Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1 and 2

[Ragnar]

Yeah, yeah... I know! There is like 48 minutes of info here and that's like the internet equivalent of infinity. However it is well worth the investment. If your interested, try and remember it's here or just save the vids in your YT account until you have time to check them out. FYI- the cop does not talk nearly as fast as the lawyer. Anywho, just passing this along in case any USMBer wants to check it out.

Take it from a lawyer...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik]YouTube - Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1[/ame]

Or, take it from a police officer...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE]YouTube - Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2[/ame]

In case you didn't quite follow it all, I'll sum it up for ya. Do. Not. Talk. To. Cops.

 

[strollingbones]

okay i am not investing an hour in something you could bottom line....


dont talk to cops about what.....

i am in a 25 zone doing 30 when i run up on a highway patrol man....i brake and all...showing respect and he pulls out...i am like o here we go..and sure enough he hits the blue light.....so he is walking up to the window and i go..."i was really trying to do 25" his reply "i didnt pull you for speeding" i shut up

 

[Ragnar]

okay i am not investing an hour in something you could bottom line....


dont talk to cops about what.....

i am in a 25 zone doing 30 when i run up on a highway patrol man....i brake and all...showing respect and he pulls out...i am like o here we go..and sure enough he hits the blue light.....so he is walking up to the window and i go..."i was really trying to do 25" his reply "i didnt pull you for speeding" i shut up

Just a heads up for all. I'm not investing in response or debate with those so incurious as to not even watch at least one of the vids. (fwiw, if you watch part one, you will want to watch the other) ... (nothing against you HB)

I know it's a lot to digest. So, watch it on your own time if you care to or skip it alltogether. No harm no foul. I think it's a worthwhile educational investment and it's free to all. Take that for what it's worth.

The main point is to just put this out for those who might think it useful. Weather or not this thread goes anywhere is irrelevant to me, I just hope it gets some views. (sorry for not saying this stuff in the OP folks)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If suspected of something never talk to cops. They can and will hear what they want to hear. Cops decide ahead of time what happened in every case and then go about proving what they have decided happened. Get a lawyer.

Cops are allowed to lie to you at all stages of talking to you.

If you are not a suspect there is nothing wrong with talking to cops.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

okay i am not investing an hour in something you could bottom line....


dont talk to cops about what.....

i am in a 25 zone doing 30 when i run up on a highway patrol man....i brake and all...showing respect and he pulls out...i am like o here we go..and sure enough he hits the blue light.....so he is walking up to the window and i go..."i was really trying to do 25" his reply "i didnt pull you for speeding" i shut up

Anything ever.

 

[George Costanza]

Just a heads up for all. I'm not investing in response or debate with those so incurious as to not even watch at least one of the vids. (fwiw, if you watch part one, you will want to watch the other) ... (nothing against you HB)

I know it's a lot to digest. So, watch it on your own time if you care to or skip it alltogether. No harm no foul. I think it's a worthwhile educational investment and it's free to all. Take that for what it's worth.

The main point is to just put this out for those who might think it useful. Weather or not this thread goes anywhere is irrelevant to me, I just hope it gets some views. (sorry for not saying this stuff in the OP folks)

I don't think this most worthwhile thread is going to get much response - at least not from those of the "if I'm innocent, I have nothing to hide" crowd. Because what can they say in response to the type of penetrating truth that appears on both of these videos.

OK - a few comments. In Part I, the law professor says that exculpatory statements made to police cannot be used by the defense at trial, since they are hearsay, while incriminating statements can be introduced by the prosecution. Technically, this is correct, but practially speaking, the professor is wrong. If the prosecution introduces a confession given to police during police interrogation, the defense is then allowed to introduce exculpatory statements made by the defendant as part of the same interview in which the confession was given. This is the so-called "complete statement" rule that is codified in most states which says that when one side introduces only part of a conversation or a communication, the other side is allowed to introduce other parts of the same conversation or communication. The rule is designed to prevent "cherry picking" of parts of a communication by one side, without allowing the other side to show that more was said than merely what the opponent introduced.

Most of the material presented is based upon the idea that people can unwittingly implicate themselves in a crime they did not commit. That, of course, is quite true. I was a little disappointed that they did not cover another, even darker, aspect of the problem, which is that of the police lying to a suspect about his exposure and implying that if he will only confess, things will go much better for him. The cop did mention at the very end that they are allowed to lie to suspects, but I think they could have gone into that in much more detail.

Pretty good stuff here. I have seen this set of videos before, but I watched them all the way through once again.

I doubt that they will have much effect on our "law and order" crowd - but who knows? Thaks for this thread. I will watch with interest to see what follows.

 

[ConHog]

Just a heads up for all. I'm not investing in response or debate with those so incurious as to not even watch at least one of the vids. (fwiw, if you watch part one, you will want to watch the other) ... (nothing against you HB)

I know it's a lot to digest. So, watch it on your own time if you care to or skip it alltogether. No harm no foul. I think it's a worthwhile educational investment and it's free to all. Take that for what it's worth.

The main point is to just put this out for those who might think it useful. Weather or not this thread goes anywhere is irrelevant to me, I just hope it gets some views. (sorry for not saying this stuff in the OP folks)

I don't think this most worthwhile thread is going to get much response - at least not from those of the "if I'm innocent, I have nothing to hide" crowd. Because what can they say in response to the type of penetrating truth that appears on both of these videos.

OK - a few comments. In Part I, the law professor says that exculpatory statements made to police cannot be used by the defense at trial, since they are hearsay, while incriminating statements can be introduced by the prosecution. Technically, this is correct, but practially speaking, the professor is wrong. If the prosecution introduces a confession given to police during police interrogation, the defense is then allowed to introduce exculpatory statements made by the defendant as part of the same interview in which the confession was given. This is the so-called "complete statement" rule that is codified in most states which says that when one side introduces only part of a conversation or a communication, the other side is allowed to introduce other parts of the same conversation or communication. The rule is designed to prevent "cherry picking" of parts of a communication by one side, without allowing the other side to show that more was said than merely what the opponent introduced.

Most of the material presented is based upon the idea that people can unwittingly implicate themselves in a crime they did not commit. That, of course, is quite true. I was a little disappointed that they did not cover another, even darker, aspect of the problem, which is that of the police lying to a suspect about his exposure and implying that if he will only confess, things will go much better for him. The cop did mention at the very end that they are allowed to lie to suspects, but I think they could have gone into that in much more detail.

Pretty good stuff here. I have seen this set of videos before, but I watched them all the way through once again.

I doubt that they will have much effect on our "law and order" crowd - but who knows? Thaks for this thread. I will watch with interest to see what follows.

I have no problem with people being advised to shut up when confronted by LEO, whether they are guilty or innocent. The burden is on the state to prove a case if they have one. No burden for the suspect to help them out.

I disagree with you on whether LEO can lie to suspects. I have no problem with a LEO or DA telling a suspect they have a witness or anything like that in order to entice a confession. There's not much chance of someone being told they have a witness to a crime they didn't commit and admitting to a different crime because of that claim. It's just not logical.

 

[George Costanza]

FYI - here is the factual summary of the Reiner case, referred to in Part I:

Respondent was charged with involuntary manslaughter in connection with the death of his 2-month-old son Alex. The coroner testified at trial that Alex died from "shaken baby syndrome," the result of child abuse. He estimated that Alex's injury most likely occurred minutes before the child stopped breathing. Alex died two days later when he was removed from life support. Evidence produced at trial revealed that Alex had a broken rib and a broken leg at the time of his death. His twin brother Derek, who was also examined, had several broken ribs. Respondent had been alone with Alex for half an hour immediately before Alex stopped breathing. Respondent's experts testified that Alex could have been injured several hours before his respiratory arrest. Alex was in the care of the family's babysitter, Susan Batt, at that time. Batt had cared for the children during the day for about two weeks prior [***161] to Alex's death. The defense theory was that Batt, not respondent, was the culpable party.

Batt informed the court in advance of testifying that she intended to assert her Fifth Amendment privilege. At the State's request, the trial court granted her transactional immunity from prosecution pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2945.44 (1999). She then testified to the jury that she had refused to testify without a grant of immunity on the advice of counsel, although she had done nothing wrong. Batt denied any involvement in Alex's death. She testified that she had never shaken Alex or his brother at any time, specifically on the day Alex suffered respiratory arrest. She said she [*19] was unaware of and had nothing to do with the other injuries to both children. The jury found respondent guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and he appealed.

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, reversed respondent's conviction on grounds not relevant to our decision here. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the reversal, on the alternative ground that Batt had no valid Fifth Amendment privilege and that the trial court's grant of immunity under § 2945.44 was therefore unlawful. * 89 Ohio St. 3d 342, 358, 731 N.E.2d 662, 677 (2000). The court found that the wrongful grant of immunity prejudiced respondent, because it effectively told the jury that Batt did not cause Alex's injuries.

Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001)

 

[George Costanza]

I disagree with you on whether LEO can lie to suspects. I have no problem with a LEO or DA telling a suspect they have a witness or anything like that in order to entice a confession. There's not much chance of someone being told they have a witness to a crime they didn't commit and admitting to a different crime because of that claim. It's just not logical.

Are you disagreeing with the FACT that the police can lie to a suspect, or with the EFFECT you feel that has on the suspect giving a confession? From what you are saying here, I suspect it is the latter. If so, that's good - because if it is the former, you are out of luck. Police can lie to suspects.

OK, let's talk about that. Yes, if I am in the interrogation room and some detective is telling me they have my prints on a gun I know I never touched, I will know the detective is lying, and it probably won't have much effect on what happens, except I might inform the detective that he is a liar.

But cops lie about much more than this type of stuff. They lie about how much trouble the suspect is headed for. They lie about what they are going to "go to the district attorney with" and what they will be "requesting" by way of filing. They lie about possible punishment. They give promises of leniency which they know they will never ask for or that they will never get even if they do.

A classic technique is to threaten a suspect with the death penalty in a murder case and then offer him a way out if he confesses to something that would not result in a capital offense. The suspect would never have been charged with a capital crime in the first place, but he doesn't know that and, under this type of situaiton, more than a few innocent people have confessed to murders they did not commit, simply to avoid a possible death sentence that never would have happened in any event.

Did you watch the videos? If you did, you would have seen the cop talking about how he Mirandizes suspects. He advises them of their rights. Then, before getting the waiver of those rights, he tells the suspects what he "has" against them. THEN he asks them if they want to waive their rights and talk to him. A very effective technique - especially if he has thrown a few lies in while he was telling them what he "has."

 

[ConHog]

I disagree with you on whether LEO can lie to suspects. I have no problem with a LEO or DA telling a suspect they have a witness or anything like that in order to entice a confession. There's not much chance of someone being told they have a witness to a crime they didn't commit and admitting to a different crime because of that claim. It's just not logical.

Are you disagreeing with the FACT that the police can lie to a suspect, or with the EFFECT you feel that has on the suspect giving a confession? From what you are saying here, I suspect it is the latter. If so, that's good - because if it is the former, you are out of luck. Police can lie to suspects.

OK, let's talk about that. Yes, if I am in the interrogation room and some detective is telling me they have my prints on a gun I know I never touched, I will know the detective is lying, and it probably won't have much effect on what happens, except I might inform the detective that he is a liar.

But cops lie about much more than this type of stuff. They lie about how much trouble the suspect is headed for. They lie about what they are going to "go to the district attorney with" and what they will be "requesting" by way of filing. They lie about possible punishment. They give promises of leniency which they know they will never ask for or that they will never get even if they do.

A classic technique is to threaten a suspect with the death penalty in a murder case and then offer him a way out if he confesses to something that would not result in a capital offense. The suspect would never have been charged with a capital crime in the first place, but he doesn't know that and, under this type of situaiton, more than a few innocent people have confessed to murders they did not commit, simply to avoid a possible death sentence that never would have happened in any event.

Did you watch the videos? If you did, you would have seen the cop talking about how he Mirandizes suspects. He advises them of their rights. Then, before getting the waiver of those rights, he tells the suspects what he "has" against them. THEN he asks them if they want to waive their rights and talk to him. A very effective technique - especially if he has thrown a few lies in while he was telling them what he "has."

No, I am for letting LEO lie to suspects, did I misread you in an earlier thread I had thought you said that you are against it?

Yes, I watched the video, and I'm well aware of the technique of telling a suspect things will go easier if they just waive their rights and talk to them. Any person with a lick of common sense would reject that offer. Guilty or innocent. But as we both know criminals are generally stupid, so I have no problem with LEO taking advantage of that fact.

Bottom line, don't say shit to a LEO if you're arrested until you have spoken to an attorney to be clear on your rights. If you're too stupid to comprehend that, you are on your own.

 

[MikeK]

Watching the tv documentary, COPS, is extremely informative in a number of ways, one of which is the wisdom of the bottom line advice in this topic.

As Gunny said, if you haven't done anything there is nothing wrong with talking to cops. But even if you are innocent of any offense, if it appears that you are suspected of something you are well advised to respectfully decline to say anything and go mute until you've seen a lawyer. Because innocent people have been convicted of crimes on the strength of things they said, or were led to say.

 

[George Costanza]

No, I am for letting LEO lie to suspects, did I misread you in an earlier thread I had thought you said that you are against it?

Yes, I watched the video, and I'm well aware of the technique of telling a suspect things will go easier if they just waive their rights and talk to them. Any person with a lick of common sense would reject that offer. Guilty or innocent. But as we both know criminals are generally stupid, so I have no problem with LEO taking advantage of that fact.

Bottom line, don't say shit to a LEO if you're arrested until you have spoken to an attorney to be clear on your rights. If you're too stupid to comprehend that, you are on your own.

I have mixed thoughts on cops lying to suspects. No time to go into it right now - I'll get back to you later on it. This is an excellent topic of discussion.

 

[ConHog]

No, I am for letting LEO lie to suspects, did I misread you in an earlier thread I had thought you said that you are against it?

Yes, I watched the video, and I'm well aware of the technique of telling a suspect things will go easier if they just waive their rights and talk to them. Any person with a lick of common sense would reject that offer. Guilty or innocent. But as we both know criminals are generally stupid, so I have no problem with LEO taking advantage of that fact.

Bottom line, don't say shit to a LEO if you're arrested until you have spoken to an attorney to be clear on your rights. If you're too stupid to comprehend that, you are on your own.

I have mixed thoughts on cops lying to suspects. No time to go into it right now - I'll get back to you later on it. This is an excellent topic of discussion.

Look forward to it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just a heads up for all. I'm not investing in response or debate with those so incurious as to not even watch at least one of the vids. (fwiw, if you watch part one, you will want to watch the other) ... (nothing against you HB)

I know it's a lot to digest. So, watch it on your own time if you care to or skip it alltogether. No harm no foul. I think it's a worthwhile educational investment and it's free to all. Take that for what it's worth.

The main point is to just put this out for those who might think it useful. Weather or not this thread goes anywhere is irrelevant to me, I just hope it gets some views. (sorry for not saying this stuff in the OP folks)

I don't think this most worthwhile thread is going to get much response - at least not from those of the "if I'm innocent, I have nothing to hide" crowd. Because what can they say in response to the type of penetrating truth that appears on both of these videos.

OK - a few comments. In Part I, the law professor says that exculpatory statements made to police cannot be used by the defense at trial, since they are hearsay, while incriminating statements can be introduced by the prosecution. Technically, this is correct, but practially speaking, the professor is wrong. If the prosecution introduces a confession given to police during police interrogation, the defense is then allowed to introduce exculpatory statements made by the defendant as part of the same interview in which the confession was given. This is the so-called "complete statement" rule that is codified in most states which says that when one side introduces only part of a conversation or a communication, the other side is allowed to introduce other parts of the same conversation or communication. The rule is designed to prevent "cherry picking" of parts of a communication by one side, without allowing the other side to show that more was said than merely what the opponent introduced.

Most of the material presented is based upon the idea that people can unwittingly implicate themselves in a crime they did not commit. That, of course, is quite true. I was a little disappointed that they did not cover another, even darker, aspect of the problem, which is that of the police lying to a suspect about his exposure and implying that if he will only confess, things will go much better for him. The cop did mention at the very end that they are allowed to lie to suspects, but I think they could have gone into that in much more detail.

Pretty good stuff here. I have seen this set of videos before, but I watched them all the way through once again.

I doubt that they will have much effect on our "law and order" crowd - but who knows? Thaks for this thread. I will watch with interest to see what follows.

I have no problem with people being advised to shut up when confronted by LEO, whether they are guilty or innocent. The burden is on the state to prove a case if they have one. No burden for the suspect to help them out.

I disagree with you on whether LEO can lie to suspects. I have no problem with a LEO or DA telling a suspect they have a witness or anything like that in order to entice a confession. There's not much chance of someone being told they have a witness to a crime they didn't commit and admitting to a different crime because of that claim. It's just not logical.

I have not read further than this, and I am sure George is doing his usual competent job of refuting your naivety, so I will just comment that this is the dumbest thing you have ever posted.

 

[ConHog]

I don't think this most worthwhile thread is going to get much response - at least not from those of the "if I'm innocent, I have nothing to hide" crowd. Because what can they say in response to the type of penetrating truth that appears on both of these videos.

OK - a few comments. In Part I, the law professor says that exculpatory statements made to police cannot be used by the defense at trial, since they are hearsay, while incriminating statements can be introduced by the prosecution. Technically, this is correct, but practially speaking, the professor is wrong. If the prosecution introduces a confession given to police during police interrogation, the defense is then allowed to introduce exculpatory statements made by the defendant as part of the same interview in which the confession was given. This is the so-called "complete statement" rule that is codified in most states which says that when one side introduces only part of a conversation or a communication, the other side is allowed to introduce other parts of the same conversation or communication. The rule is designed to prevent "cherry picking" of parts of a communication by one side, without allowing the other side to show that more was said than merely what the opponent introduced.

Most of the material presented is based upon the idea that people can unwittingly implicate themselves in a crime they did not commit. That, of course, is quite true. I was a little disappointed that they did not cover another, even darker, aspect of the problem, which is that of the police lying to a suspect about his exposure and implying that if he will only confess, things will go much better for him. The cop did mention at the very end that they are allowed to lie to suspects, but I think they could have gone into that in much more detail.

Pretty good stuff here. I have seen this set of videos before, but I watched them all the way through once again.

I doubt that they will have much effect on our "law and order" crowd - but who knows? Thaks for this thread. I will watch with interest to see what follows.

I have no problem with people being advised to shut up when confronted by LEO, whether they are guilty or innocent. The burden is on the state to prove a case if they have one. No burden for the suspect to help them out.

I disagree with you on whether LEO can lie to suspects. I have no problem with a LEO or DA telling a suspect they have a witness or anything like that in order to entice a confession. There's not much chance of someone being told they have a witness to a crime they didn't commit and admitting to a different crime because of that claim. It's just not logical.

I have not read further than this, and I am sure George is doing his usual competent job of refuting your naivety, so I will just comment that this is the dumbest thing you have ever posted.

Your opinion is duly noted...........

 

[George Costanza]

Now boys - let's all get along here.

OK - I had to review a bunch of police reports in an attempt murder case in preparation for a preliminary hearing next week. All done now . . . so let's talk about cops lying to suspects in order to get a confession.

First off, it is clear they can legally do it - no question about that. But is something like this morally justified? Of course not. But the perp wasn't playing fair when he committed his crimes - why should the police play fair with him in trying to get him to admit to what he did?

This is one of those "crystal ball" issues that so often comes up in the area of police v. perps. If we could be 100% certain that the police had a guilty suspect in the interrogation room, then I would not be opposed to their lying to the suspect in order to induce a confession. The problem is, we can't be 100% certain of that and, besides, regardless of what the cops may THINK they have against the suspect, he is still PRESUMED INNOCENT prior to conviction in a court of law.

I have always believed in the principle that it is better that 10 guilty persons go free than that one innocent person be convicted. I feel the same way on this issue. I think it is better that the police fail to get confessions from 10 guilty suspects than that one innocent person give a confession based on lies told to him by the police.

I think this is also one of those areas where reasonable minds can differ. I can see good arguments on the other side of the issue as well. But I am a defense attorney first and a liberal Democrat second, so my position on the issue is fairly easy to determine.

 

[Barb]

I think it's a worthwhile educational investment and it's free to all. Take that for what it's worth.

I book marked it for later, and will be passed on to the kids, and all their friends.

 

[ConHog]

Now boys - let's all get along here.

OK - I had to review a bunch of police reports in an attempt murder case in preparation for a preliminary hearing next week. All done now . . . so let's talk about cops lying to suspects in order to get a confession.

First off, it is clear they can legally do it - no question about that. But is something like this morally justified? Of course not. But the perp wasn't playing fair when he committed his crimes - why should the police play fair with him in trying to get him to admit to what he did?

This is one of those "crystal ball" issues that so often comes up in the area of police v. perps. If we could be 100% certain that the police had a guilty suspect in the interrogation room, then I would not be opposed to their lying to the suspect in order to induce a confession. The problem is, we can't be 100% certain of that and, besides, regardless of what the cops may THINK they have against the suspect, he is still PRESUMED INNOCENT prior to conviction in a court of law.

I have always believed in the principle that it is better that 10 guilty persons go free than that one innocent person be convicted. I feel the same way on this issue. I think it is better that the police fail to get confessions from 10 guilty suspects than that one innocent person give a confession based on lies told to him by the police.

I think this is also one of those areas where reasonable minds can differ. I can see good arguments on the other side of the issue as well. But I am a defense attorney first and a liberal Democrat second, so my position on the issue is fairly easy to determine.

First George, I must ask you why you used the plural boys in your rebuke? I did nothing to deserve his ridicule and did not retaliate.

Now onto the matter at hand.

I certainly 100% agree with you, I'd rather see 10 guilty men go free than see one innocent man go to jail, and so while I stood on the other side of the fence from you, I certainly respect your place in our judicial system.

I just don't see how an innocent person could possibly be tricked into confessing. if a guilty person is too stupid to detect a lie and or exercise their rights... that's too bad.

But as you said, this is just one of those issues that either side has positive and negatives. It would be a much easier call if we only detained guilty suspects.

 

[Barb]

But as we both know criminals are generally stupid,

Con, I'm not so sure about that.Criminals are generally...people. Some are stupid, and some are opportunistic, clever, inspired, or geniuses, most who know more about their self-protection than the average innocent person in the wrong place at the right time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Now boys - let's all get along here.

OK - I had to review a bunch of police reports in an attempt murder case in preparation for a preliminary hearing next week. All done now . . . so let's talk about cops lying to suspects in order to get a confession.

First off, it is clear they can legally do it - no question about that. But is something like this morally justified? Of course not. But the perp wasn't playing fair when he committed his crimes - why should the police play fair with him in trying to get him to admit to what he did?

This is one of those "crystal ball" issues that so often comes up in the area of police v. perps. If we could be 100% certain that the police had a guilty suspect in the interrogation room, then I would not be opposed to their lying to the suspect in order to induce a confession. The problem is, we can't be 100% certain of that and, besides, regardless of what the cops may THINK they have against the suspect, he is still PRESUMED INNOCENT prior to conviction in a court of law.

I have always believed in the principle that it is better that 10 guilty persons go free than that one innocent person be convicted. I feel the same way on this issue. I think it is better that the police fail to get confessions from 10 guilty suspects than that one innocent person give a confession based on lies told to him by the police.

I think this is also one of those areas where reasonable minds can differ. I can see good arguments on the other side of the issue as well. But I am a defense attorney first and a liberal Democrat second, so my position on the issue is fairly easy to determine.

First George, I must ask you why you used the plural boys in your rebuke? I did nothing to deserve his ridicule and did not retaliate.

Now onto the matter at hand.

I certainly 100% agree with you, I'd rather see 10 guilty men go free than see one innocent man go to jail, and so while I stood on the other side of the fence from you, I certainly respect your place in our judicial system.

I just don't see how an innocent person could possibly be tricked into confessing. if a guilty person is too stupid to detect a lie and or exercise their rights... that's too bad.

But as you said, this is just one of those issues that either side has positive and negatives. It would be a much easier call if we only detained guilty suspects.

That is because you are not thinking outside the box, all you see is how you would react in that situation, and it makes no sense to you that you would confess to something you know you did not do. Not everyone is you though.

Suspects with low IQs are particularly vulnerable to the pressures of police interrogation: They are less likely to understand the charges against them and the consequences of professing guilt. One of the suspects in the Central Park attack had an IQ of 87; another was aged 16 with a second-grade reading level.
But intelligence is by no means the decisive factor. Suspects with compliant or suggestible personalities and anxiety disorders may be hard-pressed to withstand an interrogation, according to Gisli Gudjonsson, Ph.D., a professor of forensic psychology at the Institute of Psychiatry in London. Gudjonsson's suggestibility scale is used by courts around the world to evaluate self-incriminating statements. But he cautions against seeking only personality-driven explanations for confessions: "A drug addict may not be particularly suggestible but may have a strong desire to get back out on the street."
Self-incriminating statements are often the result of a kind of cost-benefit analysis. "False confession is an escape hatch. It becomes rational under the circumstances," says Saul Kassin, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at Williams College in Massachusetts. The most common explanation given after the fact is that suspects "just wanted to go home."
This often indicates an inability to appreciate the consequences of a confession, a situation that police cultivate by communicating that a confession will be rewarded with lenient sentencing. Police may also offer mitigating factors—the crime was unintentional; the suspect was provoked.

The False Confession | Psychology Today