- The main story is about police interrogations and their influence on TV shows and juries.
- Confessions are seen as a strong indicator of guilt, even more persuasive than DNA evidence.
- However, many false convictions have been based on false confessions, with 29% of overturned convictions involving false confessions.
- Skilled interrogators can manipulate innocent people into confessing to crimes they didn't commit.
- The Reid Technique, a commonly used interrogation method, relies on behavioral analysis that is not scientifically reliable.
- Interrogations can be lengthy and exhausting, leading innocent people to confess just to escape the stress.
- The focus of police interrogations is often on obtaining a confession rather than finding the truth.

- The video discusses the issue of false confessions during police interrogations.
- It highlights how people can be manipulated and pressured into confessing to crimes they did not commit.
- The video explains that police are allowed to lie about evidence and use manipulative tactics during interrogations.
- It emphasizes that false confessions can lead to wrongful convictions, with children and individuals with mental illness being particularly vulnerable.
- The lack of recording interrogations and limited protections for civilians contribute to the problem.
- The video calls for reforms such as requiring the recording of all interrogations and banning police from lying to suspects.
- It suggests using alternative interrogation methods, such as the peace method used in the UK.

- The peace method is being used in police interrogations, where open-ended questions are asked and the suspect is allowed to give their own account.
- Cultural conditioning from crime dramas has created misconceptions about police interrogations.
- Shows should present a more accurate picture of what happens in interrogation rooms.
- The video portrays a comedic and exaggerated version of police interrogations.
- The suspect confesses to a crime after being subjected to intense questioning tactics.
- The twist ending reveals that the wrong person was interrogated, leading to comedic irony.

The video discusses the issue of false confessions during police interrogations and highlights how people can be manipulated and pressured into confessing to crimes they did not commit. It emphasizes that false confessions can lead to wrongful convictions, with children and individuals with mental illness being particularly vulnerable. The lack of recording interrogations and limited protections for civilians contribute to the problem. The video calls for reforms such as requiring the recording of all interrogations and banning police from lying to suspects. It suggests using alternative interrogation methods, such as the peace method used in the UK. The video also addresses the misconceptions created by crime dramas about police interrogations and suggests that shows should present a more accurate picture of what happens in interrogation rooms. The comedic and exaggerated portrayal of a police interrogation in the video serves as a twist ending, revealing that the wrong person was interrogated, leading to comedic irony.

John Oliver discusses the tactics that can make police interrogations so damaging, particularly for the innocent, and why he’s more of a Lorelai than a Rory.

Connect with Last Week Tonight online... 

Subscribe to the Last Week Tonight YouTube channel for more almost news as it almost happens: www.youtube.com/lastweektonight 

Find Last Week Tonight on Facebook like your mom would: www.facebook.com/lastweektonight 

Follow us on Twitter for news about jokes and jokes about news: www.twitter.com/lastweektonight 

Visit our official site for all that other stuff at once: www.hbo.com/lastweektonight

Our main story tonight concerns police interrogations.

You're probably familiar with them, as they're a staple of countless TV shows, including ones you might not expect.

your balls in a blender, but I ain't like a bitch.

Pinkie Pie's about to fuck that dragon up!

I was not expecting a clip from My Little Pony to look like a deleted scene from Training Day.

But you can see why interrogation scenes are so popular on TV, they're inherently dramatic, and can result in a confession moving the story along.

But it's not just audiences who find them compelling, juries do too.

Confessions are viewed as the gold standard when it comes to an indicator of guilt, as they can apparently be more persuasive than even DNA evidence.

Just listen to all these jurors in high-profile trials explain the key evidence that convinced them to convict.

We just felt that no 1 would confess 3 times if they didn't do it.

He could have continued to deny it if you did not hurt that baby, I mean, you would go to your grave saying, -"No, I didn't." -$$TRANSMISSION

It was very hard to imagine why anybody would make up something that not only incriminates them, but have, is full of details that sound like they actually happened.

Yeah, confessions are wildly persuasive, because we think that they're 1 of those things that only guilty people do.

You know, like posting a notes app apology, or refusing to answer any of Ronan Farrow's questions.

But here is the thing, In all those jurors' cases, the confession later turned out to be false.

That last juror was from the case of the Central Park 5, or as they're now known, the Exonerated 5.

In fact, of all the convictions that have been overturned through DNA testing, 29 percent involved false confessions.

And you may find that hard to believe, because it can be very hard to comprehend how someone could confess to something they didn't do.

Just watch Lester Holt struggle to get his head around it while talking to a journalist who covered a false confession case.

The more I investigated it, the more I came to believe that he might be telling me the truth.

There is not a shred of forensic or physical evidence.

Like most people, you can't possibly fathom admitting you did something that you didn't do.

Nobody would think they're capable of doing it.

But the truth is, a skilled interrogator could probably get you or I to admit we kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.

Honestly, a skilled interrogator could probably even get me to admit that I am the Lindbergh baby.

It does kind of make sense, considering that this body type is a physique best described as 92-year-old dead baby.

The truth is, there are a number of reasons an innocent person might confess to something they didn't do, and a lot of that comes down to what happens in a police interrogation room.

So tonight, let's talk about police interrogations, what tactics they use, and how damaging they can be, particularly for the innocent.

Because it used to be, police could basically torture people to get confessions, a practice that came to be known as using the third degree.

But in 1936, the Supreme Court declared physical coercion unconstitutional, meaning that police departments had to adopt new techniques.

And it says something, that their early attempts to do this featured some pretty basic instructions.

Like in this film from the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Look the suspect in the eyes to observe eye movements and physical changes that might indicate deception.

If you can't look him in the eyes, watch an imaginary X on the forehead or nose.

Once deception is detected, you know you're on the right track.

Was drawing the X really necessary there?

Were they genuinely worried their officers wouldn't know how to look at a forehead without visual representation?

Because if they cannot spot a forehead, I'd argue maybe they should not be trusted to spot a criminal.

But eventually, 1 particular approach became the standard, the Reed Technique.

Reed, a former Chicago police officer turned polygraph expert.

He formed a training firm that now claims to have trained hundreds of thousands of investigators and has influenced nearly every aspect of modern police interrogations.

The Reid Techniques become 1 of those things that just culturally comes with being a cop.

You know, like their fondness for donuts or their complicity in the perpetuation of state-sponsored violence.

And when it comes to questioning suspects, there are 2 major phases to the Reid Technique.

The interview, where you determine whether someone is a suspect, and the interrogation, where you try to get them to confess.

Now, in the interview stage, the goal is to gauge how truthful the answers you're getting are.

The approach is similar to a lie detector test.

You essentially start with some basic questions to set a baseline, then move to so-called behavior-provoking questions when you analyze the suspect's verbal and crucially non-verbal behavior.

This retraining film, for instance, explains how barrier postures, like crossing your arms, are a sign that you're lying.

The next 2 illustrations we're going to see, each subject moves into a barrier posture after they were asked the critical question.

Why do you think Bob said he saw you selling marijuana?

have you ever thought about sexually touching a child?

First, let's acknowledge those are clearly community theater actors trying their hardest to convey guilt.

And we should give the first actress her flowers because she showed up to that non-union gig ready to work.

As for this guy, he's doing a pretty spot-on Kevin Spacey impression there between the facial resemblance, the haircut, and the unconvincing denials of sexual attraction to children.

And I know that that looks dated, but it's still very much in use.

That video is available for purchase right now on Reed's website.

It was $100, and it was not remotely worth it.

But there is a big issue with relying on that sort of behavioral analysis, because while Reed claims that investigators trained in their technique have shown an average accuracy of 83% in identifying deceptive subjects, the truth is much less impressive, as this retired homicide investigator explains.

The Reid people admit that it's not based on any science whatsoever, just based on their own observations.

When they've done experiments with it, they pretty much show that the accuracy is like flipping a coin.

It's got around the same accuracy as a BuzzFeed quiz.

Answer 17 questions about pizza and we'll tell you which Gilmore girl you are.

The fuck are you talking about, BuzzFeed?

I talk fast, I carry the weight of the world on my shoulders, and God, do I look good in a pea coat.

--LAUGHTER --And I have to tell you, Reid and Associates will insist that their interview technique is part of an overall approach that works if you just follow all of the instructions in their 400-page manual to the letter.

But this thing is so full of caveats and outright contradictions, you can find support in it for nearly any conclusion that you want to reach.

For instance, when it comes to eye contact, It advises that when a person is being less than honest, he may not maintain direct eye contact, but also, others may overcompensate by staring.

Meaning, if you have eyes, you're basically fucked.

And I'm not saying that read is the only problem here.

There's now a whole industry of consultants who supposedly train cops to spot liars.

Years of research has demonstrated that behavioral cues like eye blinking and arm crossing are simply not reliable indicators of deception.

People move their bodies in all sorts of ways, whether they are telling the truth or not.

In fact, the only truly honest body movement that humans are capable of is when someone accidentally walks through a spider web.

Then, and only then, are your gestures completely truthful and void of pretense to

Thanks to this junk science, police can essentially assure themselves of their own certainties.

And if they have decided you are guilty, you're in big trouble, because that is when the interrogation begins.

And while they'll say that they are looking for the truth, Reid trains officers to steer the conversation away from anything that's not a confession.

Many guilty people introduce their denials with permission phrases, such as, can I say 1 thing?

When the interrogator hears those phrases, it's important to interject

yourself and stop the person from continuing.

let him talk, he'll say the words, I didn't do it.

And the more often a person says they didn't do it,

the more difficult it becomes for us to get a confession.

And I'm telling you I didn't do it." And if an investigator is trying to get you to confess, they can grind you down.

Interrogations can last from a couple of hours to double digits.

1 study of false confessions found that they came after an average of 16.3 hours of questioning, which can be utterly exhausting.

Innocent people can wind up confessing just to escape the stress of that situation.

That was the case with Robert Davis, who at just 18 was suspected of double murder and interrogated for for 5 hours.

To make sure your mom and we can get you, maybe get you home.

Robert, I'm gonna go straight out and tell you what I'm getting, all right?

What do you think about me telling you this is when we'll be home tonight?

Well, then, why am I lying about all this to you just so I can go home?

Full front, to your face, I am lying to you.

Yeah, he lied about stabbing someone, then immediately admitted that he lied, but by that point, it was too late.

He actually went to prison for 13 years before being exonerated.

The notion that people crack under pressure and falsely confess really shouldn't be that hard to understand.

It's a concept that even children's cartoons get.

Because remember that My Little Pony scene from earlier?

Tell me what you want me to say, and I'll say it!

Tell me what you want me to say, and I'll say it.

Is that what you want to hear, you pink psycho?

And the thing is, people might assume that even if they falsely confess, they can later recant, and the real evidence will prevail and clear them.

Because as soon as the police get a confession, thorough investigations tend to stop.

And at this point, I'm gonna answer the question that you may have had for a while now.

Why don't people just invoke their constitutional right to an attorney?

Well, the truth is, approximately 80 percent waive their Miranda rights and willingly submit to a police interrogation for a number of understandable reasons.

Sometimes people think, I don't need a lawyer, I didn't do anything.

Or they believe they're only being brought in as a witness and not a suspect.

But not having a lawyer makes you incredibly vulnerable, because for 1 thing, a lawyer might clue you in to an absolutely insane power that police in America have been given by the Supreme Court.

a detective can legally lie about the evidence to a suspect.

It is lawful for detectives to turn to a suspect and say, you say you didn't do this, but we've got your fingerprints on the murder weapon.

Or we have a victim who had hair in her grasp and we tested the hair.

Or the shoe prints we found at the scene are yours, or that polygraph you wanted to take.

The police in this country can flat out lie to you, to make you think you have no choice but to confess.

And some of the lies they tell are simply ridiculous.

An investigator in Florida told a suspect they had a laser, the kind that you shoot on Star Wars, and with it, they could actually lift fingerprints off potties.

A technology that, to be clear, does not exist.

Although, having said that, I'm now pretty sure that we're just 1 bad pitch meeting away from the Star Wars laser getting its own ten-episode series on Disney+.

The laser will be voiced by Oscar Isaac, and will all come.

Now, allowing the police to lie to suspects is crazy.

Most countries do not allow it, and for good reason.

It might still be hard for you to imagine why he confessed to doing something that he didn't do.

But look at what the interrogator was claiming in that room.

And did it gesturing with all the theatrical nuance of a high schooler auditioning for a few good men.

The overwhelming pressure of a police interrogation, coupled with their ability to invent evidence, can actually make people question their own memories.

That happened with Christopher Tapp, who served 20 years in prison for a murder he did not commit and was heavily manipulated during his interrogation.

The police told me a few times if there was something that horrific, you would definitely hide it and it'd go in your subconscious.

Some of the real stuff that we see out on the streets, my mind shuts down on me because I don't want to remember.

I started second-guessing myself during all this.

I started to not believe in myself or who I was.

I don't know, but right now everything I've been saying, what I think is right in my head, has been wrong.

And it is more than a little infuriating how that investigator convinces him of doubting his own memory by making it seem like it happens all the time.

You half expect him to say, you know how you can't remember if it was the Berenstain Bears or Berenstain Bears?

Or maybe it was Sinbad and the movie was actually called Kazaam.

That's what your brain's doing right now, but with murder.

All these tactics are incredibly manipulative, and they work especially well on certain people.

Research shows false confessions were a factor in 34% of cases in which children were wrongly convicted, and a stunning 69% of cases in which people with mental illness or intellectual disabilities were later exonerated.

And look, there are some limits on what police can do.

Some judges won't allow a confession if the police promised you leniency in exchange for it.

But many cops walk right up to that line by suggesting a confession might reduce prison time or spare you the death penalty.

You just saw that happen with Robert Davis, when that officer told him he could keep him from the worse.

Also, police are told not to feed you information about the crime that is not publicly available, as it's obviously damning for a jury to hear that you knew details only the guilty party would know.

1 study of DNA exonerations found that 94 percent of false confessions were contaminated by allegedly inside information.

And the thing is, even if police engage in these tactics, crucially, the jury may only see the confession, not the interrogation that led up to it.

Only 30 states require the recording of interrogations at all, and in the rest, it's up to the police, who might only record the confession.

And you just cannot get the full story from seeing 1 short clip.

Imagine if the only clip that you'd ever seen of the show 1 Tree Hill was this.

-♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪ Dr.

LAUGHTER -♪ ♪ -♪ AUDIENCE LAUGHING ♪♪ Do you want

It's about a high school basketball team.

You'd have no way of knowing that from that clip.

All you would know is that it contained the most perfect 20 seconds of television that has ever existed.

The problem with police interrogations right now is the same problem that we have with policing at large.

They're emboldened to act however they'd like in a system where they hold an undue amount of power with very few protections for civilians, especially the most vulnerable.

Because there can be little to no consequences for extracting a false confession.

Just listen to this man, who was a 19-year-old former special education student at the time of his arrest for raping and murdering a woman.

After being interrogated, over the course of 4 days, including, fun fact, 2 polygraphs conducted by Reardon Associates, he confessed under pressure and spent nearly 20 years in prison until finally being exonerated by DNA.

That worked on my case, as well as state's attorneys, they've all retired with pension.

There was no repercussion, no retribution, no criminal charges, nothing.

They retired as captains, majors, lieutenants.

The head state's attorney, Michael Waller, retired, and they gave him a plaque for good job.

That state attorney certainly doesn't deserve a good job plaque, unless it came with another drop-down plaque that read, at fucking up innocent people's lives, you monumental asshole.

And while I've spent tonight showing you people who were exonerated, there are still many incarcerated people fighting convictions that have every hallmark of a false confession, like Brendan Dassey, from making a murderer who was 16 when he confessed to a murder that he could not describe.

And Melissa Lucio, whose incredibly manipulative interrogation we featured in our wrongful convictions piece, and who is set to be executed in just 10 days.

Well, we should absolutely require all interrogations be recorded in their entirety so juries have the full context of what happened in that room.

We should also make it illegal for police to lie to suspects, because it is madness that they're currently allowed to do that.

And there's actually a growing movement for some reform here.

These 3 states have now banned police from lying to juvenile suspects, and New York has introduced legislation that would ban lying to all suspects, and require courts to evaluate the reliability of confession evidence before allowing it to be used.

And that should be adopted absolutely everywhere.

And if you're thinking, well, hold on, John.

How will investigators get guilty people to confess if they can't intimidate or lie to them?

Well, not to be a total bitch, but their job is literally to investigate, so maybe they could try doing some of that.

Also, you can productively interrogate someone without lying to them.

Now uses something called the peace method, where they ask open-ended questions and let the suspect give their own account.

And I am not saying that that system is perfect.

Among other things, they still haven't gotten the queen to confess to killing Diana on camera, but it's at least a start.

And in the meantime, there's actually a lot of cultural conditioning regarding police interrogations that we need to start undoing.

Because think about it, how many dramas have you seen on TV where roughing up the bad guy led to solving the crime?

How many shows have there been where the bad guy seemed guilty and the officer's gut feeling was confirmed by the end of the episode.

Our misconceptions about police interrogations have been hammered in by crime dramas, and they've been hammered in deep.

And perhaps 1 small way to help undo that damage is for shows to present a slightly more accurate picture of what can really happen in that room.

This fall, meet 2 tough cops, expert interrogators...

See all LastWeekTonight transcripts on Youtube

Police Interrogations: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)