Are lies as good as a confession in criminal cases

Every detective loves a good confession.  On one such occasion I took Detective Inspector Steve Rutherford with me on an early morning search warrant.  We both knew the target and Steve asked me what I thought his reaction would be to our visit.  I told Steve that I thought he would confess his crimes to me.

When we arrived at the address the target came to the front door and asked why we had both turned up.  I replied, “When Steve Rutherford and I turn up on your doorstop at 6am with a search warrant, your day is probably not going to end well!”

We were invited inside this typical South Auckland home and I went through the formalities of persons under search warrants including outlining our reasons for the search.  I followed it up with a simple question – “Did you do it?”  The target replied “I’ve got too much respect for you to lie, yes I did”. 

It was almost a ‘fair cop guv’ type of answer and proved me right in my assessment of the target.  But what happens when the crook lies?  In my experience lies from a criminal are better than a confession, particularly when they are played out in front of a jury.

For a starter, with confessions the defence case becomes focussed on muddying the waters by playing the man and not the ball.  This often means defence attack the detective’s credibility trying to portray the criminal as a victim of the nasty policeman, thus confessing.  Secondly, with confessions detectives place reliance on them and if they are later ruled inadmissible it can dent the crown case.  Lastly confessions often become a factor in appeals after the criminal’s conviction. 

I loved it when the criminal would think he was much smarter than he actually was, and tell lies.  The thing about lies is that they have a way of unravelling, particularly when challenged in court by corroborated evidence.  On one such occasion I arrested a drug dealer after finding drugs in a brief case which found in a garage on his property. At interview, the drug dealer denied the brief case was his and furthermore advised the garage was used by a wide variety of people as a doss house for indigent relatives.  Ergo the briefcase (and drugs it contained) could belong to anyone. 

There was an inconvenient truth that he had not remembered, the briefcase also contained a diary which contained notations relating to his brother’s death and unveiling and the birthdays of his children.  At a jury trial he maintained his innocence and had to give evidence to back up his assertion that the briefcase was not his.  

After his evidence in chief the crown prosecutor asked him to view the diary and he swore again that he had never seen it before in his life.  He was asked “did you have a brother Peter, who died?”  “Yes”, he replied.  “On what date did he die?”  “20th April came the reply….” “A year later did you have an unveiling for Peter?” the crown asked.  “Yes” was the reply.  “Please open the diary and turn to the date of 20 April, he was asked.  “What is the notation in the diary?”  “Please read it out loud so the jury can hear it”.  You could see the sweat forming on this man’s brow at 50 paces.  The criminal read from the diary “Peter’s unveiling held at ...”.  The crown went onto cross examine this bright spark about the names and dates of birth for his three children.  The diary had all three children’s names and dates of birth noted on correct dates.   These and other facts in the diary related to this criminal, led to his being found guilty by the jury.

Such lies when proven to be so by corroborated evidence are better than a confession.  They are never attacked by defence counsel who are normally too embarrassed about their client’s idiocy to raise concerns.   An accused person’s lies make them look silly and with something to hide.  Lastly they always provide plenty of anticipatory mirth by detectives who know what’s coming when the lie unravels before the jury.  Juries don’t let themselves look stupid by accepting the lies either. 

In my opinion, a criminal’s lies are better than a confession and undoubtedly lead to more convictions at trials than often challenged confessions.    

Mark of a good mentor - by Dave Pizzini

The Mark of a Good Mentor

One of my mentors as a budding young detective was my first Detective Senior Sergeant; the late John Hughes. He became a household name in 1989 as the officer who led Operation Stockholm, the investigation into the disappearance and murders of Swedish backpackers Heidi Paakkonen and Urban Hoglin. Two things he taught me were; “if you do the basics and do them well you will get the right result” and “ATD – Attention to Detail”.

One case where these principles served me well was the investigation into the abduction and rape of a young women taken from her bed in a Papatoetoe street during the early hours of a Sunday morning. Both the victim and her boyfriend were assaulted, gagged and tied up, and she was driven away by the two assailants to a beach at Weymouth. The offenders discussed the disposal of her body. Thankfully the victim was able to escape. Her car was found burnt out next to an alleyway in Manurewa. Accelerants were used.

The enquiry was set up under homicide investigation protocols. My team was called in a few days later. We were assigned “General Enquiries”. Evidence gathered during the first 24 hours of such an investigation forms the basis of further enquiry phases. One area of focus for us was a party on the night of the abduction in the same street; and another was collecting CCTV footage of small purchases of petrol from local service stations.

While my team pursued those phases I sought to review the crime scene evidence to see what other phases should be considered. Paper work for the abduction scene examination had not been submitted, so I asked the detective concerned whether he found anything of interest. He opened his desk drawer, pulled out an envelope and showed me the head of a men’s watch found on the victim’s bedroom floor. He said it did not belong to the Victim’s partner. Nothing else of interest was found, so I was told.

I arranged access to the house and completed my own scene examination. In the garden under the window used by the offenders to gain entry I found several remnants of Steinlager labels and cigarette butts. Inside I crawled under the bed and found two pins; the sort that connects the head of a watch to its strap.  

By this time my team had interviewed the party hosts. They reported two gate-crashers who drank Steinlager and caused trouble. One guest commented about their habit of peeling off labels. We got a lucky break. The gate-crashers were shown in photographs taken by guests.

Our enquiries at a service station also produced fruit. We had CCTV footage of a man buying a tin of petrol at right time who bore a remarkable resemblance to one of the party gate-crashers and his clothing. Further enquiries identified this person and his mate.

We executed search warrants on their homes. I was in charge of searching one of our suspect’s home located 50 metres from the other end of the alleyway where the victim’s car was found. While the team were searching and interviewing family members I flicked through the family photograph album in the lounge. In it were photographs taken of the suspect’s father displaying watches he bought as gifts for his sons at a street market in Glasgow while visiting his mother for her 80th birthday. 

I later met the suspect’s father who made a statement identifying the watch as one he gave his son upon returning from his trip to Scotland. He was a decent and honourable man knowing the significance of his testimony.

Both offenders pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and received minimum non-parole sentences of 11 and 13 years imprisonment. By doing so they spared victim the ordeal of testifying.

Criminal investigations and trials are often referred to as jig saw puzzles. It is the task of detectives to find the pieces for a jury to later fit together. This can only be achieved by doing the basics, such as examining scenes and doing those basic enquiry phases well. More often than not this is painstaking and meticulous work. In the end our evidence was so over whelming a jury was not required. Nor was DNA analysis of the cigarette butts.

There were many times during my career that I reflected on the mentoring advice I received from John Hughes and others of his generation. They taught us well in the art and practice of investigating serious crime. My hope is that I was able to pass on similar wise counsel to the next generation of investigators.

Dave Pizzini   

Sensing murder and direct line to heaven

Sensing murder or dead set useless….. (direct line to heaven)

There will always be people in society who want to believe in psychics. No amount of rational discussion, facts or other evidence will change their minds.  I’ve learnt over the years to appreciate and embrace the differences that a diverse population brings to us all.   

Last week the NZ Herald led with an article about a television programme - Sensing Murder.  The essence of the article was that the programme had run 39 times and never found a useful piece of evidence. 

Over the years in police I have been involved in many homicide investigations.  As an investigative tool, psychics are dead set useless.  From a personal perspective, I found this programme to be overly dramatized and very boring.

As Officer in Charge of various homicides my name would be in the media frequently.  As a result I would regularly receive letters from a number of different psychics who would profess to know where the bodies were buried or a location that had compelling evidence to help solve the case.

One such psychic contacted me quite regularly by post.  I would never give these people oxygen by replying to them.  During one such investigation the psychic wrote to me about the murder and provided some guidance to solving it.  Of course it was nonsense and the ideas from the psychic had nothing whatsoever to do with the evidence or any facts related to the investigation.   What was of more interest was that the psychic had been in touch with my mother – on the other side.  My mother apparently wanted me to know that she was fine and looking out for me and my brother. 

On this occasion I was tempted to reply and let the psychic know that if I wanted to get in touch with my mother, I would just pick up the phone and speak to her.  And no I didn’t have a direct line to heaven.  Common sense prevailed and this letter, along with the many others I had received over my career, all went the same way.