4 ms·

Wow, that's a very unusual case. I suppose the lesson is that confessions should always be investigated thoroughly for corroborating evidence. If a person commi

by s_q_b 13y ago

Wow, that's a very unusual case. I suppose the lesson is that confessions should always be investigated thoroughly for corroborating evidence. If a person committed a crime, they should be able to give details that only the criminal would know, or point in the direction of physical evidence. Obviously the police don't like to do that, because it negatively affects their ability to close the case. I've been thinking a lot about how many of the problems with abuse by some police and prosecutors, (many are good honorable people), result from optimization on the wrong metrics. Police are measured by clearing cases, and prosecutors by convictions and guilty pleas. Surely there's got to be a better way to score their performance that encourages more just outcomes.

mongol 13y ago
Yes this is very true. Claiming that Bergwall (=Quick) was guilty was a win-win-win-win situation - Bergwall got the drugs and the attention he craved - His lawyer got to represent the worst criminal in modern Swedish history - The doctors that were close to him at the hospital could make themselves names in the academic community in how successful they were in their methods of "retrieving" the hidden memories of Bergwall. - The lead police investigator got attention and recognition - The same with the prosecutor and so on. Few (or none) in the system had incentives to pull in the opposite direction.
mongol 13y ago
> If a person committed a crime, they should be able to give details that only the criminal would know, or point in the direction of physical evidence. Yes! And Bergwall's testimony was often wrong. He guessed for example what was the weapon he must have used. But when he was wrong, he got to "think harder", make another guess, and over time (months or years) he could piece together hints from his interrogators and eventually come up with a somewhat "correct" story vs what secret evidence the police knew. Such as if murderer was using a blunt weapon in the head vs a knife in the abdomen. It is surreal to read about it.

by s_q_b 13y ago

mongol 13y ago

Yes this is very true. Claiming that Bergwall (=Quick) was guilty was a win-win-win-win situation - Bergwall got the drugs and the attention he craved - His lawyer got to represent the worst criminal in modern Swedish history - The doctors that were close to him at the hospital could make themselves names in the academic community in how successful they were in their methods of "retrieving" the hidden memories of Bergwall. - The lead police investigator got attention and recognition - The same with the prosecutor and so on. Few (or none) in the system had incentives to pull in the opposite direction.

mongol 13y ago

> If a person committed a crime, they should be able to give details that only the criminal would know, or point in the direction of physical evidence. Yes! And Bergwall's testimony was often wrong. He guessed for example what was the weapon he must have used. But when he was wrong, he got to "think harder", make another guess, and over time (months or years) he could piece together hints from his interrogators and eventually come up with a somewhat "correct" story vs what secret evidence the police knew. Such as if murderer was using a blunt weapon in the head vs a knife in the abdomen. It is surreal to read about it.