In September 2001 a very elderly woman residing in an Albuquerque nursing home complained to a family member that she “was hurt by the man who cared for her.”  Albuquerque station KRQE News 13 broke the story last week, outlining allegations of rape.  The caretaker, 22-year-old Andres Arviso, then agreed to undergo polygraph testing, declaring to the media that he wanted to clear his name after he was identified on the air by KRQE.  After the polygraph examination, which he failed, he confessed to three sexual attacks on the 90-year-old victim.  He reportedly cried to police, and said he was sorry after his confession.  With her claim of repeated sexual abuse verified, the elderly victim has initiated legal action against her attacker and the nursing home.  Arviso is now detained at the Bernalillo County Detention Center.

http://www.krqe.com/Global/story.asp?s=946856

Mr. Maschke,

The more I read the posts on this site the more ill I get.  Do you honestly believe that every time some scum confesses that he/she is a "naive and gullible guilty suspect", or that the confession was false, or illegally obtained?  There is no doubt in my mind that there have been individuals who have falsely confessed for a variety of reasons, most of which center on the individuals mental capabilies; but every time anyone posts on this site a confession resulting from an interview or interrogation that followed deceptive indications on a polygraph you jump on the "naive and gullible" bandwagon.  Believe it or not, there are really bad guys out there, and they do confess to law enforcement officials who do not violate their rights.

You are the naive and gullible one if you truely believe everything you preach, or the line of bull you push on this site.  If you had any experience what-so-ever in the field of law enforcement, other than your extremely limited exposure to polygraph (which in reality was not administered in a law enforcement capacity) then you may sing a somewhat different tune.

Of course you always CYA with statements like "assuming the confession can be corrorborated", but not every confession can be.  In this case it appears you have a 90 year old victim who was sexually assaulted.  How do propose this allegation be corroborated?  Should they ask for a reinactment?  If you want to call in question the use of polygraph, so be it, by all means do so, but must you always question the integrity of all law enforcement officials every time a confession is referenced on this site?  Why couldn't you simply state your case against polygraph without all the crap about "abusive post-polygraph interrogation tactics result in false confessions".   

Maybe, just maybe, this guy did sexually assault this 90 year old lady, and maybe his confession was obtained in a legal and proper manner.  It does happen.

Batman

Marty,   

Your previous post includes the following statement:

Quote:


Although at first blush having a person offer a confession in his own handwriting seems to be a panacea for obtaining meaningful confessions, in reality it is not.  Although handwriting analysis (if necessary) will allow for a determination of the source of the written confession, it will in no way shed light on whether the confession was knowingly and voluntarily given or  was simply one given under duress and dictated by the interrogator to the examinee after a long and improper interrogation.  If Batman believes the majority of interrogations are properly conducted then I presume he would have no problem with this being demonstrated through proper and complete audio and video taping of all such interrogations/confessions.  This, of course, would additionally discourage improper treatment of examinees and expose any wrongful behavior when it occurred.  It would also serve to protect the interrogator from any malicious and false claims made by an examinee/subject.   

Your idea of a "protected" recording is quite useful.  Perhaps this might entail an encrypted/biometrically-tagged recording which could only be unencrypted through the same examinee biometrics (facial recognition, retinal scan, fingerprint, etc) patterns obtained from the examinee at the time of a court-requested viewing.

Quote:


According to Fleisher, there are differences of opinion about whether the entire (or any) part of the interrogation should be recorded. Sure it would eliminate any question of whether any abusive practice occurred but there are legitimate reasons why one might wish to not tape this. The public is widely influence by media and many things presented as facts are not. Examples: Cars are incorrectly expected to blow up a few seconds after a severe crash where it is really quite rare. The idea that holding a hostage will induce cops to drop their weapons is similarly bogus. Some believe it is inappropriate to lie to get a confession when it is generally not. An interrogater may chose to be sympathetic to a suspect by use of an analogy that could be quite disturbing to a jury. A lot of what is done is because the public is naive which I don't like but they are what juries are composed of. So there are reasons beyond CYA for limiting recording. On the whole though I think everything should be recorded. If I took a polygraph (I might consent to a GKT for example) I certainly would feel better if it was recorded.


As for the protected recording, biometrics and other such stuff can get very complicated very quickly. Also many states have laws that protect privacy by requiring all recordings, where there is an expectation of  privacy, be agreed to in advance by all recordee's. To work around this and preserve privacy, a recording, encrypted by a public key, could be made such that it could only be decrypted by court order to a third party holding the private key in escrow. This protects  ALL parties but lets a court get to the truth if ruled more important than the privacy. The technology to do this is now cheap and easily accomplished. If this were built into a car, I would likely be willing to pay several hundreds of dollars more for it and it would cost far far less.

-Marty

Quote:



Yes but first let me clarify. The authors note there is divergence on the issue of recording interrogation sessions. Often the interrogator is being sympathetic to the suspect perhaps going so far as saying things like "any woman dressed like that is asking for it - and if you've had too many drinks, well, things sometimes happen that a normal person just can't control." Even worse kinds of things to get pedophiles to confess. I think most juries would not be swayed - but I suspect some would. They relay some anecdotal evidence where the trial was impacted. For these reasons they say they believe not recording any part is a more efficient approach but are careful to outline a very specific protocol to assure the integrity of the written statement. It is just their recommendation though.

In spite of the issues surrounding recording the whole interrogation, I think it should be done as well, but am less suspicious of the interrogation process overall so I see it as just helping keep honest people honest.

Most of the book deals with stand alone interrogations not the polygraph but a good 20% or so is specific to the polygraph. Rare in what I have seen so far, there is a section on formulating control questions that is remarkably candid. So much so you should ask for permission to include it as it gives a "feel" to what the polygrapher is trying to accomplish from their point of view.

-Marty

Thomas Cress was found guilty by a jury in 1985 of kidnapping, raping, and murdering 17-year-old Patricia Rosanski, whose body was found in a wooded area in Battle Creek, Michigan.  There was no physical evidence connecting Cress to the crime, and the biological evidence was destroyed in 1992, before DNA evidence became generally available.  Another convicted killer, Michael Ronning, has recently come forward and confessed that he actually committed the crime.  Both men have since undergone polygraph testing, and both have passed on their respective statements.  The Michigan Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial for Thomas Cress.

www.clickondetroit.com/det/news/stories/news-127566520020227-220226.html

Quote:


Of course, but just because something is not recorded does not mean it is inappropriate. In most of life very little is recorded and that doesn't mean something nefarious was transpiring. It is also stated by the authors that sub rosa, "3rd degree" abuse does occur is some cases.

Quote:



I agree. Overall I think the benefits of openess outweigh the costs. I feel their arguments have some merit but society is better served by a complete recording. Also, their own argument could be used by a defense atty to attack a written confession. "You mean you have a POLICY of not recording an interrogation because it might mislead a jury.....?"

One of the basic problems here is that one needs some degree of trust of the LE process and abuse of interrogation may not be the most common abuse in the future. DNA testing has recently become the "magic bullet" in major criminal cases and rightly so. However, it requires integrity in the process for it is easily "planted" from the blood of suspect. I suspect this may occur more often when the police have someone they strongly (and probably accurately) believe is guilty but where their is insufficient evidence. Being someone that strongly believed OJ guilty, I also was boggled at the testimony of the acting director of the FBI crime lab. I concluded, reluctantly, that police did indeed plant blood evidence to help convict OJ. I have little doubt OJ did the murder, but also have little doubt the evidence was "enhanced." It wasn't to frame a black man, rather it was to put away a "bad guy" by whatever means was at hand. Henry Lee's analysis provides much greater detail. Anyway, my point is that integrity of the process is the critical aspect and that newer forensic techniques are more easily falsified than tradition physical and eyewitness evidence. A culture where this is allowed is far more damaging and easier to do than abused interrogation process.

-Marty

Quote:


That is why I also believe that even though juries will have to be educated as to what is appropriate or not, they are the trier of fact so it would be best to record the entire interrogation.

My point with the OJ case is that is a case where other abuses took place. There has been a major shift to use of DNA evidence in murder/rape cases where abuse may be easier to hide than in cases of interrogation. As for the OJ case I was shocked by his testimony which detailed anti-oxidant tests he (the FBI lab guy) performed on his own blood off hours. It was shockingly sloppy with no supporting test records. EDTA tainted blood that showed up weeks later on a fence, a blood spot from Nicole on a sock of OJ's that soaked through to the opposite side (hard to do if there is a foot inside). Still, OJ did it. Anyway, the details are too  long to go into on this thread but my point is not that OJ was innocent, he wasn't, but that the sort of DNA abuse he was subjected to is much simpler than browbeating a confession. If police are inclined to the latter, they must certainly be even more inclined to the former as it is a lot easier. Preventing this abuse of trust is the critical thing.

-Marty