Originally Posted by
viking407rob
Yeah, but if the cops have sufficient evidence to arrest someone they wouldn't waste their time interviewing "suspects" to begin with.
Wrong. There is sufficient evidence for an arrest and then there is sufficient evidence for conviction. In a number of my cases, we have delayed the arrest until after an interview because we were hoping to get a confession. Sometimes that's easier after an arrest and sometimes it's easier beforehand. All depends on the case.
If you don't believe it, just tell a detective you have retained professional counsel, they will back off as fast as they put on their cheap JC Penny Coat. Atleast, if they are smart.
Wow. So I guess I'd better cancel my scheduled interviews for the rest of the week. Either that or I'm stupid. Thanks.
If you tell me "cops" and agents aren't intimidated by good attorneys I'll openly laugh in your face.
Feel free to laugh at me then. I'm not intimidated by them at all. They make my job more difficult sometimes, but that's the beauty of the system of justic in this country. I have no problem arguing back and forth with one and then grabbing a cup of coffee with him the next week.
The vast majority of cops who make it to the level of detectives are career seekers who will do what is best for their own good. It isn't uncommon for detectives to build cases against suspects who are innocent, in order to further their own careers.
That assertion is flatly ludicrous. The vast majority of investigators enjoy solving puzzles, catching bad guys, and putting an end to criminals' careers. Cases only get made against innocent people for two reasons: first, because the investigator truly (and mistakenly) believes they are guilty, and second, because the investigator is corrupt. Corruption is uncommon, no matter what you think.