Merricks

RolandRat

Graduate Poster
RolandRat
Joined
Feb 8, 2018
Messages
1,859
Location
Essex UK
Watching a programme on TV regarding the Merricks. Two brothers who were found guilty of murdering one of their ex employers over a 400 dollar debt.

Two of the detectives involved were interviewed. Long story short, they got suspicious of the brothers, pulled them both in for questioning. One detective stated she told Bret Merrick that that his brother had accused him of being the lead person, that it was all on him. She quite happily admitted during the interview for the show that this was a lie and the other brother had said no such thing. As a result, she got a confession out it.

Is it actually legal for the police in the US, this was in Ohio I think, to actually lie like this? To me, this seems to open up a huge can of worms.
 
It is legal for the police to lie and they have broad range with which to do so. They can lie about confessions of accomplices, lie about the offense, lie about leniency, etc.
 
There are states putting limits on police lies. For example, in my state it's no longer legal to lie to suspects who are under 18.

Me, I believe cops should be prohibited from lying to obtain confessions altogether. False information inevitably leads to false confessions.
 
That is crazy, what is the reasoning behind it? How is it considered ok? Surely this can taint evidence.
 
It's unethical but remember, the police are not your mates, so make sure you insist you have a lawyer with you if they call you in for questioning.
 
RolandRat said:
Watching a programme on TV regarding the Merricks. Two brothers who were found guilty of murdering one of their ex employers over a 400 dollar debt.

Two of the detectives involved were interviewed. Long story short, they got suspicious of the brothers, pulled them both in for questioning. One detective stated she told Bret Merrick that that his brother had accused him of being the lead person, that it was all on him. She quite happily admitted during the interview for the show that this was a lie and the other brother had said no such thing. As a result, she got a confession out it.

Is it actually legal for the police in the US, this was in Ohio I think, to actually lie like this? To me, this seems to open up a huge can of worms.
Click to expand...

Like the good cop v bad cop trope it comes from the USA approach to interrogation known as the "Reid method". Which is a widely discredited approach and should have died a death when the case and confession that brought Reid to prominence was found to have been a case of a false confession. Unfortunately it is still widely used across USA police forces as it is often part of their training. I think its "success" i.e. marketing is because it relies on "9 steps" and the USA seems especially prone to wanting to adopt simplistic "6 steps to world domination" and "5 stages of grief" approaches.
 
RolandRat said:
That is crazy, what is the reasoning behind it? How is it considered ok? Surely this can taint evidence.
Click to expand...

Because the 'best way' of solving a crime and achieving a conviction is by eliciting a confession. This avoids the expense of forensics, witnesses etc.

Also having a reputation as someone who is a successful interogator and gets confessions is a matter of pride.

I think police have been reluctant to believe in false confessions, that innocent people won't buckle and confess to something they didn't do. Unfortunately objective research shows that obtaining false confessions is relatively easy. Also the costs of false confessions are unrecognised.

I suspect the US system of plea deals facillitates this, prosecutors will threaten disproportionately severe charges if people fail to confess. E.g. people who deny being involved in a robbery homicide may get the death penalty whilst the person who confesses to having done the actual killing may get a relatively lenient sentence. It may take courage if you are innocent and faced with the alternative of a death sentence vs e.g. ten years before being considered for parole to insist on innocence.

The forensic psychologist who developd the PEACE interview techique used by police in England to avoid false confessions was previously a police officer and involved witha notorious case of false confessions. When the innocent people were freed after years of imprisonment they had internalised their guilt and at least one person found it hard to accept he was innocent. The psychological approach to rehabilitation and release in prisons involves accepting your guilt.
 
Darat said:
Like the good cop v bad cop trope it comes from the USA approach to interrogation known as the "Reid method". Which is a widely discredited approach and should have died a death when the case and confession that brought Reid to prominence was found to have been a case of a false confession. Unfortunately it is still widely used across USA police forces as it is often part of their training. I think its "success" i.e. marketing is because it relies on "9 steps" and the USA seems especially prone to wanting to adopt simplistic "6 steps to world domination" and "5 stages of grief" approaches.
Click to expand...

I don't know why that program sold so well. Even in the late 90s when it first came out, the US Justice Department (for whom I worked in what was then Immigration and Naturalization Service) specifically prohibited training it. DOJ adopted it later from what I understand. Even their clever marketing should not have accounted for how long it has lasted. The number of overturned convictions should clue in agencies that it doesn't work.

The rewarding confessions with sympathy is bad. The training on "tells" was exponentially worse. The amount of time you have to spend with someone to actually figure out their tells is far longer than most interrogations and interviews last. However, once you go through their training, you'll think every personal idiosyncrasy is a tell. You write that in the report and it now has the authority of an expert. The whole "based on training and experience I determined the person was being deceptive" thing has ruined a large number of lives.
 
Ok going by the information above. US police can lie and say they have DNA evidence, witness statements and if you plead guilty. they'll make sure the sentence is reduced to nothing and then basically shout "sike" and send you down for what ever the actual tariff is? If this is the case, how is there not a bigger outcry? Why is this accepted?
 
RolandRat said:
Ok going by the information above. US police can lie and say they have DNA evidence, witness statements and if you plead guilty. they'll make sure the sentence is reduced to nothing and then basically shout "sike" and send you down for what ever the actual tariff is? If this is the case, how is there not a bigger outcry? Why is this accepted?
Click to expand...

What is your view on undercover cops or plain clothes detectives, intelligence operatives?

Apparently, cops in some countries are allowed to lie as long as it doesn't bring the force into disrepute.

So if one brother Merrick is told - classic prisoners dilemma - that 'your brother has confessed', leading him to confess, then it could be asked, why would he confess if he was innocent? Or, even if it was a false confession, the onus is always on the prosecution to provide the burden of proof. The defendant doesn't even have to enter the witness box. It is entirely up to the prosecution to prove it. Don't forget, the Crown represents the victim/s, so why it could be said it is fair enough to bring the guilty to justice softly softly, whether by stealth of by deception. Why should these be the sole prerogative of the perpetrators? If they can creep and crawl in the night, then why can't the police do like for like to catch them?
 
RolandRat said:
Ok going by the information above. US police can lie and say they have DNA evidence, witness statements and if you plead guilty. they'll make sure the sentence is reduced to nothing and then basically shout "sike" and send you down for what ever the actual tariff is? If this is the case, how is there not a bigger outcry? Why is this accepted?
Click to expand...

Not quite. Any information that is used to actually prosecute the case has to be verified and be truthful. The idea behind the Reid method is to gain a confession and it’s that confession (that was coerced in part by lying to the victim) that would then be used in a prosecution case. The USA pretty much gives the police free rein to lie and use other dishonest tactics to coerce a confession from a “suspect”.

The issues with the USA’s reliance on plea bargaining are related but separate issues.
 
Last edited:
RolandRat said:
Ok going by the information above. US police can lie and say they have DNA evidence, witness statements and if you plead guilty. they'll make sure the sentence is reduced to nothing and then basically shout "sike" and send you down for what ever the actual tariff is? If this is the case, how is there not a bigger outcry? Why is this accepted?
Click to expand...

You can't promise a lighter sentence as a cop. That gets worked out in a plea deal. The defense gets to challenge the legality of the confession and how the confession was obtained is part of a finding of fact for the jury. I suspect in most places you'd have some trouble if you said you had DNA evidence you didn't and that caused a defendant to confess. Some juries give more deference to the police than others. The confession would also have to conform to the facts of the crime. If you confessed to stabbing someone when they were shot, that's going to be a tough sell for a prosecutor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom