25-12-2023, 10:05 AM
2 little girls murdered at a park.
Initial evidence looked very convincing. Suspect had criminal record was the father of one of the girls. He had a quarrel with the girl's mother witnessed by neighbors. When they tried to intervene, he took out a chainsaw to theeaten them. Later his daughter and daughter's friend would go missing. A search party was organised to find them but couldn't. Later the suspect went out to look for them and found the bodies by a bush.
Police took him in and questioned him for 20 hours. He would later confess to killing the 2 girls out of anger due to earlier quarrel with his wife. His confession was recorded on video and a signed statement.
It seems like an open and shut case and more than enough evidence to convict him.
However. he ad a good lawyer who looked at the case and found new evidence and went to the police. The police refused to consider the evidence as they had a strong case. The actual murderer went on to commit 2 more murders before he was caught and DNA evidence linked him to the killing of the 2 girls.
The case caught national.attention and resulted in a debate on the way confessions are extracted from suspects.
In the US the interrogation rules are very strict already you cannot threaten or beat up the suspect. Yet they were able to extract what turned out to be a false confession..
In Singapore the interrogation rules are much less restrictive and the interrogation can pile enormous pressure on the suspect
Often investigators want a confession when there isn't enough corroborating evidence. The suspect if guilty knowing the police does not have sufficient evidence will not voluntarily supply a confession. The only way is to coerce through long interrogation or various tactics. It is possible such tactic lead to false confessions.
Initial evidence looked very convincing. Suspect had criminal record was the father of one of the girls. He had a quarrel with the girl's mother witnessed by neighbors. When they tried to intervene, he took out a chainsaw to theeaten them. Later his daughter and daughter's friend would go missing. A search party was organised to find them but couldn't. Later the suspect went out to look for them and found the bodies by a bush.
Police took him in and questioned him for 20 hours. He would later confess to killing the 2 girls out of anger due to earlier quarrel with his wife. His confession was recorded on video and a signed statement.
It seems like an open and shut case and more than enough evidence to convict him.
However. he ad a good lawyer who looked at the case and found new evidence and went to the police. The police refused to consider the evidence as they had a strong case. The actual murderer went on to commit 2 more murders before he was caught and DNA evidence linked him to the killing of the 2 girls.
The case caught national.attention and resulted in a debate on the way confessions are extracted from suspects.
In the US the interrogation rules are very strict already you cannot threaten or beat up the suspect. Yet they were able to extract what turned out to be a false confession..
In Singapore the interrogation rules are much less restrictive and the interrogation can pile enormous pressure on the suspect
Often investigators want a confession when there isn't enough corroborating evidence. The suspect if guilty knowing the police does not have sufficient evidence will not voluntarily supply a confession. The only way is to coerce through long interrogation or various tactics. It is possible such tactic lead to false confessions.
I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.