4 ms·

There seems to be a lot of ignorance in this thread about interrogation techniques. The Toronto van killer interrogation is really instructive as to how the bes

by cal5k 5y ago

There seems to be a lot of ignorance in this thread about interrogation techniques. The Toronto van killer interrogation is really instructive as to how the best interrogators conduct themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyHgtSy41VM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyHgtSy41VM The suspect is repeatedly reminded of his right to counsel, given water, asked if he is hungry, etc. The intent here is to firmly establish that the suspect's rights have been respected - key to making sure the interrogation tapes are admissible in court. The interrogator then proceeds to tell a series of lies about his background and interests to build rapport with the suspect - he's clearly done his research beforehand to understand which buttons he needs to push. By the end of the two-hours-and-change video, Minassian has opened up and produced a confession so good that his defence counsel could only try to argue that he wasn't of sound mind. Not all interrogators are this skilled - this was a very high-profile case, so the Toronto Police deployed their best - but it seems obvious that better training rather than banning useful techniques would result in more favourable outcomes. There is still the issue of innocent people getting caught up in the system or admitting to crimes they didn't commit, but I'd suggest that there are better approaches like, once again, education of the public. You might be uncomfortable and scared for some period of time, but you do not have to talk to the police.

lostapathy 5y ago
> The interrogator then proceeds to tell a series of lies about his background and interests to build rapport with the suspect - he's clearly done his research beforehand to understand which buttons he needs to push. I feel like there's a fundamental difference between an interrogator lying about his own back story to build rapport and them lying about other evidence, witnesses or their authority to make a deal, etc.
- 55555 5y ago
  From what I've seen in the USA they normally lie about evidence and witnesses but they are careful to never lie explicitly about making a deal. That can apparently screw up the entire case, I think because of a supreme court decision.
- pugetsounds 5y ago
  The question then is: is that difference recognized in the recently passed law?
55555 5y ago
Note that -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- Canada has a weird system where the suspect isn't allowed to leave the interrogation (but surely there's a time limit?). I've seen videos where the suspect just sits silently while an interrogator mentally exhausts them by asking the same question over and over. I believe in America the suspect would either just leave the room or, if already in jail, go back to their cell.
- cal5k 5y ago
  Not a lawyer, but Canada's system differs in a few ways from the US. There's no right to have a lawyer present, only to speak to a lawyer (usually by phone). So you're on your own in the interrogation room. If you're not being charged with anything, you're not required to voluntarily show up for an interrogation. If you're detained, you can always ask "Am I free to leave?" and, if they answer yes, just walk out. Police are permitted to keep asking you the same question even if you repeatedly say "My lawyer has instructed me not to answer questions", but obviously there's a line where it will start to look abusive on the tape and where the interrogator will just get frustrated and end the interview. You can't be compelled to testify against yourself, but others can potentially be compelled to testify against you (on the condition that their testimony can't be used to incriminate them in the future).

by cal5k 5y ago

lostapathy 5y ago

> The interrogator then proceeds to tell a series of lies about his background and interests to build rapport with the suspect - he's clearly done his research beforehand to understand which buttons he needs to push. I feel like there's a fundamental difference between an interrogator lying about his own back story to build rapport and them lying about other evidence, witnesses or their authority to make a deal, etc.

55555 5y ago
From what I've seen in the USA they normally lie about evidence and witnesses but they are careful to never lie explicitly about making a deal. That can apparently screw up the entire case, I think because of a supreme court decision.
pugetsounds 5y ago
The question then is: is that difference recognized in the recently passed law?

55555 5y ago

Note that -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- Canada has a weird system where the suspect isn't allowed to leave the interrogation (but surely there's a time limit?). I've seen videos where the suspect just sits silently while an interrogator mentally exhausts them by asking the same question over and over. I believe in America the suspect would either just leave the room or, if already in jail, go back to their cell.

cal5k 5y ago
Not a lawyer, but Canada's system differs in a few ways from the US. There's no right to have a lawyer present, only to speak to a lawyer (usually by phone). So you're on your own in the interrogation room. If you're not being charged with anything, you're not required to voluntarily show up for an interrogation. If you're detained, you can always ask "Am I free to leave?" and, if they answer yes, just walk out. Police are permitted to keep asking you the same question even if you repeatedly say "My lawyer has instructed me not to answer questions", but obviously there's a line where it will start to look abusive on the tape and where the interrogator will just get frustrated and end the interview. You can't be compelled to testify against yourself, but others can potentially be compelled to testify against you (on the condition that their testimony can't be used to incriminate them in the future).