Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

    Why would this Jared Rosenbaum implicate himself as being the last person to see her for no reason? Why would he deliberately put the spotlight on himself if he had nothing to hide? Doesn't make any sense to me.

    Comment


    • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      Why would this Jared Rosenbaum implicate himself as being the last person to see her for no reason? Why would he deliberately put the spotlight on himself if he had nothing to hide? Doesn't make any sense to me.
      Speculation-
      Reason #1-Cover story and he had little option. Friends or neighbors know she went to his room (or he had to assume they knew it) so he has to admit that much. Then he can make up the rest about seeing her leave his place to go out into the world where he's no longer there to account for her.

      #2- The 3 guys at that apartment complex are interconnected, involved in her death (pick one or more: drugged her, sold her drugs, OD'd, dropped her/tripped her/pushed her or in some other way caused her to fatally be injured as a result of their actions, or other) and created the cover story together to try and create doubt and remove the spotlight from themselves individually and place it on a random abduction. CR has his blackout story (which is always suspicious) and doesn't remember anything including stuff that happened at the other apartment building that was witnessed by several people... But that's OK because his friend MB backs up his account and says he saw the girl leave their apartment when he didn't want to party himself. Rosenbaum then picks it up from there claiming she came to his place for a while, and then left, apparently healthy and walking fine.

      So in that case they are covering for each other. It really wouldn't matter who really saw her last amongst the 3 of them or who actually disposed of the body... If any part of their story gets blown then they all 3 go down for it.

      It would appear witness statements would put CR with her last so the cover story would account for that plus get him off the hook first.

      With scenario #2 AFAIK there's never really been confirmation she walked into the apartment building under her own power... or that she was in it at all at the end of the night. ...The police have never confirmed who was with her or what they were doing in the alley prior to arriving at the apts. The info we've heard comes from the roommates themselves or friends (or attorneys).

      But for scenario 2 to be true it would only hold water if all 3 were involved. I don't see anyone inserting their name into the equation and say they were with her just to strengthen the alibi for a friend they know is guilty.
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

      -John Wooden

      Comment


      • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

        It's leaked that Rosenbaum had a friend from out of town staying with him at his apartment that night. No idea how that affects things.

        Also, from tonygatto.wordpress.com, here's a picture taken from the spot where Rosenbaum last claimed to have scene LS:



        He said he saw her rounding the corner, going right on College. Can't see that far in this picture.

        I have mixed feelings on the case. My gut tells me that the boyfriend isn't involved and it's either the OD/hide the body scenario or a random abduction. I know the odds are against random abduction, but I think the odds are also against Rosenbaum and co pulling off the entire operation pretty seamlessly thus far. Hundreds searching, including professional searchers, for 3+ weeks and no body? 2-4 people directly involved and no one's cracked? Certainly possible, but these guys are some stone-cold killers if they pulled it off.

        Latest is that cops and search dogs searched Wolff, Rosenbaum, and Rossman's apartments yesterday. https://twitter.com/#!/abbytonsing

        Parents are having a presser Friday. Will be interesting to see what they say.

        Comment


        • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

          This sounds stupid, but there's no chance she lost a earing or something, in a drain or sewer and climbed in to find it?

          Comment


          • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

            It needs pointed out that 3 other guys, who all are POI, let cadaver dogs into their apartments, and none of them have started getting "railroaded" yet.

            I guess the police are just really hoping to pin it just on one of them, and Rosenbaum had the bad luck of drawing the short straw.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

              http://www.indystar.com/article/2011...text|FRONTPAGE
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                I think there will be autopsy results soon on the body found in Fall Creek. There are plenty of missing Indiana women so probably a slim chance it could be Lauren. The Bloomington Police are awaiting results so hopefully we will know something soon one way or the other. That is approx 50 miles from Bloomington where body was found.

                Comment


                • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                  Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                  I think there will be autopsy results soon on the body found in Fall Creek. There are plenty of missing Indiana women so probably a slim chance it could be Lauren. The Bloomington Police are awaiting results so hopefully we will know something soon one way or the other. That is approx 50 miles from Bloomington where body was found.
                  Sensationalism by the Indystar.
                  You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                  Comment


                  • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                    Body found in Fall Creek doesn't belong to either Lauren or the elderly lady.

                    http://www.indystar.com/article/2011...t|IndyStar.com

                    Comment


                    • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                      The owners and managers of Smallwood Plaza, where missing Indiana University student Lauren Spierer lives, released the following open letter to the public Thursday afternoon:
                      “Where you used to be, there is a hole in the world, which I find myself constantly walking around in the daytime and falling in at night. I (we) miss you like hell.”

                      — Edna St. Vincent Millay

                      “In the seven-year-old Smallwood Building in downtown Bloomington a gaping, aching, debilitating hole has expanded since the early morning hours of June 3. It has enveloped two sweet, devoted parents and a devastated sibling, three roommates, countless friends, scores of volunteers, dedicated police officers from multiple departments, and the committed staff and management of Smallwood Plaza. This chasm holds within it a daily, agonizing reminder of a vibrant, 20-year-old bundle of enthusiasm, beauty and creativity named Lauren Spierer.

                      “Many careless and thoughtless statements have been made about the place Lauren calls home. Most of those who have written these words know nothing of the investment that has been made to give our residents peace of mind; they have no sense of the tremendous bonds that exist between our residents and staff, and they seem to have no perception of the effect such insensitive remarks have upon parents Robert and Charlene Spierer.

                      “As the poet Edna St. Vincent Millay wrote, there is a hole in our world and yes, to be somewhat crass, to quote Ms. Millay we all miss Lauren like hell. But our pain and anguish is infinitesimal compared to what Mr. and Mrs. Spierer are experiencing every moment of every day. As the investigation enters its second full month, our entire staff and ownership, Mr. and Mrs. John Jacobs of Bloomington, join the Spierers in adhering to the hope that Lauren is still with us and will someday return to her mother’s and father’s arms.

                      “We pledge our continued, unwavering support to the Spierer family. We thank them for their constant, astonishingly selfless support of our facility and staff. And we vow to them that we will deploy every resource at our disposal to finding their daughter and bringing to swift justice those responsible for her disappearance. Long after the headlines have subsided and the news satellite trucks have moved on to the next sensational case, we, and all those who love and care for the Spierers will stand by their side until this numbing chapter is resolved.

                      “Until then, we thank the greater Bloomington community, the Bloomington Police Department, Bloomington media, Indiana University, Old National Bank, The Hillel Center and the countless scores of volunteers and businesses who have joined hands and at times risked their own safety all in the name of restoring a very special family. May God bless all their efforts and may he compel those with information to come forward and bring a close to a family’s agony.

                      With love and prayers,

                      John and Kara Jacobs, Owners of Smallwood Plaza

                      Denise Haggard, Senior Property Manager and the staff of Smallwood Plaza

                      Alex Jackiw, President and the staff of Buckingham Properties

                      Ernie Reno and the staff of Hetrick Communications”

                      Comment


                      • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                        Some may see this as a piece to dispel a black mark against the facility and the lack of safety measures. Instead, I view it as a very sincerely written open letter of concern. I applaud the authors and thank them for their efforts.
                        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                        Comment


                        • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                          This case is to the point where I'll be surprised if there's ever a complete resolution. Definitely one of the strangest stories I've ever followed.

                          Comment


                          • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            I don't expect him to sit in there for hours answering the same question asked fifty different ways. I expect him to atleast sit down and answer just the basic questions.

                            They could ask him something that he thinks is insignificant, that comes up as the missing piece.

                            His lawyer would be right beside him the entire time, and unless they arrest him, he's free to leave whenever he wants. But I expect at least some cooperation, and not stonewalling from hundreds of miles away.

                            And even if they did talk to him for hours, that's nothing compared to the pain that her family is feeling. I'd feel so freaking guilty knowing I was the last person to see her.
                            Go get'em, Since86!

                            I've got to agree with Since86's sentiment.

                            For those who don't know, I've been a police detective for 25 years. A face to face witness interview is invaluable.

                            There have been times I've been conducting an interview, asking some innocuous basic questions and a little snippet of information comes forth that I had no idea existed and points me in a new, fresh direction, or the interviewee innocently provides me with some information that unknown to them, totally clears them of any wrongdoing.

                            I need to talk with someone face to face so i can get a read on their personality and body language. I'm trained to pick up on certain body cues that I can't get from a lawyer filtered response. You can't get the give and take of a verbal exchange that way. You can't pick up on arrogance, or secretiveness or simply lack of comprehension without actually SPEAKING with someone.

                            A good detective doesn't "look to implicate someone" as was said early. (Matter of fact, I found that statement extremely insulting and ignorant.) A detective's job is to collect facts. That's it. We don't get extra pay for locking people up.

                            Not talking to the police, when you're innocent, yet have information, no matter how little, only serves to hinder an investigation. Period.
                            Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                            Comment


                            • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                              Even though the overwhelming majority of detectives and DAs do things the right way, there are enough horror stories that some people are just scared of the power they wield. It only takes one to railroad you, and don't know one from the other.

                              I can honestly say I have no idea what I would do if I was the last person to see a missing woman and I had no alibi. You're basically weighing the tiny chance that you'll get wrongfully implicated against the tiny chance that you know something that will help (assuming you've been forthcoming in what conversations you have had).

                              Comment


                              • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                                Originally posted by Skaut_Ech View Post
                                Go get'em, Since86!

                                I've got to agree with Since86's sentiment.

                                For those who don't know, I've been a police detective for 25 years. A face to face witness interview is invaluable.

                                There have been times I've been conducting an interview, asking some innocuous basic questions and a little snippet of information comes forth that I had no idea existed and points me in a new, fresh direction, or the interviewee innocently provides me with some information that unknown to them, totally clears them of any wrongdoing.

                                I need to talk with someone face to face so i can get a read on their personality and body language. I'm trained to pick up on certain body cues that I can't get from a lawyer filtered response. You can't get the give and take of a verbal exchange that way. You can't pick up on arrogance, or secretiveness or simply lack of comprehension without actually SPEAKING with someone.

                                A good detective doesn't "look to implicate someone" as was said early. (Matter of fact, I found that statement extremely insulting and ignorant.) A detective's job is to collect facts. That's it. We don't get extra pay for locking people up.

                                Not talking to the police, when you're innocent, yet have information, no matter how little, only serves to hinder an investigation. Period.


                                Police-Induced Confessions: Risk Factors and Recommendations

                                Saul M. Kassin Steven A. Drizin Thomas Grisso
                                Gisli H. Gudjonsson Richard A. Leo
                                Allison D. Redlich
                                Law and Human Behavior
                                (2010)

                                American police typically receive brief instruction on
                                interrogation in the academy and then more sustained and
                                specialized training when promoted from patrol to detective.
                                Interrogation is an evidence-gathering activity that is
                                supposed to occur after detectives have conducted an initial
                                investigation and determined, to a reasonable degree of
                                certainty, that the suspect to be questioned committed the
                                crime.
                                Sometimes this determination is reasonably based on
                                witnesses, informants, or tangible evidence. Often, however,
                                it is based on a clinical hunch formed during a preinterrogation
                                interview in which special ‘‘behavior-provoking’’
                                questions are asked (e.g., ‘‘What do you think
                                should happen to the person who committed this crime?’’)
                                and changes are observed in aspects of the suspect’s
                                behavior that allegedly betray lying (e.g., gaze aversion,
                                frozen posture, and fidgety movements). Yet in laboratories
                                all over the world, research has consistently shown that
                                most commonsense behavioral cues are not diagnostic of
                                truth and deception (DePaulo et al., 2003). Hence, it is not
                                surprising as an empirical matter that laypeople on average
                                are only 54% accurate at distinguishing truth and deception;
                                that training does not produce reliable improvement;
                                and that police investigators, judges, customs inspectors,
                                and other professionals perform only slightly better, if at
                                all—albeit with high levels of confidence (for reviews, see
                                Bond & DePaulo, 2006; Meissner & Kassin, 2002; Vrij,
                                2008).
                                The purpose of interrogation is therefore not to discern
                                the truth, determine if the suspect committed the crime, or
                                evaluate his or her denials. Rather, police are trained to
                                interrogate only those suspects whose culpability they
                                ‘‘establish’’ on the basis of their initial investigation
                                (Gordon & Fleisher, 2006; Inbau, Reid, Buckley, & Jayne,
                                2001). For a person under suspicion, this initial impression
                                is critical because it determines whether police proceed to
                                interrogation with a strong presumption of guilt which, in
                                turn, predisposes an inclination to ask confirmatory questions,
                                use persuasive tactics, and seek confessions (Hill,
                                Memon, & McGeorge, 2008; Kassin, Goldstein, & Savitsky,
                                2003).
                                In short, the single-minded purpose of
                                interrogation is to elicit incriminating statements, admissions,
                                and perhaps a full confession in an effort to secure
                                the conviction of offenders (Leo, 2008).
                                Designed to overcome the anticipated resistance of
                                individual suspects who are presumed guilty, police interrogation
                                is said to be stress-inducing by design—structured
                                to promote a sense of isolation and increase the anxiety and
                                despair associated with denial relative to confession. To
                                achieve these goals, police employ a number of tactics. As
                                described in Inbau et al.’s (2001) Criminal Interrogation
                                and Confessions, the most influential approach is the socalled
                                Reid technique (named after John E. Reid who,
                                along with Fred Inbau, developed this approach in the
                                1940s and published the first edition of their manual in
                                1962). First, investigators are advised to isolate the suspect
                                in a small private room, which increases his or her anxiety
                                and incentive to escape. A nine-step process then ensues in
                                which an interrogator employs both negative and positive
                                incentives. On one hand, the interrogator confronts the
                                suspect with accusations of guilt, assertions that may be
                                bolstered by evidence, real or manufactured, and refuses to
                                accept alibis and denials. On the other hand, the interrogator
                                offers sympathy and moral justification, introducing
                                ‘‘themes’’ that minimize the crime and lead suspects to see
                                confession as an expedient means of escape. The use of this
                                technique has been documented in naturalistic observational
                                studies (Feld, 2006b; Leo, 1996b; Simon, 1991;
                                Wald et al., 1967) and in recent surveys of North American
                                investigators (Kassin et al., 2007; Meyer & Reppucci,
                                2007).
                                More at link.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X