The Interrogation

[Nick Odell]

I've never been either side of the desk in a real police interview so
the BBC Radio 4 drama series, The Interrogation, (
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08l5crh ) sounds authentic to me.

In the opinion of those who have more experience than me, is it
authentic? Might a budding miscreant or n'ere'dowell learn a few
survival techniques by listening in on Thursday afternoons?

Nick

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Nick Odell
I've never been either side of the desk in a real police interview so
the BBC Radio 4 drama series, The Interrogation, (
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08l5crh ) sounds authentic to me.
In the opinion of those who have more experience than me, is it
authentic? Might a budding miscreant or n'ere'dowell learn a few
survival techniques by listening in on Thursday afternoons?
Nick

Anyone who needs the help is probably incapable of realising they need
it :)

IMO most police interrogation techniques rely on levering the miscreants
sense of superiority.

A clever suspect would keep their mouth shut. But they rarely do.

Bodkin Adams springs to mind.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Jethro_uk
Anyone who needs the help is probably incapable of realising they need
it :)
IMO most police interrogation techniques rely on levering the miscreants
sense of superiority.

Really? I suspect they mostly rely on leveraging peoples'
vulnerability to being shouted at by scary men in uniform.

[tim...]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Jethro_uk
Anyone who needs the help is probably incapable of realising they need
it :)
IMO most police interrogation techniques rely on levering the miscreants
sense of superiority.

Really? I suspect they mostly rely on leveraging peoples'
vulnerability to being shouted at by scary men in uniform.

Has anybody else been watching "American Justice" on the Beeb.

It is noticeable that the (real life) scenes that they have shown of both
the court room examination and the police interrogation have been much more
relaxed and laid back than anything you see portrayed in TV drama (whether
US or UK drama)

Not the slightest bit confrontational at all.

tim

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Jethro_uk
Anyone who needs the help is probably incapable of realising they need
it :)
IMO most police interrogation techniques rely on levering the miscreants
sense of superiority.

Really? I suspect they mostly rely on leveraging peoples'
vulnerability to being shouted at by scary men in uniform.

If they're good they'll go through all the available techniques. Which of course would make them not good.


NT

[Roland Perry]

Post by Jethro_uk
IMO most police interrogation techniques rely on levering the miscreants
sense of superiority.

I hope this isn't an inappropriate question, but from which side of the
table have you seen it in action?

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jethro_uk
IMO most police interrogation techniques rely on levering the miscreants
sense of superiority.

I hope this isn't an inappropriate question, but from which side of the
table have you seen it in action?

I grew up amongst policemen, and heard a lot of tales. They had a
formative impact on my upbringing in that I firmly believe that
criminals, by choosing to be criminals haver demonstrated a less than
average intelligence (which the police generally seemed to believe).

[Roland Perry]

Post by Jethro_uk
I grew up amongst policemen, and heard a lot of tales. They had a
formative impact on my upbringing in that I firmly believe that
criminals, by choosing to be criminals haver demonstrated a less than
average intelligence (which the police generally seemed to believe).

Have you told that to the tinfoil hat brigade who insist that criminals
will instantly circumvent any technical measure measures to track/
intercept their online communications; and the other criminals busy
hacking the comms data warehouses (which I have no reason to suspect
they've been successful at, the last 15yrs since RIPA brought them into
prominence).

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jethro_uk
I grew up amongst policemen, and heard a lot of tales. They had a
formative impact on my upbringing in that I firmly believe that
criminals, by choosing to be criminals haver demonstrated a less than
average intelligence (which the police generally seemed to believe).

Have you told that to the tinfoil hat brigade who insist that criminals
will instantly circumvent any technical measure measures to track/
intercept their online communications; and the other criminals busy
hacking the comms data warehouses (which I have no reason to suspect
they've been successful at, the last 15yrs since RIPA brought them into
prominence).

Probably the most pernicious myth is that "criminals" form a
homogenous group.

Jethro's comment is generally true of what might be described as
common or garden criminals - the sort who burgle houses, ramraid shops
and steal cars. The people committing these crimes are often doing so
because they lack the nous to get a decent job. That's why
technological measures to combat them are, on the whole, very
effective - both burglary and vehicle crime have been significantly
reduced by better domestic and vehicle security.

However, it's generally not true of what's often termed "white collar"
crime. These are people who are intelligent enough to get a decent
job, and intelligent enough to modify their criminal behaviour in
order to combat detection and prevention techniques. A classic example
of this is illegal imagery (eg, child porn) - there's little evidence
that law enforcement is succesfully reducing the incidence of this
kind of crime. Far from it, in fact, the media headlines are all about
how it's getting worse.

Hacking, too, is a much misunderstood crime. The belief that "we
haven't been hacked yet, so we're safe" is one of the most dangerous
to hold. In reality, most major data breaches have not come from
highly targetted attacks from the outside, but from scattergun attacks
that just happen to trigger an unpatched vulnerability or from an
insider with legitimate access (or, at least, relatively easy
illegitimate access) to the material. The TalkTalk and TK Maxx
breaches were both in the former category, most of the stuff published
by Wikileaks is in the latter.

TalkTalk is actually a very good example of how a good security record
can lead to complacency. At the start of 2015, TalkTalk could have
boasted that it had been in operation for at least 15 years without a
data breach. By the end of that year, that reputation had been well
and truly trashed. And one of the key reasons it had been trashed was
that TalkTalk was still relying on systems that, by then, were well
out of date. Which, in turn, was because TalkTalk had a good record on
security, and was under the misapprehension that its defences were
tried and tested.

As the IRA used to put it, the hackers only have to be lucky once. The
defenders have to be lucky every time. I can't predict which
organisation will be the next major victim of a hack, or when it will
happen. But I know that it will. And I know that the organisation
which suffers it will almost certainly be one which is currently
telling people that it has a good track record of data security.

Mark

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jethro_uk
I grew up amongst policemen, and heard a lot of tales. They had a
formative impact on my upbringing in that I firmly believe that
criminals, by choosing to be criminals haver demonstrated a less than
average intelligence (which the police generally seemed to believe).

Have you told that to the tinfoil hat brigade who insist that criminals
will instantly circumvent any technical measure measures to track/
intercept their online communications; and the other criminals busy
hacking the comms data warehouses (which I have no reason to suspect
they've been successful at, the last 15yrs since RIPA brought them into
prominence).

Probably the most pernicious myth is that "criminals" form a homogenous
group.
Jethro's comment is generally true of what might be described as common
or garden criminals - the sort who burgle houses, ramraid shops and
steal cars. The people committing these crimes are often doing so
because they lack the nous to get a decent job. That's why technological
measures to combat them are, on the whole, very effective - both
burglary and vehicle crime have been significantly reduced by better
domestic and vehicle security.

Kinda my point ;) .. Also it's not that they lack the nous to get a job -
they could easily. Maybe not a well paid job. But then the "pay" from
crime is well below minimum wage when you factor in the hours of prison
you will pay for it with. And if you don't get caught, you are still
imprisoned by the possibility that one day you might be.

Despite my Fathers vehement antipathy to wasting 2 years doing national
service (not in the UK) he said it made more sense than spending the rest
of his life on the run.

However, it's generally not true of what's often termed "white collar"
crime. These are people who are intelligent enough to get a decent job,
and intelligent enough to modify their criminal behaviour in order to
combat detection and prevention techniques. A classic example of this is
illegal imagery (eg, child porn) - there's little evidence that law
enforcement is succesfully reducing the incidence of this kind of crime.
Far from it, in fact, the media headlines are all about how it's getting
worse.

There's also the fact that "crime" is only what society says it is. I'm a
little wary of "crimes" where the main - if not only "victim" is peoples
sensibilities.

[Roger Hayter]

snip

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Mark Goodge
However, it's generally not true of what's often termed "white collar"
crime. These are people who are intelligent enough to get a decent job,
and intelligent enough to modify their criminal behaviour in order to
combat detection and prevention techniques. A classic example of this is
illegal imagery (eg, child porn) - there's little evidence that law
enforcement is succesfully reducing the incidence of this kind of crime.
Far from it, in fact, the media headlines are all about how it's getting
worse.

There's also the fact that "crime" is only what society says it is. I'm a
little wary of "crimes" where the main - if not only "victim" is peoples
sensibilities.

What about Hoogstraten and quite a number of slum landlords in the days
of rent control? And people like Trump who have never had to do more
than pay a fine they could afford?

[Janet]

In article <obl9g3$22l$***@dont-email.me>, ***@hotmailbin.com
says...

Post by Jethro_uk
Kinda my point ;) .. Also it's not that they lack the nous to get a job -
they could easily. Maybe not a well paid job.

??? It's apparent from media reports that some convicted criminals are
highly educated, and have a successful, well-paid professional career.

Which makes one wonder how many high-IQ, highly educated professionals
in well-paid careers and businesses, get away with a life of crime.

Is this a reflection on the relative intelligence of police officers
who are earning far less?

Janet.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jethro_uk
I grew up amongst policemen, and heard a lot of tales. They had a
formative impact on my upbringing in that I firmly believe that
criminals, by choosing to be criminals haver demonstrated a less than
average intelligence (which the police generally seemed to believe).

Have you told that to the tinfoil hat brigade who insist that criminals
will instantly circumvent any technical measure measures to track/
intercept their online communications; and the other criminals busy
hacking the comms data warehouses (which I have no reason to suspect
they've been successful at, the last 15yrs since RIPA brought them into
prominence).

Probably the most pernicious myth is that "criminals" form a
homogenous group.
Jethro's comment is generally true of what might be described as
common or garden criminals - the sort who burgle houses, ramraid shops
and steal cars. The people committing these crimes are often doing so
because they lack the nous to get a decent job. That's why
technological measures to combat them are, on the whole, very
effective - both burglary and vehicle crime have been significantly
reduced by better domestic and vehicle security.

"Low-functioning psychopaths end up in jail; smart ones end up in
boardrooms."

Post by Mark Goodge
However, it's generally not true of what's often termed "white collar"
crime. These are people who are intelligent enough to get a decent
job, and intelligent enough to modify their criminal behaviour in
order to combat detection and prevention techniques. A classic example
of this is illegal imagery (eg, child porn) - there's little evidence
that law enforcement is succesfully reducing the incidence of this
kind of crime. Far from it, in fact, the media headlines are all about
how it's getting worse.

Is there real evidence that illegal imagery is getting worse, or is
just the media (especially the right-wing media) playing it up?
There's also the matter of UK law's "thoughtcrime" extensions to the
definitions of illegal imagery.

[Harry Bloomfield]

Post by Adam Funk
Is there real evidence that illegal imagery is getting worse, or is
just the media (especially the right-wing media) playing it up?
There's also the matter of UK law's "thoughtcrime" extensions to the
definitions of illegal imagery.

IMHO It got much easier and mushroomed with the availability of the
Internet, but it also made it easier for them to be caught too.

The likes of the Jimmy Savile case, brought a whole raft of similar
cases out of the woodwork. I knew JS from the early 70's, but had no
idea what was going on at all.

Are things getting worse or better? It has always gone on and it always
will.

[GB]

Post by Harry Bloomfield
It has always gone on and it always
will.

Too right! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abishag

Abishag was 12 years old at the time. This was not hidden in any way -
she was chosen through a sort of national beauty contest.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Mark Goodge
Probably the most pernicious myth is that "criminals" form a
homogenous group.
Jethro's comment is generally true of what might be described as
common or garden criminals - the sort who burgle houses, ramraid shops
and steal cars. The people committing these crimes are often doing so
because they lack the nous to get a decent job. That's why
technological measures to combat them are, on the whole, very
effective - both burglary and vehicle crime have been significantly
reduced by better domestic and vehicle security.

"Low-functioning psychopaths end up in jail; smart ones end up in
boardrooms."

There's some truth in that. Intelligent evil people don't need to
resort to crime. There are enough legal opportunities for them to be
evil. Although it's a bit of an unfair stereotype to suggest they all
end up in business (or politics, the other common target of such
accusations). There are plenty of other career opportunities for the
malevolently competant.

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Mark Goodge
However, it's generally not true of what's often termed "white collar"
crime. These are people who are intelligent enough to get a decent
job, and intelligent enough to modify their criminal behaviour in
order to combat detection and prevention techniques. A classic example
of this is illegal imagery (eg, child porn) - there's little evidence
that law enforcement is succesfully reducing the incidence of this
kind of crime. Far from it, in fact, the media headlines are all about
how it's getting worse.

Is there real evidence that illegal imagery is getting worse, or is
just the media (especially the right-wing media) playing it up?
There's also the matter of UK law's "thoughtcrime" extensions to the
definitions of illegal imagery.

I'm not sure. My impression is that it is genuinely getting worse, but
I also have a hunch that it's being made worse by misguided attempts
to deal with it. I know that justice needs to be seen to be done, and
all that, but it does also occur to me that too much publicity of the
fight against certain material may only serve to encourage some people
to seek it out.

Mark

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Mark Goodge
There's some truth in that. Intelligent evil people don't need to
resort to crime. There are enough legal opportunities for them to be
evil. Although it's a bit of an unfair stereotype to suggest they all
end up in business (or politics, the other common target of such
accusations). There are plenty of other career opportunities for the
malevolently competant.

If you're competent but evil, business is where you get lots of money.
Politics is where you get lots of power. (Not sure where the
malevolent but evil go if they mainly want lots of sex...)

Taking two fields I've been in myself: academia and engineering are
good ways to get job satisfaction if you like that kind of thing, but
that's less attractive to the evil. They're not particularly good
ways to get rich or powerful.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Ian Jackson
Politics is where you get lots of power.

That's really only true at the very bottom, or at the very top. There
are plenty of parish councils that are effectively personal fiefdoms
of controlling individuals who find fulfilment in being the biggest
fish in a small pond. The wide mid-range of politics
(district/county/UA councillors, MPs, AMs and MEPs) is more notable
for how little real power any individual has.

Post by Ian Jackson
(Not sure where the
malevolent but evil go if they mainly want lots of sex...)

Entertainment. Or schools.

Mark

[Adam Funk]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Mark Goodge
There's some truth in that. Intelligent evil people don't need to
resort to crime. There are enough legal opportunities for them to be
evil. Although it's a bit of an unfair stereotype to suggest they all
end up in business (or politics, the other common target of such
accusations). There are plenty of other career opportunities for the
malevolently competant.

If you're competent but evil, business is where you get lots of money.
Politics is where you get lots of power. (Not sure where the
malevolent but evil go if they mainly want lots of sex...)

You can get lots of money out of politics too, after a while --- just
privatize an industry & get a "fat cat" job in it later.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Mark Goodge
Jethro's comment is generally true of what might be described as
common or garden criminals - the sort who burgle houses, ramraid shops
and steal cars. The people committing these crimes are often doing so
because they lack the nous to get a decent job. That's why
technological measures to combat them are, on the whole, very
effective - both burglary and vehicle crime have been significantly
reduced by better domestic and vehicle security.
However, it's generally not true of what's often termed "white collar"
crime. These are people who are intelligent enough to get a decent
job, and intelligent enough to modify their criminal behaviour in
order to combat detection and prevention techniques. A classic example
of this is illegal imagery (eg, child porn) - there's little evidence
that law enforcement is succesfully reducing the incidence of this
kind of crime. Far from it, in fact, the media headlines are all about
how it's getting worse.

That's a complicated equation, with many factors at play, including:

o The amplifier effect of the Internet (and Moores Law) making the
material easier to distribute and easier to download and collect.

o The increasing sophistication of technical measures to detect the
material - including for example the IWF's project to study "masking
and breadcrumbing".

o More co-operation between those discovering material, those taking the
reports, and the dissemination to relevant law enforcement.

Little wonder that when you take a peek under the carpet, the more you
lift it, the more you find swept underneath.

I was reminded today of the lack of institutional memory that causes
many of the issues on the Internet by today's story about airBNB (which
I thought was going to be about pop-up brothels, but wasn't) where they
have "suddenly discovered" the need to implement better account-takeover
procedures, a topic which has been trailed dozens of times on other
platforms.

Thus the all of the issues to do with ICT-amplified distribution of
child abuse images has been headline news since the French Letter of
August 1996, and understood about for longer than that.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jethro_uk
I grew up amongst policemen, and heard a lot of tales. They had a
formative impact on my upbringing in that I firmly believe that
criminals, by choosing to be criminals haver demonstrated a less than
average intelligence (which the police generally seemed to believe).

Have you told that to the tinfoil hat brigade who insist that criminals
will instantly circumvent any technical measure measures to track/
intercept their online communications; and the other criminals busy
hacking the comms data warehouses (which I have no reason to suspect
they've been successful at, the last 15yrs since RIPA brought them into
prominence).

AMI, where did the Russians get the Democratic Party emails from?

[Roland Perry]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jethro_uk
I grew up amongst policemen, and heard a lot of tales. They had a
formative impact on my upbringing in that I firmly believe that
criminals, by choosing to be criminals haver demonstrated a less than
average intelligence (which the police generally seemed to believe).

Have you told that to the tinfoil hat brigade who insist that criminals
will instantly circumvent any technical measure measures to track/
intercept their online communications; and the other criminals busy
hacking the comms data warehouses (which I have no reason to suspect
they've been successful at, the last 15yrs since RIPA brought them into
prominence).

AMI, where did the Russians get the Democratic Party emails from?

Not from a UK-based comms data warehouse (they don't have any content
stored anyway).

Perhaps the enquiry will say it leaked from private Democrat Party
servers. Or it could be a re-run similar to:

..."the Palin hack didn't require any real skill. Instead, the
hacker simply reset Palin's password using her birthdate, ZIP
code and information about where she met her spouse - the
security question on her Yahoo account, which was answered
(Wasilla High) by a simple Google search."

[Jethro_uk]

information about where she met her spouse - the security
question on her Yahoo account

You see my memorable answer has nothing to do with the question ...
especially my mothers maiden name, which is *&hl@-976J ...

[Roland Perry]

Post by Jethro_uk

information about where she met her spouse - the security
question on her Yahoo account

You see my memorable answer has nothing to do with the question ...

Dangerously close to off-topic, unless we treat it as a comment about
DPA Principle 7 compliance; but anyone answering such questions with
truthful answers needs their bumps feeling.

[Janet]

In article <obl1mu$22l$***@dont-email.me>, ***@hotmailbin.com
says...

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jethro_uk
IMO most police interrogation techniques rely on levering the miscreants
sense of superiority.

I hope this isn't an inappropriate question, but from which side of the
table have you seen it in action?

I grew up amongst policemen, and heard a lot of tales. They had a
formative impact on my upbringing in that I firmly believe that
criminals, by choosing to be criminals haver demonstrated a less than
average intelligence (which the police generally seemed to believe).

If criminals are less intelligent than policemen, how come they
haven't all been caught and locked up?

Janet.

[Harry Bloomfield]

Post by Janet
If criminals are less intelligent than policemen, how come they
haven't all been caught and locked up?

Luck, skill, not worth the expendature of catching them.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Janet

Post by Jethro_uk
I grew up amongst policemen, and heard a lot of tales. They had a
formative impact on my upbringing in that I firmly believe that
criminals, by choosing to be criminals haver demonstrated a less than
average intelligence (which the police generally seemed to believe).

If criminals are less intelligent than policemen, how come they
haven't all been caught and locked up?

Two big reasons: police are overworked, and other criminals close ranks
and don't squeal.

[Paul Cummins]

Post by Janet
If criminals are less intelligent than policemen, how come they
haven't all been caught and locked up?

and why are there (ex) policemen with criminal convictions?

[James Heaton]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Nick Odell
I've never been either side of the desk in a real police interview so
the BBC Radio 4 drama series, The Interrogation, (
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08l5crh ) sounds authentic to me.
In the opinion of those who have more experience than me, is it
authentic? Might a budding miscreant or n'ere'dowell learn a few
survival techniques by listening in on Thursday afternoons?
Nick

Anyone who needs the help is probably incapable of realising they need
it :)
IMO most police interrogation techniques rely on levering the miscreants
sense of superiority.
A clever suspect would keep their mouth shut. But they rarely do.
Bodkin Adams springs to mind.

Wasn't he eventually acquitted?

James

[Jethro_uk]

Post by James Heaton

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Nick Odell
I've never been either side of the desk in a real police interview so
the BBC Radio 4 drama series, The Interrogation, (
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08l5crh ) sounds authentic to me.
In the opinion of those who have more experience than me, is it
authentic? Might a budding miscreant or n'ere'dowell learn a few
survival techniques by listening in on Thursday afternoons?
Nick

Anyone who needs the help is probably incapable of realising they need
it :)
IMO most police interrogation techniques rely on levering the
miscreants sense of superiority.
A clever suspect would keep their mouth shut. But they rarely do.
Bodkin Adams springs to mind.

Wasn't he eventually acquitted?
James

He was, and AIUI the case was noteworthy as he declined to enter the
witness box, and therefore could not be cross-examined by the prosecution.

As it happened, it was considered lunacy. But in hindsight, not putting
yourself up for questioning has a certain sense to it.

Remember, the *prosecution* have to prove your guilt. You do not have to
prove your innocence.

There was a period when the accused was not allowed to speak in court at
all.

[Handsome Jack]

Post by Nick Odell
I've never been either side of the desk in a real police interview so
the BBC Radio 4 drama series, The Interrogation, (
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08l5crh ) sounds authentic to me.
In the opinion of those who have more experience than me, is it
authentic?

I heard one yesterday afternoon. The interrogation began with the
officers calling the suspect a liar and urging her to confess, and ended
in her being charged with murder.

No solicitor was present at any point. That struck me as (to put it
mildly) highly unlikely.

[Nick Odell]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Nick Odell
I've never been either side of the desk in a real police interview so
the BBC Radio 4 drama series, The Interrogation, (
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08l5crh ) sounds authentic to me.
In the opinion of those who have more experience than me, is it
authentic?

I heard one yesterday afternoon. The interrogation began with the
officers calling the suspect a liar and urging her to confess, and ended
in her being charged with murder.
No solicitor was present at any point. That struck me as (to put it
mildly) highly unlikely.

At the beginning she was cautioned, told she was not under arrest and
was asked if she wanted a duty solicitor. She declined saying she
didn't need one as she had not done anything wrong: a response all
good readers of ulm would have been wary of but one, I gather, is
fairly common.

Nick

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Nick Odell

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Nick Odell
I've never been either side of the desk in a real police interview so
the BBC Radio 4 drama series, The Interrogation, (
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08l5crh ) sounds authentic to me.
In the opinion of those who have more experience than me, is it
authentic?

I heard one yesterday afternoon. The interrogation began with the
officers calling the suspect a liar and urging her to confess, and ended
in her being charged with murder.
No solicitor was present at any point. That struck me as (to put it
mildly) highly unlikely.

At the beginning she was cautioned, told she was not under arrest and
was asked if she wanted a duty solicitor. She declined saying she didn't
need one as she had not done anything wrong: a response all good readers
of ulm would have been wary of but one, I gather, is fairly common.
Nick

US based, but *very* interesting. A lot of very good points.

[Handsome Jack]

Post by Nick Odell

Post by Handsome Jack
I heard one yesterday afternoon. The interrogation began with the
officers calling the suspect a liar and urging her to confess, and ended
in her being charged with murder.
No solicitor was present at any point. That struck me as (to put it
mildly) highly unlikely.

At the beginning she was cautioned, told she was not under arrest and
was asked if she wanted a duty solicitor. She declined saying she
didn't need one as she had not done anything wrong: a response all
good readers of ulm would have been wary of but one, I gather, is
fairly common.

Ah, I missed the beginning. However, I would be surprised to hear that
someone suspected murder is not *required* to have a solicitor present
at the interrogation.

[The Todal]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Nick Odell

Post by Handsome Jack
I heard one yesterday afternoon. The interrogation began with the
officers calling the suspect a liar and urging her to confess, and ended
in her being charged with murder.
No solicitor was present at any point. That struck me as (to put it
mildly) highly unlikely.

At the beginning she was cautioned, told she was not under arrest and
was asked if she wanted a duty solicitor. She declined saying she
didn't need one as she had not done anything wrong: a response all
good readers of ulm would have been wary of but one, I gather, is
fairly common.

Ah, I missed the beginning. However, I would be surprised to hear that
someone suspected murder is not *required* to have a solicitor present
at the interrogation.

The most ridiculous aspect of this fictional entertainment was that
having talked her into making a confession the detectives end by saying
"we need to make a statement, a recorded one".

So - if it was real life - she would then claim that the unrecorded
confession had been fabricated, and the police officers would be asked
why on earth they had wasted all that time getting a confession that
hadn't been recorded.

[The Todal]

Post by Nick Odell
I've never been either side of the desk in a real police interview so
the BBC Radio 4 drama series, The Interrogation, (
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08l5crh ) sounds authentic to me.
In the opinion of those who have more experience than me, is it
authentic? Might a budding miscreant or n'ere'dowell learn a few
survival techniques by listening in on Thursday afternoons?

I listened to one episode, "Beverley". I found it boring and not in the
least authentic. The suspect is cautioned but the interview is not
taped. The objective of the interview is to elicit a confession from a
suspect who initially seems to be so garrulous that she might be
mentally ill or mentally defective, and who chats to the police as if
they were trustworthy friends despite knowing that she has done
something wrong.

In real life, people clam up and refuse to talk. In real life, people
don't expose their thoughts and feelings to strangers, especially not to
police officers whom they have only just met.

I didn't feel inclined to listen to any more episodes. Maybe someone
will tell me that there is a particularly worthwhile episode that I
should listen to.