Comments by "MarcosElMalo2" (@MarcosElMalo2) on "Guilty until proven innocent." video.

  1. Joe He was incompetent, lazy, and still hoping for an easy win: getting a confession. He was trying to steamroller an innocent man. His incompetence and laziness showed right from the start when he said he wanted to get a sense of Michael, whether this was the first crime Michael had done or if he was a career criminal. Let me explain what this means: THE INVESTIGATOR STARTED THE INTERVIEW ADMITTING HE HADNT EVEN CHECKED IF MICHAEL HAD A CRIMINAL RECORD. (Sorry, I thought that merited all caps.) Then he said there were witnesses that had identified Michael but never mentioned a line up (or other method). This should be a tip off that 1) witnesses had not identified Michael, 2) the detective hadn’t spoken with any witnesses. If the investigator had no evidence, but merely a strong suspicion, he should have released Michael. If evidence was discovered proving Michael’s guilt, they could rearrest him. It happens all the time (and should happen more often if all police acted as professionally as they should). You bring in your “person-of-interest” for questioning, as you’re investigating. If they don’t
    10
  2. That’s lying, not “presenting false evidence”. If the investigating officer here told a court that there was a videotape showing Michael robbing the store, that testimony would be false evidence and perjury (which would obviously be discovered when the prosecution failed to produce the video). If the investigator told the judge there was video tape in order to get a search warrant, that would be false evidence and perjurious. If the investigator tells a lie to a suspect to get a reaction, that’s one thing. This investigator went beyond that when continued to lie when he didn’t get the reaction he had hoped, and piled lies upon lies. This wasn’t an interrogation, it was psychological torture inflicted on an innocent man because the investigator wanted a quick win based on no evidence, merely a confession.
    2
  3. dOlli3cOutur3 I’m glad that worked out for you despite being subject to unfair accusations. However, don’t rely on your store’s security guards. If your store is part of a chain, they might have a corporate team or outside investigators install cameras without the store security knowing.
    2
  4. Yes it was. It was also nice to see that Michael took the law enforcement agency (or city) to court and was awarded damages.
    1