3 ms·
The US citizen in question was interrogated for more than 40 hours. I think its safe to say anybody will lie in that time frame intentionally or not.
by frockington1 7y ago
The US citizen in question was interrogated for more than 40 hours. I think its safe to say anybody will lie in that time frame intentionally or not.
- chmod775 7y agoI don't think you can lie accidentally (it wouldn't be lying), bit you'd have to convince a jury you just didn't know any better or misspoke.
- creaghpatr 7y agoMore likely you would be pressured to cooperate under a plea bargain to avoid getting Martha Stewart'd.
- zdragnar 7y agoYou don't have to lie, but a judge and /or jury need to be convinced that, when you said something that conflicted with some other evidence, you were lying. What you actually believe to be true doesn't matter.
- chmod775 7y agoThat's almost literally what I said?
- arminiusreturns 7y agoFor those who know, this is a standard fed tactic, and yes you absolutely can lie accidentally! Heres how it works: Interview the person multiple times, grilling them hard, using all the classic techniques. Repeat the exact same questions in each interview, interspersed with variations. When you don't get any confession or evidence from them, comb through the transcripts to find a place where the "exact same" questions have different answers. All it takes is a slight change, a slip of the memory, a slip of the tongue... Boom, now you can get them on "lying to the feds", and use that threat to leverage a plea deal or some other information. It is an abusive tactic used all the time. If I hear someone is getting caught on "lying to the feds" I assume it means the evidentiary case is extremely weak and thats all they can get.
- yonaguska 7y agoThe german film , The Lives of Others, captures this technique spectacularly.