Saul Kassin

The way New York City worked their confessions in those days, starting in the 1970s, 1980s, was the detectives interrogated off-camera. They brought their suspect to a point where they were ready to confess, and then they delivered them to an assistant district attorney who stepped in with a camera on and took the confession.

The way New York City worked their confessions in those days, starting in the 1970s, 1980s, was the detectives interrogated off-camera. They brought their suspect to a point where they were ready to confess, and then they delivered them to an assistant district attorney who stepped in with a camera on and took the confession.

They described the jogger as she was running. They described her location. They described dragging her down through the grass. There were clear tread marks. And they gave a description of a woman who had been beaten in the head with a hard object, clothes pulled off, and left for dead.

They described the jogger as she was running. They described her location. They described dragging her down through the grass. There were clear tread marks. And they gave a description of a woman who had been beaten in the head with a hard object, clothes pulled off, and left for dead.

They described the jogger as she was running. They described her location. They described dragging her down through the grass. There were clear tread marks. And they gave a description of a woman who had been beaten in the head with a hard object, clothes pulled off, and left for dead.

Did you try to hide her so she wouldn't get found? You cannot look past those statements on video. They got some of the facts right. They're basically telling the same story. There are some annoying disparities and contradictions between them, but they get enough facts right.

Did you try to hide her so she wouldn't get found? You cannot look past those statements on video. They got some of the facts right. They're basically telling the same story. There are some annoying disparities and contradictions between them, but they get enough facts right.

Did you try to hide her so she wouldn't get found? You cannot look past those statements on video. They got some of the facts right. They're basically telling the same story. There are some annoying disparities and contradictions between them, but they get enough facts right.

He said he was involved in the rape. He was present and he played a minimal role. I believe he said he had held her legs while someone else pulled her pants down.

He said he was involved in the rape. He was present and he played a minimal role. I believe he said he had held her legs while someone else pulled her pants down.

He said he was involved in the rape. He was present and he played a minimal role. I believe he said he had held her legs while someone else pulled her pants down.

When you hear a statement like that, he not only describes what happened, but then describes his own expression of remorse. I'm sorry I did this, he basically said. This is my first rape. It's going to be my last.

When you hear a statement like that, he not only describes what happened, but then describes his own expression of remorse. I'm sorry I did this, he basically said. This is my first rape. It's going to be my last.

When you hear a statement like that, he not only describes what happened, but then describes his own expression of remorse. I'm sorry I did this, he basically said. This is my first rape. It's going to be my last.

Here's a confession that's not just communicating an admission of guilt and some narrative details that are accurate in relation to the crime facts, but now he's reflecting on his own motivation and remorse and acceptance of responsibility. How does a judge and a jury look past that statement?

Here's a confession that's not just communicating an admission of guilt and some narrative details that are accurate in relation to the crime facts, but now he's reflecting on his own motivation and remorse and acceptance of responsibility. How does a judge and a jury look past that statement?

Here's a confession that's not just communicating an admission of guilt and some narrative details that are accurate in relation to the crime facts, but now he's reflecting on his own motivation and remorse and acceptance of responsibility. How does a judge and a jury look past that statement?

And when you have four of them, even though they don't align with each other perfectly, how can a jury look past those four statements

And when you have four of them, even though they don't align with each other perfectly, how can a jury look past those four statements

And when you have four of them, even though they don't align with each other perfectly, how can a jury look past those four statements