask him several times if he wanted a lawyer, which he declined. A lot of the time, they just left him in a room by himself.

Afterwards, they released him (the investigation ruled it was a suicide) and my friend was kinda strung out. Two weeks later, we're having lunch in a local restarant and one of the cops who was there when this happened walks in. After a bit he came over and was talking to my friend and I. He apologized for putting him through this little ordeal, especially after he found this body.

The RCMP officer said it sometimes "leaves a bad taste in your mouth" but they have to go through certain routines/procedures/questioning tactics before they can just release someone after a body is discovered like that. He told us that the officers in the detachment were 99% certain in my friend's innocence 30 min after he reported it.

The cop told us that most innocent people react differently in isolation than guilty ones do. Innocent people tend to "freak out" more. They think "whats gone wrong? whats happening? why am I here when I didn't do anything?". Most guilty suspects (that are trying to conceal their guilt) have had a chance to mentally prepare themselves and generally display a lot more calm as a result. He also told us that a lot of murders are reported by the people who commit them, so they pretty much have to deal with every report like this, as dealing with a potential homicide and suspect.

He apologized again and actually bought our lunch.

I think it comes down to the investigator's point of view: are they interested in the truth or in closing the books on a case. In a case like Malvo, where there were multiple sniper attacks, my feeling is that the stakes were too high for investigators to just try and railroad the closest fit: they get the wrong guy and the sniper attacks don't stop.

I also think it is a nice idea to have some independant verification of a confession, as per Krimson, but the question is who is going to provide that? Not every police station/detachment is going to have a judge, defense attourney or even a prosecuting attourney available full time, and what makes their word any better than any police officer's? Also if they are there full time, will not the constant proximity to the police tend to erode any existing boundaries that are supposed to ensure their absolute neutrality?

Kaelye · Post by **Kaelye** » May 8, 2003, 6:33 pm

I'm on the fence about the death penalty. Our gov't has screwed up too many times to be trustworthy in dispensing death. However I refuse to pay the ridiculous price it costs for those in life terms to get their cable tv, pr0n, weights, library books and other prison perks. Glad it's not my decision what to do this that terrible human being.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » May 8, 2003, 6:41 pm

Kguku wrote:
Spangaloid_PE wrote:the general's daughter

chick talks to the dude in the locker room with the pair of panties she just got at wal-mart like 10 minute prior. tells the dude they are from the crime scene...blah blah blah...the dude confesses.
Why in god's name would you reference a scene from a distastefully done movie, in the middle of a spree of real life references, where the guy in said scene confesses to a crime he DID commit?

i didn't know i couldn't

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » May 8, 2003, 11:18 pm

Kyoukan,

Think, then answer the question. It's an easy sequence. I'm sure you can get it right if you concentrate.

You are claiming that one of the most widely used interrogation techniques in my country is designed specifically to produce a confession?

Before you answer, remember this is the country with the highest population of practicing lawyers per capita. The country that believes the denial of color TV is cruel and inhumane. The country that allows millions of frivilous lawsuits every year by inmates over what color Jell-O they are served.

Take a minute to think about it, then see if you can find a flaw in your logic.

Mumblefug · Post by **Mumblefug** » May 8, 2003, 11:42 pm

Lawyers swear an oath to defend their client to the best of their ability.

And D.A.s swear an oath to prosecute those brought before them. They aren't judges or juries. They do their part in the system. If you want to point a finger at someone for being responsible for innocent folks going to jail, the jury would be a far better target than law enforcement and District Attys.

Neziroth · Post by **Neziroth** » May 9, 2003, 12:13 am

Malvo also described shooting at a child skipping across a parking lot, described "leading" the child with his gun, but missing him -- barely. He said the child swatted about his head, mistaking the whiz of the bullet for a bee. "I might have parted his hair," Malvo is alleged to have said.

That makes me sick.

No cop could get anyone to admit to that - in such detail - if they didn't really do it.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 9, 2003, 12:22 am

I'm not saying Malvo didn't do it. My participation in this thread was a derailment about police confessions in general.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 9, 2003, 12:23 am

Mumblefug wrote:And D.A.s swear an oath to prosecute those brought before them. They aren't judges or juries. They do their part in the system. If you want to point a finger at someone for being responsible for innocent folks going to jail, the jury would be a far better target than law enforcement and District Attys.

how is this relevant to anything?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 9, 2003, 12:25 am

Fallanthas wrote:You are claiming that one of the most widely used interrogation techniques in my country is designed specifically to produce a confession?

No I think it is to achieve a softer, faster rising recipe for bread.

You fucking pea brain.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » May 9, 2003, 12:28 am

kyoukan wrote:
Fallanthas wrote:You are claiming that one of the most widely used interrogation techniques in my country is designed specifically to produce a confession?
No I think it is to achieve a softer, faster rising recipe for bread.

You fucking pea brain.

it'll either help the bread or it won't

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » May 9, 2003, 12:38 am

Fry Him

VeeshanVault

Lee Boyd Malvo's confession...

Lee Boyd Malvo's confession...

Re: Lee Boyd Malvo's confession...