It appears that John Mangels' investigative series "Plagued by Fear" on the case of Dr. Thomas C. Butler is no longer available on the website of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, but a copy remains available via Archive.org:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150311094102/www.cleveland.com/plague/

Orolan:

From my  experience and from what  I have read over the years leads me to beleive that the primary reason for false confessions is the one mentioned last by Scheck, mental impairment.  Lawyers and cops go together like oil and water so I would take what he says with a grian of salt about coerced confessions etc. He is not exactly enamored with the law enforcement community.

The more I read of things like this, the more glad I am that I failed the FBI Polygraph test. I dont want to be a prt of the govt beating up on good people for no reason.

All parts of John Mangels's investigative series on Dr. Butler's plight will eventually appear here:

http://www.cleveland.com/plague/

It appears that tomorrow's (Tuesday, 28 March) installment will cover FBI polygrapher Dale Green's interrogation of Dr. Butler.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer today began publication of a 7-part investigative report by John Mangels on the Thomas C. Butler case titled, "Plagued by Fear." Part 1 is available here:

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/114331771533990.x...

Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientsts' Secrecy in Government Project has again commented on the case of Dr. Thomas C. Butler in his Secrecy News email publication dated 17 March 2005: 

Quote:


The reference to Gansler and Lucyshyn is to a newly released study mentioned earlier in today's Secrecy News: "The Unintended Audience: Balancing Openness and Secrecy" by Jacques S. Gansler and William Lucyshyn, Center for Public Policy and Private Enterprise, University of Maryland, dated September 2004:

http://www.cpppe.umd.edu/Bookstore/Documents/UnintendedAudience_3.05.pdf

Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientsts' Secrecy in Government Project has commented on the prosecution of Dr. Butler in his Secrecy News email publication dated 25 March 2004:

Quote:

Although I feel somewhat happy about Dr. butler being aquitted for his situation with the FBI. I didn't see anything in the article related to the polygraph sessions and how it affected the trial.  I think it would help our cause a bit more if there were mention.

Bubba

On Monday, 1 December, a federal jury acquitted Dr. Butler of all charges connected with his "confession" to FBI polygrapher Dale Green. The jury did, however, find him guilty on unrelated charges connected with his finances. See "Prof cleared of most serious charges in plague scare."

It seems that SA Dale Green had concluded that Dr. Butler was deceptive even before he administered his polygraph "test." In an article titled, "FBI Agent Says He Was Suspicious of Butler From Start," KCBD TV in Lubbock, TX reports:

Quote:


Under these circumstances, Dr. Butler's failing the "test" may well have been foreordained.

George said,
Quote:


This quote, from Barry Scheck's Innocence Project homepage sums it up, although it isn't "hard data":
Quote:


And while the "causes" are not given, the list located here is clearly indicative that false confessions are not "rare" as some people imply, and some of the reasons used to prove the falsity of the confessions is amazing:
http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Master_List_False_Confessions.html

Saidme wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2003 at 3:07pm:


I would agree that Dr. Butler's repudiation of his written statement is not dispositive, but it is also wrong to say that it "means nothing."

Saidme

It's refreshing to know that you agree with audio/vidio taping.

For the protection of both LEO's and suspects, I think the recording should be done, if at all possible, in every arrest and interrogation heat room and polygraph. Where ever there is interaction between officer and suspect.

As to the presence of a lawyer, they are not going to let their client answer any damaging questions anyway. As the questioning detective, I would plainly tell the lawyer "whether you like it or not, I am going to tape our sessions. I must do this to protect both your client and me from false accusations". If the lawyer refused, I'd tell him to prepare for court. As a juror, if the detective presented these facts in court, I would be hard pressed to go against his testimony. I think most jurors would think likewise.

Of coarse sadistic LEO's, and there are some who gets their jollies by badgering and whacking, would never go for this kind of interrogation. As a juror, I would be as hardpressed to believe his testimony.

Fair Chance

As I stated before, I agree with audio/video taping.  My statement regarding audio/video of examinee's (and their reluctance) is based on criminal specific issue polygraph testing, not pre-employment testing.  Those deemed deceptive know the potential impact an audio/video taped confession would have in court.  As I've stated before on this website, I don't necessarily agree with pre-employment polygraph testing, and I'm obviously not employed with the FBI.

Dear Saidme,

I specifically requested that my third FBI pre-employment polygraph exam be videotaped or recorded after my second fiasco.  The examiner stated that he could not record it because it was not a criminal case and it was FBI written policy not to record non-criminal cases.  I was willing to be recorded.  I believed this would have protected me and the examiner from any "forgetfulness" regarding the time spent in a closed room with no witnesses.  A playback of my second examination would have helped speed up a decision that took over two months to make (offering of third exam).   

Videotaping or recording is a win-win situation for innocent people and ethical examiners.   

Regards.

Twoblock

I believe a contributing factor in the audio/video wars has more to do with the reluctance of interviewees wanting to be audio/video taped than with investigators resisting.  I for one believe audio/video would be good.  Defense attorney's would still find reasons to label good confessions as false.

George

Dr Butler's repudiation means nothing.  Quite common for suspects to recant as soon as they leave the interrogation room.  After all, the pressure's off.  It's just as plausible his confession is true as not.

Saidme wrote on Oct 21^st, 2003 at 3:24pm:


I was not readily able to locate any documentation that  "[f]alse confessions are generally a product of police abuse (beatings), drugs, or mental capacity (or lack thereof) of the defendant," as you maintain.

In any event, there are other factors that may lead to false confessions, such as the subject's belief in false promises made by interrogators and sleep deprivation, both of which seem to have been factors in the Butler case.

Dr. Butler told CBS 60 Minutes "They presented me with their evidence of the investigation that pointed to only one possibility, and that was accidental destruction." Dr. Butler maintains he was told he would not be charged if he could confirm that the missing vials had been accidentally destroyed. So in signing the statement confirming the accidental destruction of the plague samples, Dr. Butler was not knowingly confessing to a crime. Rather, he signed what he was falsely led to believe was an innocuous statement that would allow him to finally go home.

In view of Dr. Butler's prompt repudiation of the statement he signed, and the apparent lack of any evidence that would corroborate his having "accidentally destroyed" the specimens, his explanation of the circumstances that led to his signing that statement is entirely plausible.

The case of Dr. Butler calls to mind the cases of the Marine Embassy guards, Petty Officer Daniel M. King, and Abdallah Higazy. In all of these cases, which are documented in Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, federal polygraph operators extracted incriminating statements that the subjects repudiated once free of their polygraphers and which later turned out to be false.

Saidme

I only used the glove term to illustrate a point. That type of interrogation should not be allowed. The subject should be told " we are gathering evidence that will likely prove you guilty. Do you want to confess"?. If the subject says no, then let him have his day in court. If found guilty, then rack him.

If I had been the prosecutor, the glove thing would not have flown. The prosecutors were so involved in hanky panky that they didn't realize that wet leather shrinks when allowed to dry. The glove had been wet with blood and allowed to dry. Another mistake by the investigators. Another dumb mistake was allowing the jury to be stacked 100% in OJ's favor. Hell yes he's guilty.

Dr. Butler's case is again proof that all interrogations should be audio and vidio taped. If interrogators was as interested in justice as they are in convictions, there would no we said they said flap. If I was the interrogator, every interaction that I had with a subject would be recorded. There would be no chance of lies, baggering a confession, etc. My case would be locked up tight or the subject would a have chance to walk when the judge and jury heard what evidence we had to present.

Twoblock

Sorry for leaving the word lies out.  I thought I covered it with the word deception.  I also believe LE should have a high level of integrity.  Don't equate OJ's acquittal with innocence.

Saidme

I notice, inresponse to my post, that you left out lies. A lie is neither apples nor oranges. To me, a lie (by ANYONE) is Caster Oil and Black Draught. All three gives me the sh--s.

From what I have been able to determine, an interrogation goes something like this: "if you will confess,(true or false) I will talk to the prosecutor on your behalf because a confession saves the government a lot of money". If the talk ever occurs, doesn't it go something like "lets give the SOB the maximum possible. He confessed". BTW, (true or false) are my words. Not the interrogator's.

Another BTW. I am not anti-LE. Do the crime, then do the time. However, if the "glove doesn't fit, you have to aquit". I believe that LE, like everyone else, should be saddled with high integrity.

We're looking at one side of the story here.  Competent investigators will not make promises such as the good Doc suggests.  Unless ofcourse they were working with a prosecutor.  I suspect the Doc rationalized his illegal behavior (intentional destruction) by admitting to the "accidental" destruction.  Quite common behavior.

Another article on the subject:

Professor accuses FBI of lies

"They told me I would not be charged if I were able to confirm the accidental destruction. ... (They) wanted to conclude the investigation and, they told me, reassure the public that there was no danger."

Nice whopper by the way, saidme.

That would be no false confessions.  I also have never observed a false confession first hand.  I believe the primary reason for that is because they are quite rare.

That would be none.  I also suspect the good Doc's confession was probably not false.

Saidme wrote on Oct 20^th, 2003 at 9:39pm:


As a polygrapher, what are your firsthand experiences with any of the above, saidme? How many false confessions have you extracted?