No Tape? No Confession?

[gottaask]

What is the name of your state? CA


If an investigator states in his discovery that the defendent "confessed" during a 'talk' in his office; although no arrest took place at the time, and there is no tape recording of the supposed 'confession', can the defendent effectively refute the officers testimony during court proceedings?

Does the defendents testimony (def. has no priors) carry the same weight as the investigators? (In the 'REAL' world?)



thank you in advance for your time and consideration!

 

[dequeendistress]

Did the "defendent" confess to a criminal act or are you implying that the police investigator is lying?

 

[calatty]

The reality is that the defendant's word doesn't count for anything against a cop's word, to a judge or a jury.

 

[dequeendistress]

(and that is the way it should be.)

 

[gottaask]

Nope. . .

I'm not 'implying', I'm stating a fact. The investigator is 'bold faced lying!'

Does the defendant have a snowballs chance in ? Or is it 'the norm' to just go along with the investigators statements?

 

[dequeendistress]

What was the alleged charge, since you are leaving much information out of your post.

The norm is that the investigator has NO reason to lie.

Does this have anything to do with your other post? Were YOU or your friend charged with identity theft?

 

[gottaask]

The charge

is identity theft.

The investigator is a friend of the supposed victim.

The discovery is so full of holes and contradictions it's laughable.

The whole thing is just downright deplorable.

 

[HomeGuru]

Re: The charge

This whole thread is just downright deplorable.

 

[gottaask]

well gee . . .

THAT wasn't very helpful, or nice (!) oh ye honorable Guru!