> There first has to be evidence to detain and interrogate someone in the first place. No there isn’t. The cops can just claim you were in the are- even if you

> There first has to be evidence to detain and interrogate someone in the first place. No there isn’t. The cops can just claim you were in the are- even if you weren’t. And no, “asleep in my bed because the crime happened at 3 am” happens to not be an alibi. > Judges and juries should demand that corroborating evidence is presented to show that confession confirmed aspects of the crime that were not publicly known. It’s actually possible to coerce someone into confessing with details not even they know of, with the police nudging them towards details of the case not publicly known. “No, you’re lying about killing him with handgun, it’s not a nicer way to kill someone’s than how you actually did it, you wanted to get up close and personal didn’t you”. > If someone is well aware that they will end up in prison if they "remember" something from teenager years and that they don't have to say anything / are free to go, they will be much less likely to play along vs a student who knows they are part of a study with no real life consequences. Okay, but a student also isn’t being held and gaslit well into the night with no sleep, food, or water, constantly told “if you just cooperate we can help you” (a complete lie) by the cops.