Ever heard of “polygraph by copier”?
If you haven’t, here’s how it works:
A detective loads three sheets of paper into a Xerox machine.
“Truth” has been typed onto the first sheet.
“Truth” has been typed onto the seond sheet.
“Lie” has been typed onto the third sheet.
Then a criminal suspect is led into the room and told to put his hand against the side of the machine.
“What is your name?” asks the detective.
The suspect gives it.
The detective hits the copy button, and a page comes out: “Truth.”
“Where do you live?” asks the detective.
The suspect gives an address, the detective again hits the copy button, and a second page appears: “Truth.”
Then comes the bonus question: “Did you or did you not kill Big Jim Tate on the evening of….?”
The suspect answers. The detective presses the copy button one last time, and the sheet appears: “Lie.”
“Well, well, well, you lying little bastard,” says the detective.
Convinced that the police have found some mysterious way to peer into the darkest recesses of his criminality, the suspect “gives it up” and makes a full confession.
Yes, contrary to what many believe, police can legally use deceit to obtain a confession.
In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled, in United States v. Russell: “Nor will the mere fact of deceit defeat a prosecution, for there are circumstances when the use of deceit is the only practicable law enforcement technique available.”
In that case, the Court narrowly upheld a conviction for methamphetamine production even though the defendant had argued entrapment.
So what types of interrogative deceit might a police officer use to develop admissible evidence of a suspect’s guilt?
The general rule is that deception can be used so long as it’s not likely to cause an innocent person to commit a crime or confess to a crime that s/he didn’t commit.
Click here: The Lawful Use of Deception – Article – POLICE Magazine
Consider the following examples:
- A detective is interviewing a suspect in a rape case. “Oh, that girl,” he says, thus implying that the victim was a slut and had it coming. The suspect, thinking he’s dealing with a sympathetic listener, starts bragging about his latest conquest–only to learn, too late, that his listener isn’t so simpatico after all.
- “We found your prints on the gun”–or on any number of other surfaces. Actually, there are few good places on a pistol to leave prints. And those that are left can be smeared. The same goes for other surfaces. But if a suspect can be led to believe the cops have his prints, a confession is often forthcoming.
- A police officer is interrogating a suspect in a murder case. “He came at you, didn’t he?” asks the cop. The suspect, who murdered the victim in cold blood, thinks he has an escape route. “Yeah, he came at me”–this confirming that, yes, he did kill the deceased.
- “Your partner just gave you up” is a favorite police strategen when there is more than one suspect involved. If one suspect can be made to “flip”–turn–against the other, the case is essentially wrapped up.
- Interrogating a bank robbery suspect, a cop might say: “We know you didn’t do the shooting, that you were only the wheelman.” This implies that the penalty for driving the getaway car is far less than that for killing someone during a robbery. In fact, criminal law allows every member of the conspiracy to be charged as a principal.
- “I don’t give a damn what you did,” says the detective. “Just tell me why you did it.” For some suspects, this offers a cathartic release, a chance to justify their guilt.
- The “good cop/bad cop” routine is known to everyone who has ever seen a police drama. Yet it continues to yield results so often it continues to be routinely used. “Look, I believe you,” says the “good” cop, “but my partner’s a real asshole. Just tell me what happened so we can clear this up and you can go.”
- “So,” says the detective, “why do you think the police believe you did it?” “I have no idea,” says the suspect, confident that he isn’t giving up anything that might come back to haunt him. “Well,” says the cop, “I guess you’ll just have to make something up.” Make something up sounds easy, but is actually a trap. The suspect may end up giving away details that could incriminate him–or lying so brazenly that his lies can be used against him.
So is there a best way for a suspect to deal with an invitation to waive his Miranda right to remain silent?
Yes, there is. It’s to refuse to say anything and to ask for permission to call a lawyer.
That’s the preferred method for Mafia hitmen–and accused police officers.
Any cop who finds himself under investigation by his department’s Internal Affairs unit automatically shuts up–and calls his lawyer.
Any other response–no matter how well-intentioned–may well result in a lengthy prison sentence.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
ABC NEWS, AIRLINES, BUSINESS, CBS NEWS, CNN, COMPUTER SECURITY, CREDIT CARDS, CYBERSECURITY, DAIRY QUEEN, FACEBOOK, JOHN HERING, JPMORGAN/CHASE, LILY TOMLIN, LOOKOUT, LUGGAGE THEFTS, MA BELL, NBC NEWS, ROWAN & MARTIN'S LAUGH-IN, STAPLES, TARGET, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY
“WE DON’T CARE, WE DON’T HAVE TO”
In Bureaucracy, Business, Law, Politics, Social commentary on October 23, 2014 at 2:52 pmComedian Lily Tomlin rose to fame on Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In as Ernestine, the rude, sarcastic switchboard operator for Ma Bell.
She would tap into customers’ calls, interrupt them, make snide remarks about their personal lives. And her victims included celebrities as much as run-of-the-mill customers.
On one occasion, she called then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, letting him know that “it really takes a Hoover [vacuum cleaner] to dig up the dirt.”
She introduced herself as working for “the phone company, serving everyone from presidents and kings to the scum of the earth.”
But perhaps the line for which her character is best remembered was: “We don’t care. We don’t have to. We’re the phone company.”
Watching Ernestine on Laugh-In was a blast for millions of TV viewers during the mid-1960s and early 70s. But confronting such corporate arrogance in real-life is no laughing matter.
Clearly, too many companies take the same attitude as Ernestine: “We don’t care. We don’t have to.”
This is especially true for companies that are supposed to safeguard their customers’ most sensitive information–such as their credit card numbers, addresses, emails and phone numbers.
An October 22 “commentary” published in Forbes magazine raises the highly disturbing question: “Cybersecurity: Does Corporate America Really Care?”
And the answer is apparently: No.
Its author is John Hering, co-founder and executive director of Lookout, which bills itself as “the world leader in mobile security for consumers and enterprises alike.”
Click here: Cybersecurity: Does corporate America really care?
October proved a bad month for credit card-using customers of Kmart, Staples and Dairy Queen–all of which have reported data breaches involving the theft of credit card numbers.
Earlier breaches had hit Target, Home Depot and JPMorgan/Chase.
“One thing is clear,” writes Hering. “CEOs need to put security on their strategic agendas alongside revenue growth and other issues given priority in boardrooms.”
Hering warns that “CEOs don’t seem to be making security a priority.” And he offers several reasons for this:
“There’s a short-term mindset and denial of convenience in board rooms,” writes Hering.
“Top executives don’t realize their systems are vulnerable and don’t understand the risks. Sales figures and new products are top of mind; shoring up IT systems aren’t.”
Anyone who’s ever watched the operation of an airport luggage carousel has seen this principle in action.
If you’ve checked your luggage, then you need to head for the baggage carousel as quickly as you can get out of the airplane.
Because if you don’t get there in time to grab your own bag, there’s a good chance that someone else will.
The reason? There’s no security officer there to make sure that your luggage goes only to you, and not to someone else.
Experienced baggage thieves know this. So they wait at the luggage carousel for a piece of luggage to go around two or three times. If no one collects it, they assume the owner isn’t there yet–and make off with it.
Sure, there might not be anything of value in it–from the thief’s viewpoint, anyway.
No diamonds.
No jewels.
No expensive cameras.
For the thief, it’s a setback–but only a minor one. He simply dumps the luggage and perhaps goes back to the carousel for another shot at finding a bag stuffed with valuables.
But for the traveler-victim, it’s a disaster.
Most–if not all–of his clothes are gone.
Anything personal–such as gifts he was bringing for friends or relatives–is gone.
So are any vitally-needed medications–if he was foolish enough to store these in his suitcase instead of a carry-on bag.
And does the airline care?
Don’t be stupid.
Why should they? They got your money when you bought the plane ticket.
That’s all they wanted from you. And the truth is, that’s all they’ve ever wanted from you–even during the “golden age of air travel” before airplanes became “flying buses.”
The skies of United were never so friendly that airlines felt an obligation to ensure that their passengers’ luggage was actually waiting for its rightful owners.
And the same principle–or lack of principle–applies with such companies as banks, department stores and insurance companies that hold the most private information of their customers.
There are two ways corporations can be forced to start behaving responsibly on this issue.
First, some smart attorneys need to start filing class-action lawsuits against companies that don’t take steps to safeguard their customers’ private information.
Second, there must be Federal legislation to ensure that multi-million-dollar fines are levied against such companies–and especially their CEOs–when such data breaches occur.
Only then will the CEO mindset of “We don’t care, we don’t have to” be replaced with: “We care, because our heads will roll if we don’t.”
Share this: