Hi Earl,

On Fri 2037-May-22 11:06, Earl Croasmun (1:124/311) wrote to Richard Webb:

EC> I haven't read the book, but I notice that on page 135 he notes that
EC> Williamson talked voluntarily, was mirandized, and said that he
EC> understood his miranda rights.  The "dream" part is a bit strange,
EC> but Williamson admits that he "probably" went there with the
EC> intention of killing her.  Even apart from the "dream" stuff, that
EC> admission would be pretty incriminating if combined with the right
EC> circumstantial evidence. In glancing through it looks like there was
EC> some prosecutorial misconduct in the case, but the part I glanced at
EC> about the interrogation doesn't seem to involve torture or coercion.
EC> That is, again, based on a glance rather than a full reading.

Quite a bit of intimidation, etc.  THink I addressed this
elsewhere this thread in general terms.  But, if you'd read
the book they had some other so-called confessions, and
though not "torture" as defined quite a bit of not quite
legal and aboveboard methods, and even not smart enough to
capture it on videotape.  These folks were rushing to find
somebody, just any warm male body that they could tag with
this series of crimes.  Williamson was as screwed up as a
soup sandwich most of the time,  and not the sharpest knife
in the drawer.  wOrth your further reading.

I think it might have been my msg to DAn wehre I clarified
myself a bit.  HOpe that helps.  wOuld hate to have to try
to put all that together again .
IN the sense that the system always rights itself after
inappropriate interrogation techniques, it did indeed work
in the case of one or two individuals that they tagged with
those murders before they got to WIlliamson.  After all,
they pulled that blunder on videotape .

Regards,
           Richard
... WHen the only tool you've got is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+