The Interrogators is a crime series available on Youtube. 

This page will list some episodes that are unusual.

 1) Season 1 Episode 8 has a few interrogations. One involves a character named Sherman Norwood who claims very convincingly that he was not involved in a shooting. The police officer talks a bit before the episode, and there are few people sleazier on either side of any law than that cop. Him being a cop is like Ronald Reagan being president. 

The victim identified the shooter as Sherman Norwood, so he is probably guilty, but the cop goes into various deceptions to get a confession. He pretends to give a 5 minute dna test which "comes back positive" etc.

There are a lot of people interviewed by cops like that who realize that cops can, and do, fabricate evidence. A lot of people do confess when they believe that evidence has been convincingly falsified. Sort of like when insulin producers raise the price to a ridiculous level people go along with it out of deference to the short term power of the individuals involved.

In this case the guy probably is guilty, but setting him up so that he feels the need to go along with the detective out of coercion rather than evidence is not a way to solve a crime.

At the end of the episode it mentions what the person was charged with.

Attempted murder? No.

Assault? No.

Shooting? No.

He was charged with attempting to possess a gun.

In other words either the gun they said was his wasn't, or the gun was a different caliber than the one used, or some other explanation.

That was around 2006 and it gave a strong lesson to the young man about what the law represents. The case in that episode is not findable on Google, but later cases against that guy, after he got out of a 3 year prison sentence for 'attempting to possess a gun', are, including robbing a store.

In that particular town the people who are opposite the police, e.g. the criminals, have a more natural solid foundation than the police. 

 The show is trying to present the police as being skilled at something or as having qualities that are respectable, but all several of the episodes, at least, show is how scummy cops are. I have seen videos of competent interrogations, so they do exist, but it's mind boggling that a pro police show would take the scummiest people, dressed in suits and carrying badges, to sell their message.

2) The next interview on the same episode is more interesting.

A heavy fellow went to his neighbors to intimidate and steal and ends up killing the person where he lived.

One of the first things somebody familiar with the United States and how areas evolve would notice are some 'developmental peculiarities' involving regions. The interview took place around 2005. That's a complex issue that will be written about by somebody interested and more knowledgeable, but here is one observation.

 At 43 min 48 sec there is a picture of the front of the church where the funeral may have taken place. The first line of text is "Evil Often Fails". An unusual position for a church to take, and obviously a 'group' position, a strategic position or observation of that church's leadership.

That could be interpreted a number of ways, in other words a person could be generous to that church, but justifying that generosity would be difficult. 

Here is the church's website 

And that specific pastor or reverend 

Notice that the church has an evangelical tone, which is fine, but also notice that pastor's history.

Pastor CCCU 1976 - 2015 39 years

Senior Pastor of churches in Michigan, Ohio and New York

There are groups of similar churches across the United States and they overlap in some ways with overseas churches, some of which have been in the news recently in Asia.

As a collective, those churches use a British Colonial style to expand and consolidate, but their expansion days are clearly over.

That 'evangelizing' collective, including the 'heavy' police and suspect, are on the rapid retreat eastward starting in Asia, and are obviously being replaced in Europe, but probably do have enough power to consolidate in parts of North America as they retreat eastward.

There are vast populations with this 'unbrightness' across the United States, but their only survivable toehold, long term, is on the east coast, and even there, 'long term' is relative.

In this case the show does not present the useful part of the interview, i.e., the part where police try to extract the power from their interviewee by converting the subject to their group, the show only offers their ironic final result which is "group authority and power wins, so you should side with us and be safe".

The missing part of the interview would be a goldmine for anthropologists.

The broader context of the retreat of Christianity to that region is also interesting.

Christianity began as the Roman empire needed a glue to hold 'its' conquered groups obedient. Christianity was created obviously by a Jew working for the Romans, and there are similarities between those two religions, the big difference being the lesser amount of discipline in the more recent. Islam started in a vaguely similar context, but with one big difference. Islam has natural disciplines which give it an organic edge over Christianity.

So ultimately in any competition between Christianity and Islam the latter will win, and Europe is the relevant place in this case as Christianity cannot retreat further east than a temporary toehold west of Europe i.e., the new world.

The authoritarian church which is developing, a pathetic group, combined with their equally ridiculous 'law enforcers'  are in synch with the upcoming general shift to authoritarian rule in the United States.

When all is said and done it is certain there will be a lot of people alive to scratch their heads and ask how the United States could have been so stupid as to create a 'unipolar' melting pot by eliminating the liberties of the peoples' whose places they attacked/consumed.

As the natural reaction progresses, Asian power will continue expanding eastward but will probably not reach Europe to any great degree.

Another 'big picture' aspect of contrived authority groups like those involved in all aspects of this case is the general expansion of Judaism and its derivatives. Over thousands of years Jews did almost the same thing that the British and their origin group have done in the last few hundred years.

As Britain declines rapidly the slow decline of Judaism derived groups will accelerate and Asia will only find synergy in those declines.

3) Another case where integrity is sacrificed 'for the job' 

The last interview in that episode occurred in 2006. At that time it was much more common for police to kill unarmed people with the explanation that they were defending themselves. Prosecuting police in cases like that was almost unheard of at that time. Police were considered fully within their professional rights when they accidentally killed an unarmed person.

This episode is a woman who killed her boyfriend as he was about to beat her.

The explanation given by the interviewers at the end is a good example of the complete lack of any integrity, among police, being the norm. They can concoct a rationale that does not make sense, is contradictory, and have no worries because they know their group is strong enough to steamroll factual challenges to their logic.

This particular case is unusual in the series because it shows something even more disgraceful than the cops and their sleaziness.

Those 'journalists' who made the series clearly edited the interview to make the final statement by the detective appear less ridiculous.

4) A similar channel 

In this case there is only one piece of evidence which is compelling, which is the hand injuries. The timing of the hand injuries is astonishing, along with the very brief window between when he left and when the murder happened. The premise suggested by the prosecution is that he killed his mother either to protect somebody else, which is not plausible, or for some unclear reason involving an argument between them. He may be guilty but the police did not even make a token effort to investigate.

Final conclusion, the father manipulated the son into a position to remove his wife and the son succeeded in everything except getting away. Probably less than 10% chance the convicted person was not involved, similar number for the husband of the victim.

Looking at his explanation at he says things that are verifiable and are either true or not true. He put on a bandage from the work medical kit. True or not true? The remnants of that bandage would be in the trash near the 'ambulance' worker who put on the current bandage.

So did the investigators discredit his story by checking evidence? They did not. Much easier to ask his coworkers how likely such an injury would be. The police claim his coworkers said it would be an impossible injury.

The main interviewer is a technician type. He has a job where he only has to follow a formula, never has to do honest work and a decent job, as long as he follows the formula.

There should have been some kind of adult present to tell the interrogator "Take him to the job and ask him to show you which pallet it was and video tape it".

But...if you go to that workplace and ask the workers, without any police pressuring them to give a specific statement favoring the police version, every single one of the workers, who have been there at least 3 years, will say that at some point they have gotten at least a scratch on that part of their hand from a broken pallet. If you looked through OSHA records you would probably find ten or twenty people with similar but more serious injuries every year from tossing pallets in a careless or creative way.

The timing indicates he could well be guilty, but if they think that he is then why not look at facts instead of fabricating evidence?

Another strange aspect of this case is that she was stabbed 16 times in the neck which seems to make it less likely the son is the killer. Strangely the father is said to have an airtight alibi but he is the one who found the body so the only way he could have an alibi is if there were evidence of a long interval after death and before the body was found, such as rigor mortis.

One more possibility, a worst case scenario, arises from in other words the father and son doing what the Staudte mother and daughter did.

Looking at the video ar 3 min 6 seconds the husband quotes the wife in a conflated way, a slight distortion of what she probably said. This video presents a lot more evidence and does point to a murder arranged by her husband and son together, probably after a conversation between them which could have been clarified by competent interviewers.

5) Another interrogation that shows problems 

Steven Pankey is a semi politician convicted of killing a girl in 1984. 

That Youtube clip shows an interviewer at a trial trying to sound out Pankey's past statements to see if they can be presented as suggestive of a confession.

The trial led to a conviction, but there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence, aside from that projected onto Pankey by prosecutors. He may be guilty, but there does not seem to be any evidence.

a) Prosecutors fed inaccurate information to the public, in an attempt to get the public to join them in accusing Pankey. A big red flag. Examples include that he was associated with the property where the body was found, and that he had unreleased knowledge about footprints being raked.

b) His involvement appears to have begun with a sheriff asking him if the victim's father had killed her then asking Pankey to move the body.

c) There are some people who will, for example, "call every bluff" at a poker game, a practice sometimes called 'keeping them honest". Pankey obviously has that quality, regardless whether he is guilty, but the law enforcers who prosecute him are more "consensus enforcers" i.e., they consider guilt to be something voted on rather than determined.

d) By the time of that interview Pankey has been beaten down enough by "consensus enforcers", including the person interviewing him there, that he no longer is making any effort to help, aside from some sly references meant to go over most heads.

e) He appears to have always been willing to discuss the case and a competent interviewer could have gotten the actual truth from him, and much more. The law enforcers involved were never interested in truth. Their interest was only in their ability to construct a useful, or profitable, subject onto which they could project.

He may or may not be guilty, same as anybody else, but the law enforcers, prosecutors etc certainly are guilty.

An interesting similarity between this case and the previous one, higher up on this page, about the Staudte family murders, is that in both cases there is very strong circumstantial evidence involving timing, but in this case that would point to the father of the victim, not Pankey.

Another very long video in this case with an interview of Pankey. 

What stands out is the fact that it is exactly as if an adult walked onto a Lord of the Flies island offering something valuable, and the occupants decided instead to eat the person. Pankey, again, may or may not be the killer, same as anybody else, but he deliberately inserted himself into the midst of a lot of stupid people and tried to help them be less stupid. Things like 'the constitution' are designed to facilitate that sort of risk by people like him.

The fact that many many smart people could have stepped in, but did not, and the fact that the prosecutors are 'making stupid' a vast number of people when they do something like that, are not even warning signs at this point. They are more like autopsy observations.

 Even without 'the constitution' and other formalities, basic decency or the manners many people learn as children, would have protected everybody, if the prosecutors had them.

Any person can watch legal proceedings from back starting when they were recorded decades ago and see the downward trajectory typified in this case.

And of course nobody wants to go out on a limb in a case like this, involving child murder, instead everybody in the system lines up to prove that they are on the 'right' side, i.e., the 'popular' side. 

Probably the most detailed summary though, like other articles, it may not all be true. 

Victim's family's statements, the first is the father of the victim. 

Another video, and the general progression from an analytic perspective. 

a) A girl is murdered in a way that would be considered an 'authority killing'. In other words evidence indicated the killer was either an authority figure or pretending that.

b) Investigation by paid officials does not resolve the case.

c) An outsider initiates a process that has been used for thousands of years to 'hunt' or to 'solve' situations like that, something vaguely related to the Coyote archetype described on another page.

d) The paid authorities were not willing to cede authority in the case. In other words they were fixated on "We are the authorities and natural processes are subordinate to us".

e) Pankey extended himself too far and the paid authorities decided to make a sacrifice of him.

f) The 'what could be called Thanatos' which Pankey offered as a path to solution was now an object which the paid authorities decided to consume in a 'lord of the flies' way.

g) The final result is that the 'paid authorities' got a miniscule professional benefit, for example some advancement as paid authorities, and Pankey was forced to 'pretend surrender' to the paid authorities i.e., to agree to their power over truth etc.

It's a very pathological situation. The only 'brighter spot' involves the use of something like Freudian 'Thanatos' by Pankey to inflict an injury on the broader 'paid authority' beast. He acted as something like a suicide bomber even without actually dying yet, and his 'will' will have ripples far greater than that of the deviants who used contrived authority to attack him.

The hilarious charade of the paid authorities e.g. prosecutor, judge etc, trying to get him to surrender might help some people perceive the flaws in those paid authorities, and Pankey's false surrender is also meaningful and useful to those who perceive it.

He saw at least one dangerous animal and was not able to kill it, or them, since nobody in his circle was familiar with his technique, so he inflicted a special wound instead.

Part of the assumption of a legal system like the U.S. is that a 'lawyer' or 'representative' can be hired to represent the accused and that 'representative' will be of superior or equal ability as the accused i.e., normally of superior ability and skill.

When that is not the case then there are 'paper rules' like 'the constitution' designed to allow stupid people to learn, despite themselves. In this case mr Pankey was obligated to be represented by somebody of less ability than himself, and out of decency he did not defend himself beyond a certain limited point, the same way a boxer might pull his punches in a trivial street fight.

Although most people would say he lost, the big natural price is not paid by him.

When the United States first began, if Pankey had been facing off against the same police/prosecutors etc as individuals, he would have ended up as sheriff or something similar, and the others would have been sent to nap. Today it is the opposite at the most important levels of government. Here is a video from Utah which shows a very low level, easily visible example which does not require a person to take a side on a 'risky' issue. 

As long as there is some consensus that there is enough power to challenge that Utah sheriff without any risk to oneself then, for example, people in that part of Utah will 'take a stand', but the obvious global trend within the U.S. is for people like that sheriff and those who prosecuted Pankey to become more powerful.

Although things like the Esar Met prosecution are just as unethical as the acts of that sheriff, there are no people in Utah willing to do the right thing, and before too long there will not be people in Utah who challenge sheriffs like that.

Another video from Salt Lake City showing a 'slightly more sophisticated' kind of the same type of chief of police. 

Of course followed by 

A video which gives enough information to understand Pankey's connection. 

a) Pankey inserted himself into the case in such a way, and having a specific history to support his position, that he would be the top authority in the case, up to that point, if you ignore things like salary, uniform etc.

b) His natural authority in the case was not accepted by people whose authority was derived from their relationship to a group i.e., a social construct.

c) Those individuals, e.g. police, fbi, prosecutors, etc, then worked collaboratively to transfer responsibility for 'the murder of a specific person' to 'the disrespect for our construct'. In other words the same thing that is done in most criminal cases, but in a way that would not be 'legally defensible' to anybody analyzing it honestly, which nobody in the legal system did.

d) Those individuals were successful in using the 'legal system' to complete the transfer of responsibility in the eyes of those who respect that legal system or construct more than they respect the truth.

e) The net effect longterm is that the social 'coyote' aspect, as discussed on another page, goes with Pankey. In other words he 'appears' to lose the battle in a big way, but the 'authorities', as a group and as individuals, lose the war in a much bigger way. Looking further he was 'added' to what could loosely be called 'the prisoner population', and the corresponding 'coyote function' went with him, not with those who believe they control that abstract population. Clever managers try to create a bridge of sorts through 'corrections employees' but everything done to defend or protect the melting pot is still going to have the opposite effect.

There are many thousands of cases like this, cataloging the descent of the United States into mayhem, which could be used by any amateur analytical psychologist, but this one case stands out because there are so many details and so much information available easily online.