April 14, 2021 • 23 mins
Illinois, New York, and Oregon move to outlaw deception by interrogators.
Deception, of course, is a long-recognized risk factor for false confessions. The Center on Wrongful Convictions and the Innocence Project are working with stakeholders in three states that have introduced bills that would ban the use of deception in the interrogation room: Illinois, New York, and Oregon. Laura Nirider speaks with special guests: Illinois State Senator Robert Peters; Exoneree and Attorney Marty Tankleff, and Dave Thompson, President, Wicklander-Zulawski.
Vote for our 2021 Webby Nominees (click links in categories)
-
Wrongful Conviction - False Confessions in Crime & Justice - Limited Series & Specials https://bit.ly/3dIndDP
-
Wrongful Conviction - Junk Science in Crime & Justice https://bit.ly/3tFLfFf
-
Wrongful Conviction - Junk Science in Science & Education - Limited Series & Specials https://bit.ly/3tXCsPj
To donate, learn more, or get involved, go to http://www.centeronwrongfulconvictions.org/
Wrongful Conviction: False Confessions is a production of Lava for Good™ Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1.
We have worked hard to ensure that all facts reported in this show are accurate. The views and opinions expressed by the individuals featured in this show are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of Lava for Good.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Hey guys, this is Laura and I writer. Welcome to
a very special breaking news episode of wrongful conviction False Confessions.
Here's why I'm dropping in with this episode. Over and over,
Steve and I have told you about innocent people who
ended up confessing the crimes they didn't commit. These stories
usually have a common thread interrogators who lied about the
(00:25):
evidence to get those false confessions. Lies like your DNA
was found at the scene, or the polygraph proves you guilty.
These kinds of lies are known risk factors for false confessions.
But here's the breaking news. Someone is finally doing something
about it. For the first time in US history, bills
have just been introduced in three states to prohibit police
(00:47):
from lying during interrogations. It's happening right now in New York, Oregon,
and my home state Illinois. I support these bills, and
I hope you will too. In fact, we pulled together
today's special episode just so I could introduce you to
three heroes who were working together to make sure we
make change. I'll be joined first today by New York
(01:17):
exonerie Marty Tankloff. He falsely confessed to murdering his own
parents when he was just seventeen. Then you'll hear from
Illinois State Senator Robert Peters. He's the sponsor of Illinois
Senate Bill twenty one twenty two, which would ban deception
during interrogation. Finally, you'll hear from an old friend of mine,
Dave Thompson. He's an experienced interrogator and police trainer who's
(01:42):
with us all the way in our fight to end
false confessions. I'm going to start with our guest, Marty Tankliff.
Marty woke up one fall morning and found his dad
in another room, severely beaten and barely alive. Unbeknownst to
Marty at the time, his mom had all been attacked
in a different part of the house. In fact, she
(02:03):
had already died because of her injuries. Like anyone would do,
Marty called the police. But that's when an already terrible
situation got even worse. So thank you so much for
joining us, all three of you today. This is such
an important topic and I'm so glad we're here to
talk about this. I want to start things off by
(02:24):
hearing from my friend Marty Tankliff. Right, Marty, you've got
one of the most incredible stories of wrongful conviction and
false confession that I've ever heard and lies about the
evidence are at the heart of it. So let's bring
our listeners back. You're seventeen years old, You're living with
mom and dad in Long Island, New York, and what
happens from there.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
September seventh, nineteen eighty eight, was supposed to be my
first day of my senior year of high school, and
the night before, my father held a high stakes poker
game with his business partner, Jerry Struman and others. And
on September seventh, I woke up up, found that my
house was unlocked, lights were on, and I walked through
(03:06):
the house and discovered my father bleeding in his office chair,
which is where the poker game happened the night before.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Unbeknownst to you and your mom was in another room
and had actually been bludgeoned to death herself.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
I discovered my mom after that, but I knew my
father was alive because I performed first aid.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
I could hear him breathing. I called my one one.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
And shortly thereafter the police showed up, and I wanted
to go to the hospital, but law enforcement wanted information
who they thought was responsible, and you know, we all said,
my family, my friends, everybody said, Jerry Struman.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
Jerry Stuerman, and he happened to be there the night before.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
Tell me a little bit about what happened the night before.
You've mentioned this.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
So the night before there was a high six poker
game that included Jerry Stuerman. And Jerry Stuman was my
father's business partner, who, unbeknownst to me at that time,
had threatened to cut my father's throat out, his tongue
out weeks before my father started demanding money back from
Jerry Stuerman, and it was so bad that my father
(04:09):
had told the family attorney, Jerry's not going to fuck
with me because I know where the bones are buried.
I didn't know any of that back then. The only
thing I knew was that there were some problems with
Jerry Steuerman. And I knew there were no problems with
me or my parents. I mean, we had a loving relationship.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
I grew up in a.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
Great neighborhood, great family, traveled everything with my parents, so
I knew there was no problems with us.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
But the police, I guess, weren't so sure. They broughady
done to police headquarters. And what happens.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
I really wasn't clothed, I was barefoot, was wearing shorts
in a sweatshirt, and I was separated from family. I
wasn't brought to the hospital. I was driven forty five
minutes away by Detective James McCready. I was brought up
to police headquarters in a windowless room that had a
desk and empty file cabinet, two metal chairs, no phone,
(05:03):
no windows, and you know, the questioning started, you know,
where were you the night before?
Speaker 3 (05:09):
Who do you think was responsible?
Speaker 2 (05:11):
And that seemed to go on forever until there was
a point where McCready left the room and he left
the door open and you could hear him saying, really, great, really,
that's amazing, that's great news. Wait till I tell Marty.
And he came back in and he said, Marty, I
got great news and bad news. So the great news
(05:32):
is they pumped your father full of adrenaline. He woke
up and he said, you committed the murders. You attacked
your mother, and your father just tell us you did that.
Because your father just said you did that. I mean,
they contained by saying, listen, Marty, we have your hair
in your mother's hands, just tell us what we want
(05:53):
to hear. Your father would want that.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Wow, that's incredible. How did you react to those lies, Marty?
Speaker 2 (06:01):
My initial gut response was like, I'll take a lot
of detector, like I didn't do anything. But it also
came to the point where it was kind of I
guess you could say, like the floor under me just
fell out, and kind of was like, well, if my
father said I did it, maybe I did. Because my
father's never lied to me, and police are not supposed
to lie to you, So I know I didn't do anything,
(06:22):
but my father's saying that it was me, and the
Copps are saying was me.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
But I was brought up.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
To trust the police, believe in them, and brought up
to that they're not going to lie to you. They're
your friends, they're going to help you.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
Exactly. In fact, your dad was police commissioner, wasn't he.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
He was the police commissioner for the incorporated village of
Beltare where we live.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
And you start to doubt your own memory because you
so trust the word of these authority figures, right, these
police officers who were telling you what another authority figure
your dad supposedly.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
Said without a doubt, without a doubt. You kind of
start going back and forth in your head. You kind
of say, wait a minute, I know I didn't do anything,
but they're saying I did. Screaming in your face, yelling
at you, saying you know, Marty, we know you did this,
and your father is saying you did this.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
Some people, Marty, some people that I've talked to, say,
you know what, if I was being interrogated, right, if
I was inside the interrogation room and I was innocent
and police lied to me, it would be so easy
to see through those lies, right, to not be influenced
by those lies? Is it so easy when it's you
in the moment?
Speaker 2 (07:26):
No farthest thing from that. I mean, you know, I
wasn't somebody who was thirty who had lived a life.
Speaker 3 (07:34):
I was a kid.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
I was a kid who was raised to trust your
family and cops, and in this situation, one of.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
Them failed me.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
And it's so eventually you confessed.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
Eventually, they said I confessed. What the reality was is
that they didn't record anything, they didn't audio tape anything,
and everything they said I said proved forensically to be wrong.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
Right, But you gave the series of statements that eventually
the officer said amounted to a confession, right, and that
was a huge part of the evidence that was used
against you to secure your conviction in the murder of
your own parents, which you ended up serving seventeen years
in prison for before being exonerated. I mean, it's an
incredible story, and it's one in which lies about the
(08:24):
evidence are at the absolute bottom. I just want to know, Marty,
when afterwards did you begin to realize that you had
been lied to?
Speaker 2 (08:33):
There were two points for me. One was when I
had an opportunity to make a phone call to a
family member and the family member said, did you tell
them that you did it? And I was like, they
made me. That was the only thing I could say
on there during that phone call. But hours later, when
I met with a family member and an attorney, I
went into much more detail. And back then somebody, you know,
(08:56):
one of them said, we were afraid of this because
they knew what Suffolk County's history was, and they knew
that once I was isolated, that this was bound to happen.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Wow, And and what was it like to understand that
you've been lied to by these authority figures right by
these police officers. When you grew up trusting, I.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
Mean back then, it was still this disbelief. I mean
it was almost like I was on Twilight Zone. There
was no way that I could be waking up that
should have been one of the best days of my
life to literally turning into a living hell. That destroyed
my life, my family's life, the community for you know,
for years, and nobody should ever go through this. I mean,
(09:39):
this is I mean, just because they lied to me.
You know, if you didn't lie, if you did your job,
if you told the truth, if you would have just
electronically recorded we went out in that room, I may
not have spent almost eighteen years in prison.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
Senator I want to bring you in now, as is
Senator Robert Peters from Illinois.
Speaker 4 (10:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (10:09):
I mean, I guess the best way to react to
this is what happened to Marty's damn shame and I'm
sorry that you had to go through that, Marty. And
what is so painful is that it's not surprising. We
see this all the time. They look at you and
they say, you're young, you don't really know any better,
You're in a state of crisis, and they, instead of
(10:30):
caring about figuring out what happened in this moment of
pain and trauma. They became assured of their own answer.
And so you know, the bill that you know I'm
carrying in the Senate is built off of the fact
that countless people roughly the same age as Marty or younger. Now,
(10:52):
this happens to older folks, but the reason why young
folks are targeted is because there's a power dynamic at
play and limitation and how many rights you actually have
or understand to have. And it's not about people's safety,
and it's not about trying to solve or figure out
the trauma that's happened. And at some point it becomes
(11:14):
purely about winning the game in which you've solved something supposedly.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
You know, Senator I think you're exactly right, Marty. You
spoke about Suffolk County, New York, right where this happened
to you. But of course we know of hundreds and
hundreds of cases of false confession around the country, one
hundred alone in Illinois, one hundred and fifty when you
combine Illinois and New York, and those numbers are all
in all probability, just the tip of the iceberg. Because
(11:40):
these cases are just now starting to come to light. Marty,
you heard the senator talk about the need to ban
live about the evidence in the interrogation room. Does what
he said resonate with you?
Speaker 2 (11:51):
First of all, thank you Senator for trying to push
this legislation through, because more, Marie time does have to
be protected. You know, I think about how challenging it
was for me, and I think about all the young
men and women in minority communities, the abuse that I
went through. I can't even fathom what someone else goes
(12:13):
through in a regular basis.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
It's me.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
This legislation has to be passed. I mean universally, it
has to be passed.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
So at this point I want to bring in my
good friend Dave Thompson, who's here with us as well.
Dave is the president of Wick Landers Zulawski. You train
police across the country and across the globe, and you've
also conducted a few interrogations yourself. Dave, how many would
you say you've done?
Speaker 4 (12:38):
Yeah, quite a few hundred interrogations, I'd say, Laura, kind
of across multiple sectors and across multiple jurisdictions.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Wow, So there really is no one better for me?
To ask, then do cops really need to lie during interrogations?
Speaker 4 (12:53):
No, there's other methods that they can be trained in
which we can discuss the law needs to change, and
we also know it increases the fear of innocent people
like Marty just describe, and for detectives who are investigating
somebody who is a guilty subject who does confess to
a crime, but they used a tactic like this, all
(13:14):
that does is potentially contaminate that confession and maybe jeopardize
the reliability of a true confession as well. So it's
really a very high risk, low reward strategy.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
Okay, So if police officers don't need to lie, then
why do they do it?
Speaker 4 (13:31):
I think the simple answer is that's how they've been
trained and that's what they're allowed to do. It's not investigators,
for the most part, doing something that they feel is
unethical or unwarranted. If they're doing something that they've used
for decades, they've been trained in that technique and maybe
unaware of the negative implications this technique has on both
(13:54):
innocent subjects and to the reliability of a true confession.
So if we look at what's the REOs cause, what's
the reason that we lie about evidence in the first place,
and it's because if that evidence doesn't exist, we have
this bias or this belief that the person sitting in
front of us is the guilty party, but the evidence
isn't there, which means we don't have enough to actually
prove they're the guilty party. So we rely on this
(14:17):
fictitious piece of information to persuade the suspect to tell
us they're guilty and versus let the investigation stand on
its own. And even furthermore, you know, innocent people they
hear that there's this perspective of evidence. Right if I said,
and an arson case, you know, we have video footage
of you starting the fire, and that doesn't exist, an
innocent person might think, well, I hope they have video
(14:38):
footage because it'll clear my name. So almost that fictitious
presentation of evidence incentivizes an innocent person to just say, fine,
yeah I did it, because they hope that evidence will
prove that they didn't, just to kind of find out
that evidence doesn't exist in the first place. So I
think Marty brought up one fact that investigators said, hair right,
his hair in his mother's hand. And so let's say
(14:59):
in a confession, somebody like Marty says, well, yeah, I
guess you know, she must have grabbed my hair during
whatever whatever happened. Now, the subject giving that information and
a confession, did they say that because they were actually
part of the crime they remember that happening, Or did
they say that because that's what the investigators fact fed
to them during the interview. So they're just agreeing to it.
When you have somebody of a youthful age, they're looking
(15:21):
at how do I escape this immediate situation and get
back to safety. And that's what results in the false
confession is I have faith that this evidence is going
to prove my innocence to be true. Let me say
whatever I need to get the hell out of the
room and get back to safety, and let let the
lawyers figure it out afterwards. Unfortunately, we see what that
has turned into.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
I would imagine that when people sign up to be
police officers, right when they joined police forces, they want
to be the good guys. And then at a certain point,
police officers who become interrogators learn that as a part
of their job they're expected to lie. Are there some
cops out there who maybe aren't come struggle with that.
Speaker 4 (16:01):
First of all, the goal and most investigators are well
intended to try to represent a victim or a victim's family,
or whoever might have been harmed in one of these cases.
And so when you go into an investigation or an
interrogation and you have this predisposed belief of who the
guilty suspect is, and you've been trained that lying about
(16:25):
evidence is a strategical way to get to a confession,
then yeah, that's what a lot of officers are focused on. However,
I think there's an overwhelming discomfort, especially with new detectives,
to be put into a position where their own integrity
is and jeopardy where they know, if I lie to
somebody about the evidence today, what does that do for
(16:46):
my credibility tomorrow. I think there's a overwhelming support of
law enforcement for more clear direction and distinction about what
should be done so we can still solve cases, but
do it in the most ethical and scientifically based way.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
Tell me, Dave, what does an interrogation look like if
you take away lies about the evidence.
Speaker 4 (17:09):
It looks like asking open ended questions, a conversation where
the investigator doesn't have a goal of a confession, but
has a goal of obtaining actionable, reliable information less of
having confirmation bias and tunnel vision non coersive evidence based
interview methods that are progressively gaining traction across the United States.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
Senator, I want to go back to you for just
one minute. You've introduced this bill, of course, in your
home state of Illinois, and you're in great company because
there are similar bills that have been introduced in New York,
where Marty is from, and in Oregon as well, other
bills that would ban lying about the evidence in the
interrogation room. What does it mean to you to be
part of this national ground swell for change?
Speaker 5 (17:53):
Wow? So I think that I always think like when
you try to make changes to something systemic, you can't
just go it alone. And so to me, it's not
just having it be Illinois, New York, or organ but
to see it across the country.
Speaker 4 (18:07):
Right.
Speaker 5 (18:07):
But I also think it's just important that if we
can do this in Illinois, a complex state, same with Oregon,
same with New York, other states should try to follow
and do the same thing.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
I think that's well said. And Dave in how many
states is deception used during interrogations?
Speaker 4 (18:24):
I mean the Supreme court law is allowing it to
be used across the United States. We've seen a lot
of jurisdictions starting to move forward away from that proactively. Right,
we can start training officers now, and we have been
on methods that you don't need to use those tactics,
and we start to look outside the United States.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
You know, the UK has.
Speaker 4 (18:42):
Banned deception for decades in their interview models. Canada has
been moving away from it. So this is not a
new problem by any means. It's just finally a solution
to that problem.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
I think it is.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
It's a free, groundbreaking solution to this problem. Senator, you
have introduced Illinois Senate Bill twenty one, which would ban
deception in the interrogation room. Where do we go from here?
How can people get involved in supporting your effort to
ban deception.
Speaker 5 (19:09):
Let's put pressure on legislators. Let's shine a light on
Illinois as a model for rarely, whether that's Montana or Florida,
take this bill as piece of model legislation and say
that this is something that needs to happen in New states.
So let me repeat that Montana or Florida should have
their own version of this bill.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
Absolutely, absolutely, People can follow you on social media. Senator
Robert Peters is your name. They can follow me at
Laura and I Writer on Twitter or Instagram for tips
on how to get involved in supporting the Illinois effort,
as well as the crucial New York and Oregon efforts
as well. Marty, I want to let you close this out.
You've been extraordinarily successful despite all of these odds stacked
(19:50):
against you in your life. Since your exoneration, You've become
a practicing attorney, you have become an adjunct professor. I
You've become an inspiration for change. And I think that's
what we're talking about today on this podcast. What does
it mean to you that your story can and has
inspired people like Dave, people like Senator Peters to fight
(20:11):
for real change.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
I just want to say two things very quickly. One
is that when you entirely get an innocent person, you
get a false confession and you arrest them, you've allowed
the criminal party to remain free to commit additional crimes
on our community. And you know, this bill should be
highlighted that it's not just about the coercion, it's really
(20:32):
about the safety of everyone involved. And you know, if
my voice can help make change somewhere, then you know,
maybe my suffering was meant to be somewhere.
Speaker 3 (20:43):
As weird as it sounds.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
But there really shouldn't be any more Marti tank lifts
there are. You know, very few people get to suffer
the way I have and be able to achieve what
I've been able to achieve, you know, And for me,
it's about education. It's about retraining and refocusing everyone's perspectives
on the system. In thak you to Senator Peters and
(21:08):
Dave Thompson. We're making a difference. And you know, if
we can make a change in Illinois, we can do
it universally and we can protect our kids. And just
to make the record clear, I'm an adjunct professor Georgetown
not Law School, and I teach the class that Georgetown
is nicknamed making an exonery where we use undergraduate students
(21:30):
to reinvestigate cases. And what's amazing is some of those
students have been through tragedies that we've spoken about today,
either directly or indirectly. And to me, that's the next
generation of freedom fighters for us.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
Well. Inspired by you, Marty very much, and by you
Senator Peters, and by you Dave Thank you all so
much for joining us today. It has been a fascinating conversation.
Best of luck with everything that each one of you
is doing to change the world, make a difference, like
Marty says, and most importantly, make sure that we're advancing
this fight against wrongful convictions.
Speaker 3 (22:05):
Thank you, Thank you, Lura.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
All right, take care, guys. That's all the time we have,
but I hope you get just how important it is
to support Illinois State Senate Bill twenty one to twenty two.
There will be a vote on the bill Friday, April sixteenth,
so we need you to weigh in now. Sign up
to get involved at Innocenceproject dot org, slash pledge, or
(22:29):
tweet your support to the Illinois Senate Democrats at ill
send deems that's il s E n d e MS
to learn how to support similar efforts in New York,
Oregon and other states. You can also follow me at
Laura and I Wrider on Instagram or Twitter. Be well everyone,
(22:50):
and thanks again to our guests. Wrongful Conviction, False Confessions
is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts in association
with Signal Company Number one. Special thanks to our executive
producers Jason Flamm and Kevin Wardis. This episode was produced
by Riva Goldberg and Connor Hall. Followed the show on
(23:11):
Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and on Twitter at wrong Conviction
Hey guys, this is Laura and I writer. Welcome to
a very special breaking news episode of wrongful conviction False Confessions.
Here's why I'm dropping in with this episode. Over and over,
Steve and I have told you about innocent people who
ended up confessing the crimes they didn't commit. These stories
usually have a common thread interrogators who lied about the
(00:25):
evidence to get those false confessions. Lies like your DNA
was found at the scene, or the polygraph proves you guilty.
These kinds of lies are known risk factors for false confessions.
But here's the breaking news. Someone is finally doing something
about it. For the first time in US history, bills
have just been introduced in three states to prohibit police
(00:47):
from lying during interrogations. It's happening right now in New York, Oregon,
and my home state Illinois. I support these bills, and
I hope you will too. In fact, we pulled together
today's special episode just so I could introduce you to
three heroes who were working together to make sure we
make change. I'll be joined first today by New York
(01:17):
exonerie Marty Tankloff. He falsely confessed to murdering his own
parents when he was just seventeen. Then you'll hear from
Illinois State Senator Robert Peters. He's the sponsor of Illinois
Senate Bill twenty one twenty two, which would ban deception
during interrogation. Finally, you'll hear from an old friend of mine,
Dave Thompson. He's an experienced interrogator and police trainer who's
(01:42):
with us all the way in our fight to end
false confessions. I'm going to start with our guest, Marty Tankliff.
Marty woke up one fall morning and found his dad
in another room, severely beaten and barely alive. Unbeknownst to
Marty at the time, his mom had all been attacked
in a different part of the house. In fact, she
(02:03):
had already died because of her injuries. Like anyone would do,
Marty called the police. But that's when an already terrible
situation got even worse. So thank you so much for
joining us, all three of you today. This is such
an important topic and I'm so glad we're here to
talk about this. I want to start things off by
(02:24):
hearing from my friend Marty Tankliff. Right, Marty, you've got
one of the most incredible stories of wrongful conviction and
false confession that I've ever heard and lies about the
evidence are at the heart of it. So let's bring
our listeners back. You're seventeen years old, You're living with
mom and dad in Long Island, New York, and what
happens from there.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
September seventh, nineteen eighty eight, was supposed to be my
first day of my senior year of high school, and
the night before, my father held a high stakes poker
game with his business partner, Jerry Struman and others. And
on September seventh, I woke up up, found that my
house was unlocked, lights were on, and I walked through
(03:06):
the house and discovered my father bleeding in his office chair,
which is where the poker game happened the night before.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Unbeknownst to you and your mom was in another room
and had actually been bludgeoned to death herself.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
I discovered my mom after that, but I knew my
father was alive because I performed first aid.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
I could hear him breathing. I called my one one.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
And shortly thereafter the police showed up, and I wanted
to go to the hospital, but law enforcement wanted information
who they thought was responsible, and you know, we all said,
my family, my friends, everybody said, Jerry Struman.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
Jerry Stuerman, and he happened to be there the night before.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
Tell me a little bit about what happened the night before.
You've mentioned this.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
So the night before there was a high six poker
game that included Jerry Stuerman. And Jerry Stuman was my
father's business partner, who, unbeknownst to me at that time,
had threatened to cut my father's throat out, his tongue
out weeks before my father started demanding money back from
Jerry Stuerman, and it was so bad that my father
(04:09):
had told the family attorney, Jerry's not going to fuck
with me because I know where the bones are buried.
I didn't know any of that back then. The only
thing I knew was that there were some problems with
Jerry Steuerman. And I knew there were no problems with
me or my parents. I mean, we had a loving relationship.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
I grew up in a.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
Great neighborhood, great family, traveled everything with my parents, so
I knew there was no problems with us.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
But the police, I guess, weren't so sure. They broughady
done to police headquarters. And what happens.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
I really wasn't clothed, I was barefoot, was wearing shorts
in a sweatshirt, and I was separated from family. I
wasn't brought to the hospital. I was driven forty five
minutes away by Detective James McCready. I was brought up
to police headquarters in a windowless room that had a
desk and empty file cabinet, two metal chairs, no phone,
(05:03):
no windows, and you know, the questioning started, you know,
where were you the night before?
Speaker 3 (05:09):
Who do you think was responsible?
Speaker 2 (05:11):
And that seemed to go on forever until there was
a point where McCready left the room and he left
the door open and you could hear him saying, really, great, really,
that's amazing, that's great news. Wait till I tell Marty.
And he came back in and he said, Marty, I
got great news and bad news. So the great news
(05:32):
is they pumped your father full of adrenaline. He woke
up and he said, you committed the murders. You attacked
your mother, and your father just tell us you did that.
Because your father just said you did that. I mean,
they contained by saying, listen, Marty, we have your hair
in your mother's hands, just tell us what we want
(05:53):
to hear. Your father would want that.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Wow, that's incredible. How did you react to those lies, Marty?
Speaker 2 (06:01):
My initial gut response was like, I'll take a lot
of detector, like I didn't do anything. But it also
came to the point where it was kind of I
guess you could say, like the floor under me just
fell out, and kind of was like, well, if my
father said I did it, maybe I did. Because my
father's never lied to me, and police are not supposed
to lie to you, So I know I didn't do anything,
(06:22):
but my father's saying that it was me, and the
Copps are saying was me.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
But I was brought up.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
To trust the police, believe in them, and brought up
to that they're not going to lie to you. They're
your friends, they're going to help you.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
Exactly. In fact, your dad was police commissioner, wasn't he.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
He was the police commissioner for the incorporated village of
Beltare where we live.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
And you start to doubt your own memory because you
so trust the word of these authority figures, right, these
police officers who were telling you what another authority figure
your dad supposedly.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
Said without a doubt, without a doubt. You kind of
start going back and forth in your head. You kind
of say, wait a minute, I know I didn't do anything,
but they're saying I did. Screaming in your face, yelling
at you, saying you know, Marty, we know you did this,
and your father is saying you did this.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
Some people, Marty, some people that I've talked to, say,
you know what, if I was being interrogated, right, if
I was inside the interrogation room and I was innocent
and police lied to me, it would be so easy
to see through those lies, right, to not be influenced
by those lies? Is it so easy when it's you
in the moment?
Speaker 2 (07:26):
No farthest thing from that. I mean, you know, I
wasn't somebody who was thirty who had lived a life.
Speaker 3 (07:34):
I was a kid.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
I was a kid who was raised to trust your
family and cops, and in this situation, one of.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
Them failed me.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
And it's so eventually you confessed.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
Eventually, they said I confessed. What the reality was is
that they didn't record anything, they didn't audio tape anything,
and everything they said I said proved forensically to be wrong.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
Right, But you gave the series of statements that eventually
the officer said amounted to a confession, right, and that
was a huge part of the evidence that was used
against you to secure your conviction in the murder of
your own parents, which you ended up serving seventeen years
in prison for before being exonerated. I mean, it's an
incredible story, and it's one in which lies about the
(08:24):
evidence are at the absolute bottom. I just want to know, Marty,
when afterwards did you begin to realize that you had
been lied to?
Speaker 2 (08:33):
There were two points for me. One was when I
had an opportunity to make a phone call to a
family member and the family member said, did you tell
them that you did it? And I was like, they
made me. That was the only thing I could say
on there during that phone call. But hours later, when
I met with a family member and an attorney, I
went into much more detail. And back then somebody, you know,
(08:56):
one of them said, we were afraid of this because
they knew what Suffolk County's history was, and they knew
that once I was isolated, that this was bound to happen.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Wow, And and what was it like to understand that
you've been lied to by these authority figures right by
these police officers. When you grew up trusting, I.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
Mean back then, it was still this disbelief. I mean
it was almost like I was on Twilight Zone. There
was no way that I could be waking up that
should have been one of the best days of my
life to literally turning into a living hell. That destroyed
my life, my family's life, the community for you know,
for years, and nobody should ever go through this. I mean,
(09:39):
this is I mean, just because they lied to me.
You know, if you didn't lie, if you did your job,
if you told the truth, if you would have just
electronically recorded we went out in that room, I may
not have spent almost eighteen years in prison.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
Senator I want to bring you in now, as is
Senator Robert Peters from Illinois.
Speaker 4 (10:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (10:09):
I mean, I guess the best way to react to
this is what happened to Marty's damn shame and I'm
sorry that you had to go through that, Marty. And
what is so painful is that it's not surprising. We
see this all the time. They look at you and
they say, you're young, you don't really know any better,
You're in a state of crisis, and they, instead of
(10:30):
caring about figuring out what happened in this moment of
pain and trauma. They became assured of their own answer.
And so you know, the bill that you know I'm
carrying in the Senate is built off of the fact
that countless people roughly the same age as Marty or younger. Now,
(10:52):
this happens to older folks, but the reason why young
folks are targeted is because there's a power dynamic at
play and limitation and how many rights you actually have
or understand to have. And it's not about people's safety,
and it's not about trying to solve or figure out
the trauma that's happened. And at some point it becomes
(11:14):
purely about winning the game in which you've solved something supposedly.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
You know, Senator I think you're exactly right, Marty. You
spoke about Suffolk County, New York, right where this happened
to you. But of course we know of hundreds and
hundreds of cases of false confession around the country, one
hundred alone in Illinois, one hundred and fifty when you
combine Illinois and New York, and those numbers are all
in all probability, just the tip of the iceberg. Because
(11:40):
these cases are just now starting to come to light. Marty,
you heard the senator talk about the need to ban
live about the evidence in the interrogation room. Does what
he said resonate with you?
Speaker 2 (11:51):
First of all, thank you Senator for trying to push
this legislation through, because more, Marie time does have to
be protected. You know, I think about how challenging it
was for me, and I think about all the young
men and women in minority communities, the abuse that I
went through. I can't even fathom what someone else goes
(12:13):
through in a regular basis.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
It's me.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
This legislation has to be passed. I mean universally, it
has to be passed.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
So at this point I want to bring in my
good friend Dave Thompson, who's here with us as well.
Dave is the president of Wick Landers Zulawski. You train
police across the country and across the globe, and you've
also conducted a few interrogations yourself. Dave, how many would
you say you've done?
Speaker 4 (12:38):
Yeah, quite a few hundred interrogations, I'd say, Laura, kind
of across multiple sectors and across multiple jurisdictions.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Wow, So there really is no one better for me?
To ask, then do cops really need to lie during interrogations?
Speaker 4 (12:53):
No, there's other methods that they can be trained in
which we can discuss the law needs to change, and
we also know it increases the fear of innocent people
like Marty just describe, and for detectives who are investigating
somebody who is a guilty subject who does confess to
a crime, but they used a tactic like this, all
(13:14):
that does is potentially contaminate that confession and maybe jeopardize
the reliability of a true confession as well. So it's
really a very high risk, low reward strategy.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
Okay, So if police officers don't need to lie, then
why do they do it?
Speaker 4 (13:31):
I think the simple answer is that's how they've been
trained and that's what they're allowed to do. It's not investigators,
for the most part, doing something that they feel is
unethical or unwarranted. If they're doing something that they've used
for decades, they've been trained in that technique and maybe
unaware of the negative implications this technique has on both
(13:54):
innocent subjects and to the reliability of a true confession.
So if we look at what's the REOs cause, what's
the reason that we lie about evidence in the first place,
and it's because if that evidence doesn't exist, we have
this bias or this belief that the person sitting in
front of us is the guilty party, but the evidence
isn't there, which means we don't have enough to actually
prove they're the guilty party. So we rely on this
(14:17):
fictitious piece of information to persuade the suspect to tell
us they're guilty and versus let the investigation stand on
its own. And even furthermore, you know, innocent people they
hear that there's this perspective of evidence. Right if I said,
and an arson case, you know, we have video footage
of you starting the fire, and that doesn't exist, an
innocent person might think, well, I hope they have video
(14:38):
footage because it'll clear my name. So almost that fictitious
presentation of evidence incentivizes an innocent person to just say, fine,
yeah I did it, because they hope that evidence will
prove that they didn't, just to kind of find out
that evidence doesn't exist in the first place. So I
think Marty brought up one fact that investigators said, hair right,
his hair in his mother's hand. And so let's say
(14:59):
in a confession, somebody like Marty says, well, yeah, I
guess you know, she must have grabbed my hair during
whatever whatever happened. Now, the subject giving that information and
a confession, did they say that because they were actually
part of the crime they remember that happening, Or did
they say that because that's what the investigators fact fed
to them during the interview. So they're just agreeing to it.
When you have somebody of a youthful age, they're looking
(15:21):
at how do I escape this immediate situation and get
back to safety. And that's what results in the false
confession is I have faith that this evidence is going
to prove my innocence to be true. Let me say
whatever I need to get the hell out of the
room and get back to safety, and let let the
lawyers figure it out afterwards. Unfortunately, we see what that
has turned into.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
I would imagine that when people sign up to be
police officers, right when they joined police forces, they want
to be the good guys. And then at a certain point,
police officers who become interrogators learn that as a part
of their job they're expected to lie. Are there some
cops out there who maybe aren't come struggle with that.
Speaker 4 (16:01):
First of all, the goal and most investigators are well
intended to try to represent a victim or a victim's family,
or whoever might have been harmed in one of these cases.
And so when you go into an investigation or an
interrogation and you have this predisposed belief of who the
guilty suspect is, and you've been trained that lying about
(16:25):
evidence is a strategical way to get to a confession,
then yeah, that's what a lot of officers are focused on. However,
I think there's an overwhelming discomfort, especially with new detectives,
to be put into a position where their own integrity
is and jeopardy where they know, if I lie to
somebody about the evidence today, what does that do for
(16:46):
my credibility tomorrow. I think there's a overwhelming support of
law enforcement for more clear direction and distinction about what
should be done so we can still solve cases, but
do it in the most ethical and scientifically based way.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
Tell me, Dave, what does an interrogation look like if
you take away lies about the evidence.
Speaker 4 (17:09):
It looks like asking open ended questions, a conversation where
the investigator doesn't have a goal of a confession, but
has a goal of obtaining actionable, reliable information less of
having confirmation bias and tunnel vision non coersive evidence based
interview methods that are progressively gaining traction across the United States.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
Senator, I want to go back to you for just
one minute. You've introduced this bill, of course, in your
home state of Illinois, and you're in great company because
there are similar bills that have been introduced in New York,
where Marty is from, and in Oregon as well, other
bills that would ban lying about the evidence in the
interrogation room. What does it mean to you to be
part of this national ground swell for change?
Speaker 5 (17:53):
Wow? So I think that I always think like when
you try to make changes to something systemic, you can't
just go it alone. And so to me, it's not
just having it be Illinois, New York, or organ but
to see it across the country.
Speaker 4 (18:07):
Right.
Speaker 5 (18:07):
But I also think it's just important that if we
can do this in Illinois, a complex state, same with Oregon,
same with New York, other states should try to follow
and do the same thing.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
I think that's well said. And Dave in how many
states is deception used during interrogations?
Speaker 4 (18:24):
I mean the Supreme court law is allowing it to
be used across the United States. We've seen a lot
of jurisdictions starting to move forward away from that proactively. Right,
we can start training officers now, and we have been
on methods that you don't need to use those tactics,
and we start to look outside the United States.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
You know, the UK has.
Speaker 4 (18:42):
Banned deception for decades in their interview models. Canada has
been moving away from it. So this is not a
new problem by any means. It's just finally a solution
to that problem.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
I think it is.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
It's a free, groundbreaking solution to this problem. Senator, you
have introduced Illinois Senate Bill twenty one, which would ban
deception in the interrogation room. Where do we go from here?
How can people get involved in supporting your effort to
ban deception.
Speaker 5 (19:09):
Let's put pressure on legislators. Let's shine a light on
Illinois as a model for rarely, whether that's Montana or Florida,
take this bill as piece of model legislation and say
that this is something that needs to happen in New states.
So let me repeat that Montana or Florida should have
their own version of this bill.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
Absolutely, absolutely, People can follow you on social media. Senator
Robert Peters is your name. They can follow me at
Laura and I Writer on Twitter or Instagram for tips
on how to get involved in supporting the Illinois effort,
as well as the crucial New York and Oregon efforts
as well. Marty, I want to let you close this out.
You've been extraordinarily successful despite all of these odds stacked
(19:50):
against you in your life. Since your exoneration, You've become
a practicing attorney, you have become an adjunct professor. I
You've become an inspiration for change. And I think that's
what we're talking about today on this podcast. What does
it mean to you that your story can and has
inspired people like Dave, people like Senator Peters to fight
(20:11):
for real change.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
I just want to say two things very quickly. One
is that when you entirely get an innocent person, you
get a false confession and you arrest them, you've allowed
the criminal party to remain free to commit additional crimes
on our community. And you know, this bill should be
highlighted that it's not just about the coercion, it's really
(20:32):
about the safety of everyone involved. And you know, if
my voice can help make change somewhere, then you know,
maybe my suffering was meant to be somewhere.
Speaker 3 (20:43):
As weird as it sounds.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
But there really shouldn't be any more Marti tank lifts
there are. You know, very few people get to suffer
the way I have and be able to achieve what
I've been able to achieve, you know, And for me,
it's about education. It's about retraining and refocusing everyone's perspectives
on the system. In thak you to Senator Peters and
(21:08):
Dave Thompson. We're making a difference. And you know, if
we can make a change in Illinois, we can do
it universally and we can protect our kids. And just
to make the record clear, I'm an adjunct professor Georgetown
not Law School, and I teach the class that Georgetown
is nicknamed making an exonery where we use undergraduate students
(21:30):
to reinvestigate cases. And what's amazing is some of those
students have been through tragedies that we've spoken about today,
either directly or indirectly. And to me, that's the next
generation of freedom fighters for us.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
Well. Inspired by you, Marty very much, and by you
Senator Peters, and by you Dave Thank you all so
much for joining us today. It has been a fascinating conversation.
Best of luck with everything that each one of you
is doing to change the world, make a difference, like
Marty says, and most importantly, make sure that we're advancing
this fight against wrongful convictions.
Speaker 3 (22:05):
Thank you, Thank you, Lura.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
All right, take care, guys. That's all the time we have,
but I hope you get just how important it is
to support Illinois State Senate Bill twenty one to twenty two.
There will be a vote on the bill Friday, April sixteenth,
so we need you to weigh in now. Sign up
to get involved at Innocenceproject dot org, slash pledge, or
(22:29):
tweet your support to the Illinois Senate Democrats at ill
send deems that's il s E n d e MS
to learn how to support similar efforts in New York,
Oregon and other states. You can also follow me at
Laura and I Wrider on Instagram or Twitter. Be well everyone,
(22:50):
and thanks again to our guests. Wrongful Conviction, False Confessions
is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts in association
with Signal Company Number one. Special thanks to our executive
producers Jason Flamm and Kevin Wardis. This episode was produced
by Riva Goldberg and Connor Hall. Followed the show on
(23:11):
Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and on Twitter at wrong Conviction
Hosts And Creators
Lauren Bright Pacheco
Maggie Freleng
Jason Flom
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.