This page will list things which indicate a false confession.

A false confession does not necessarily indicate the person did not commit the crime, but usually it does indicate that.

The Reid Technique page defines what is a real confession and what is a false confession 


1) The overprepped suspect

This refers to evidence within a supposed confession which indicates that police did inappropriate things to direct the person to confess without regard for facts.

Example, Chanel Lewis 

Notice that at least two times during the interview Chanel Lewis tries to bring into the conversation something about him being mad at somebody, and that anger being his motive for the murder.

Within the context of that interview this indicates that somebody, probably a police officer, constructed a sort of logic bubble around the case, and made a confession part of a transaction which Chanel Lewis would want to be part of.

The end result of the off camera 'pre interview', not shown to the public but reliably inferred from the interview, was a psychological transaction in which Chanel Lewis agreed to confess to the crime in exchange for various benefits he would get from including a third person indirectly in the crime i.e., the person he was supposedly angry at.

If he assumed that the police could assign responsibility randomly for the murder then one of the 'benefits' would be that instead of having to fight with lots of police over 'who was responsible', he would only be in competition with one person.

The reason this kind of psychological transaction produces such a high quality false confession is that the subject is motivated to confess. He, Chanel Lewis, knows that he only gets the benefit of the transaction if the confession is accepted as fact, so whatever resources he has will go into building a good confession, whether true or false.

In this case it isn't clear if he is guilty or innocent, but there are a lot of warning signs that shouldn't be ignored, including

  1. The father of the victim was a NYFD firefighter, and as such the police were under much more pressure than usual to find the killer. If they could not find the real killer then framing somebody is more acceptable than not arresting anybody.
  2. There are obvious flaws in the facts of the confession which could be due to the police putting too much pressure, if he is guilty, or could be due to his not being guilty. One example is his description of how he moved the body.
  3. Notice that as the interview ends, Chanel Lewis suddenly raises a sort of protest, as if something is missing, yet to be done. This involves the transaction, and the fact that the person who prepped him carefully tied a lot of loose ends together, but that was not done during the on camera interview.
  4. The evidence supposedly indicated she was hit in the head with a rock.
  5. Chanel Lewis's comments during the confession regarding the broken tooth are obviously not from him, and were suggested during the pre interview.
  6. The confession has no value at all, and tends to exonerate him more than it tends to point to guilt, but the DNA evidence is strong, if it is truthful "On Wednesday, she repeatedly objected to Razzano’s testimony, noting that Razzano was not involved in the DNA analysis. The woman who oversaw the analysis and who previously testified during pre-trial hearings is no longer employed by OCME So, in the short span between murderand the hearing, maybe ~1 year, the DNA expert involved either was fired or quit or retired. Aside from that the DNA evidence looks strong.

Notice in the second article at the top " investigators found traces of his DNA on Vetrano’s body".

Under ideal circumstances DNA evidence would be highly reliable, and would provide a mathematical or statistical description of the 'evidence of guilt'.

But the simple truth is that in a case like that, if the police are motivated enough to 'find' DNA evidence then they will.

So details around that DNA evidence have to be examined a little more carefully than, for example, the DNA evidence in a random trivial case in which nobody has any motive to deceive.

Notice too that in the video he says he has an older brother, which could be confabulation.

"Chanel Lewis is a first-generation American and the only son of Richard and Veta Lewis, who came to the U.S. from Jamaica in 1992" 

And from that same article 

""Chanel said Howard Beach is a peaceful place to go to. He went there to go to Subway and KFC. I love the pizza from there, he brings it home to me," Veta Lewis, Chanel’s mother, told "Nightline" in an exclusive interview" 

And 6 years before 1992 

An incident that would have been known to most of the higher level court and police types involved in the case.

In this case, if the DNA was identified on the body, fingernails, etc before Chanel Lewis was identified, and if that DNA was reduced to some sort of timestamped provable record, which is likely, then it would point to him almost certainly being guilty, even though the confession is worthless. 

The evidence seems to point to Chanel Lewis being guilty, but in any civilized place the police involved in the interviews would be charged with a crime for grotesquely distorting facts as a precaution, in case he was not guilty.

In other words, in this case it looks like the police got lucky, and extracted a ridiculously false confession from somebody who probably was guilty of the crime.

One possibility that should not be ignored is that he was framed by out of control cops.

He had been stalked and targeted by a cop in the recent past before the killing.

"That changed in February when NYPD Lt. John Russo, who also lives in Howard Beach, remembered seeing a young black man there over Memorial Day weekend, about two months before the murder. As the man walked around the neighborhood, Russo, with his two daughters in the back of his car, tailed him for an hour before calling 911 and reporting him for suspicious activity."

"Officers then stopped and frisked the man, 20-year-old Chanel Lewis, who told them he was just walking around looking for a place to eat. They gave Lewis a ride out of Howard Beach to a McDonald’s in the Rockaways, a neighborhood farther from his family’s home in East New York than he’d been but one with much more public housing."

"That was Russo’s account in Queens criminal court last week in proceedings to determine what evidence will be admissible during Lewis’ coming murder trial. Police sources had previously given reporters a slightly different story, in which Russo’s tip this year led murder investigators to find a 911 call from the following day in which the caller named the man as Chanel Lewis and said he had a crowbar and looked like he might be about to break into a property with it. Running Lewis’ name, they found he had three summonses from 2013, one for public urination and two involving breaking park rules in Spring Creek Park."


"At 10:54 p.m., Lewis got up again and told the detectives he was hungry. Brown then took Lewis out of the interrogation room, and away from the cameras, into the cell inside the Detective Squad where Lewis says he stayed awake, unable to sleep, for the next seven hours, talking to numerous detectives and asking to watch cartoons on the television there."


"In searching for a suspect in the Vetrano killing after finding no match in the state DNA database, the NYPD took cheek swabs from at least 163 people and compared them to the samples of DNA found at the crime scene. It is unclear how the police determined whose DNA to test. The head of the NYPD’s Forensic Investigation Division told The New York Times that the department used a contentious method called phenotyping to determine that the suspect was “was of African descent” (Lewis’ attorneys say they have not been informed that any phenotyping was done to narrow the pool of suspects)."

"The results of those 163 tests were prepared by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and turned over to Lewis’ defense team; two of the samples were deemed to be matches." 

Final verdict /

60% chance he is guilty

35% chance he was framed by cops who used their connections in the Medical Examiner's office to monkey with DNA

5% chance some other scenario

The big issue in this case has to do with the type of responsibility assigned to various people. A fairly simple minded boy is held to a very high standard for something he possibly did, but some better trained, and highly paid, police officers face no accountability for something they did. The process has nothing at all to do with justice and everything to do with what a predatory group can get away with.



In Progress





















Partial lists of exonerated people.

All of these lists are incomplete. Malthe Thomsen, for example, was a Danish person working in NY when NYPD detectives used deceptive ruses to convince him he had assaulted children at a school where he worked. He was led to believe he had committed the crimes without remembering them. He spent close to a year in jail, but there is very little in the English language media about him,

In Denmark he was headline news

There is one excellent documentary which includes his case, False Confessions, by Good Company Pictures. It is not viewable nor rentable in the United States.

There is no list of all exonerated people in the U.S. but the following lists mention a lot of people. 





The United States is not the only country with wrongly imprisoned people.

"Over the years, fifteen men had been wrongly jailed for some of the murders of which Tkach was found guilty, one of whom committed suicide, and another was not released until March 2012" 




















This page will have super discount items for Tribal Cash customers.

1) Super discount electrolyte drink

If you are tired of spending a lot of money on electrolyte drinks here is a chance to get them at a super discount.

  1. Step 1) Look at the ingredients on your favorite drink mix
  2. Step 2) Buy the ingredients at a store
  3. Step 3) Mix the ingredients

Don't forget step 4, pay for these instructions.

Here's a cheat sheet in case you don't feel like doing step 1.

'spoons' = flat teaspoons

To make 2 liters

  • 2 spoons Sodium citrate / or sodium chloride 'table salt' can be substituted if you are on a budget
  • 2 spoons Potassium citrate
  • 1 spoon Magnesium citrate
  • 1 spoon Calcium citrate
  • Sugar or inulin, to your taste
  • Citric acid, to your taste, don't use more than a quarter teaspoon per 2 liters
  • Water, enough to make a drink
  • Additional flavoring optional

Adjust the quantities according to taste, the above suggested spoon measurements are general guidelines only. Best to keep sodium and potassium amounts close to each other, and calcium and magnesium amounts close to each other. If you get cramps increase potassium and calcium a bit, or decrease sodium and magnesium a bit. If you start vomiting blood or hallucinating see a doctor.
















Update after watching some videos

There is a strange 'FBI Files' episode that, like many other episodes of that show, focuses more on presenting FBI mistakes as if they were not mistakes. 

The episode presents a lot of evidence that may point to the husband, as it says that it doesn't point to him, and looks at other evidence in what could only be called 'a stupid way'.

Here is a 'judges for justice' video. Starting a little after 9 minutes 15 seconds it discusses this case. 

There is no real way to guess who the killer was.

The only thing that can be said for sure is that the FBI/police fabricated evidence in order to strengthen their opinions of who the killer might be

This is not some rare fluke in the FBI, and the police, in that case. If a person looks in depth at 3 random cases in the United States they will probably find 1 in which police and/or prosecutors fabricated evidence significantly, including, in many cases, DNA and other "unfakeable" evidence.

 If a person wants to see how extensive the problem is they can try to research Sorenson and various incidents involving DNA which appears to have been altered deliberately.

You will find a brief mention of an example, if you are lucky.

Then you will find that the original article is gone. Caches are removed. Eventually the best you will do is to find caches 'once removed', in other words caches of articles that indirectly link to removed articles but make clear what happened.

A Forensic company like Sorenson, or others, could not do this unless it had assistance from heavyweights in government, and spent a lot of money on lawyers to remove these articles which mention forensic misconduct on a large scale.

Is Patricia Rorrer guilty?

Who knows.

The FBI and police had a mix of evidence that might point to her or the victim's husband, but nothing conclusive. So they faked some 'conclusive' evidence by asking her for some hair samples with roots then cycling those into older evidence, as described in the 'judges for justice' Youtube video.

Another point about the FBI's 'skill'. They claim that because the husband passed a lie detector he was excluded. But he was a former cage fighter, or mma fighter or something similar, and of all possible occupations that is probably the one type of person least likely to be caught in a lie detector test.

~Original page below~

This is another case that has a website. 

The front page of the website has eerie similarities to FBI misconduct in the Esar Met case.

After looking at some of the material online, the overwhelming evidence points to the police being utterly incompetent. Beyond that there is no obvious evidence indicating who the killer might be. The general impression of the evidence is that the husband is guilty, but without any serious investigation having been done a person can only guess.

She appears to be in jail because police or prosecutors don't like her more than they don't like the other suspect, not because there is evidence against her. All of the evidence used against her is adequately discounted in articles online.

Here is a video that stretches facts to support the prosecution. Note the hair found was 8 inches with brown only at the roots, which is nothing like her hair in the photo or video, even though the video claims otherwise. 

This is a common feature of criminal prosecution in the United States. People will make a claim against somebody, then show evidence supposedly backing that claim, but in fact the evidence is not what the prosecuting person claims. It's sort of a variation of snake oil sellers from a hundred years ago, except with criminal evidence, anybody is completely able to stop and think for a moment, and discredit the prosecutor.

This woman may be guilty, or somebody else may be, a person just does not know. It's sort of like the police started an investigation then said "We don't have any solid evidence, but its lunchtime, lets arrest this person and maybe we can get a jury to buy it if we present the evidence crookedly".

As mentioned elsewhere, the Supreme Court has ruled that crookedness by prosecutors is not illegal, and it is unheard of in the United States for prosecutors to be held accountable unless they run afoul of a powerful person.


  • 1) "On December 12, 1994, Joann answered a phone call from a woman she’d never met, Patricia Rorrer, her husband’s onetime girlfriend. She asked to speak with Andrew, who was home during the call; Joann refused."

Points to possible marriage problems or insecurity in the marriage, but a proper response. Ms Rorrer does have a tendency towards attacking in situations like that so this item points to her as a suspect.

  • 2) "Family members found Joann’s tan Toyota sitting vacant in the parking lot of McCarty’s, a nearby bar. Inside the locked 1992 vehicle, police discovered some strands of blond hair stained with dried blood. DNA testing revealed the blood came from either Joann or her son." "Forensic Files didn’t mention it, but the hairs were actually brown at the top and the rest dyed blond, according to the show Autopsy Six: A Fatal Attraction."

All of the people involved seem like they probably know a lot of people with dyed hair.

  • 3) "But investigators conceded they had no solid evidence against Andrew. Plus, he had only a “minimal” life insurance policy on Joann and he passed polygraphs, according to The FBI Files: Family Secrets."

Any life insurance on a young wife should be suspicious. He had no income loss if she died so the only motive in such a policy would be 'gambling' profit. Points very strongly to him.

  • 4) "Joann’s first husband, New Jersey construction worker Michael Jack, who had reportedly abused her during their marriage, also had a solid alibi"

So she is attracted to men who physically control her, or seeks situations where that dynamic is created.

  • 5) "Four months after Joann’s disappearance, farmer Paul Kovalchik reported seeing what at first looked like a pile of clothes on his land in Heidelberg Township woods, about 15 miles from the Katrinaks’ house."

A person could research the suspects and try to figure out which would be more likely to dispose of the body 15 miles away, rather than nearby. Probably points to the husband.

  • 6) "On closer inspection, he saw it was the body of a woman. An infant was lying face down on her stomach. Both were deceased."

A stretch for a guy to kill his own kid, but possible. Points to 'the other woman'.

  • 7) "Police identified the pair as Joann and Alex Katrinak. His favorite rattle, shaped like a phone, lay near the crime scene."

Strongly points to husband.

  • 8) "Someone had shot Joann in the face with a .22-caliber pistol, then beaten her about the head — hitting her 19 times in all — with a blunt object. Police couldn’t determine whether the baby died of exposure or suffocation."

Probably points to 'the other woman'. Note that FBI deductions involving the weapon were faulty.

  • 9) "Andrew mentioned to police that his former live-in girlfriend Patricia Rorrer once managed a horse stable two miles from the bodies’ location and would have been familiar with the riding trails close to the murder scene. (Media sources vary as to whether she actually worked at the stable or just rented a stall there for her own horse.)"

Strongly points to husband.

  • 10) "Patricia’s phone bill showed no record of a call to Catasauqua that day, but police noticed she didn’t make any calls at all from her house in North Carolina that day either — suggesting she could have been out of state and used a pay phone to dial up the Katrinaks."

Strongly points to 'the other woman' unless she has an explanation.

  • 11) "Police slowly built a case against Patricia. Her alibi about going to the club, called Cowboy’s Nitelife, got fuzzy when investigators discovered she hadn’t signed the guest book on that day. And dance instructor William Jarrett couldn’t remember whether she attended his dance class at the club the night of Joann’s disappearance. On a secret recording, Patricia asked Jarrett to vouch for her attendance or she might go to the electric char."

Moderately points to her.

  • 11) "As for the murder weapon, police didn’t find a .22 caliber pistol on Patricia’s property, but an ex-boyfriend claimed that she owned one — and it would always jam after one shot."

Strongly points to her.

  • 12) "According to court papers from Patricia 2017 appeal, “DNA on the cigarette butt found near the two bodies belonged to Appellant.” (Prosecutor Michael McIntyre, however, told that that the cigarette butt was never actually tested)."

The usual inaccuracies which cast doubt on all the other evidence too, regardless who it points to.

  • 13) "“If I knew I was going to get caught, I never would have brought you into this world,” the arresting officers testified they heard her say to Nicole."

Generally police have very low credibility, in this case the 'arresting officers' credibility would have to be examined in other cases. If they are lying it's unlikely they only lied once. They may be telling the truth but it's more likely they are not. A person would have to research. It looks like that testimony by the arresting officer was easily modified to suit the prosecution.

  • 14) "Prosecutors offered Patricia a plea deal that would take the death penalty off the table, but she declined. “How could I explain to my daughter years later that I took a plea for something I didn’t do?” she said."

Who did she say that to?

  • 15) "At the trial, prosecutor Michael McIntyre alleged that Patricia remained obsessed with Andrew Katrinak long after their breakup — despite testimony that she’d had “many boyfriends and live-in lovers” to occupy her bandwidth."

Strongly points to a case having been fabricated by prosecutors.

  • 16) "Ex-boyfriend Walter Blalock said that Patricia wanted him to be more like Andrew. Another former boyfriend said she talked about Andrew frequently and liked to gaze at old photos of him."

Sounds like material solicited deceptively by the prosecution to strengthen the appearance of their case.

  • 17) "And in a piece of salacious testimony, Patricia Rorrer’s half sister, Sandra Ireland, said that in May 1995, about six months after the murder, their mother, Patricia Chambers, stopped by the house and asked her to hold onto or hide a gun, or both. Ireland’s husband buried it in the yard because he didn’t feel comfortable with a firearm inside, she said."

Very unlikely.

  • 18) "Further, an early FBI report said the hairs found in the car had no roots — which contain the DNA — suggesting an evidence switcheroo"

Much more likely than most people suspect.

  • 19) "They theorize that Andrew Katrinak framed Patricia and that the hostile phone call between Patricia and Joann actually took place not on Dec. 12 as Andrew said but rather on Dec. 7. Phone records confirmed Patricia placed the earlier call from North Carolina, not Pennsylvania."

If true then strongly points to the husband.

  • 20) "At the state’s request, the instructor wore a wire during a phone conversation with Patricia. Although the prosecution used it as evidence that she was trying to create a false alibi, it actually sounded more like Patricia was simply trying to nail down the facts he had already asserted to her."

The vast majority of times police do things like that, it is because they are incompetent at doing things properly, and it is very common for police who do things like that to 'shape' or fabricate.

  • 21) "And even prosecutor Michael McIntyre, who wrote the book Hair Trigger about the case, acknowledged to Keith Morrison that it was a little odd that the police found blood on the hairs in Joann’s car but nowhere else in the vehicle. If Patricia drove it back from the murder scene after she shot Joann and then beat her to death, luminal would have lit up the interior."

Points to police tidying up evidence to secure a conviction.

  • 22) "Another witness, Walter Traupman, who never testified, had told state troopers that on the day of Joann’s disappearance, he saw a couple who looked like Joann and Andrew arguing about the paternity of a baby. Traupman claimed that when he reported the dispute, trooper Robert V. Egan III got mad and practically kicked him out of his office. The police report misspells his name (“Troutman”) and doesn’t include his address, suggesting authorities didn’t want anyone to track him down, according to Patricia’s side. (McIntyre said that Egan ignored Traupman because he was a nut who said that the man he saw arguing with the woman in a car was Hispanic but wearing a fake mustache and a toupee. Traupman died in 2016.)"

Again, points to police and prisecutors fabricating a case, but a person would have to research.

  • 23) "And in another bombshell, Joann’s good friend Karen Devine said Joann planned to leave Andrew after the holidays. “She had a suitcase packed,” Devine said. “She had money put aside. He wanted to move to Colorado and she was against it.”"

If true then it is the strongest evidence against the husband.

  • 24) "Most of all, Patricia said, she would like a rematch with prosecutor Michael McIntyre." "Now retired, he declined’s invitation to spar directly with Patricia via a podcast." "“I most definitely will not personally afford Patricia a platform,” Michael said in an email to “She had her chance to answer my questions and tell her story in court over 20 years ago. She failed miserably to convince me, or anyone else who mattered, of her innocence. “"

Wow. Like most people in the legal system he doesn't really have any interest in the truth he was heavily paid to defend.

  • 25) From the comments below the article "Looking at the pictures of the scene, after 4 months of the bodies being there allegedly, they were untouched? If in the woods in a rural area, no animal, rodent or insect touched those bodies? Animals would have for sure. Especially mice! What did the ME report as to the age of the baby? Those bodies would have been manipulated by something around there. No way for 4 months, that deceased baby would still be resting across the mothers chest. Nope. No way they laid there for 4 months!!!!"

Strongly points to the husband or an unknown killer, but another commenter points out "First it was winter, cold temperatures preserve bodies for significantly longer periods". After four months there would have been some sign of animals interested in the body, or scavenging, though. 








Mostly guilty people

5% or 10% of the people listed on this page are not guilty.

This page will list a bunch of murder convictions of people who appear to be guilty, and are probably guilty, but 'probably' as in 90%, or 95%, not 100%, and below links to the case are some of the factors that are problematic.

1) Nicholas Browning / probably guilty / 95% 


a) He is at an age where he could be easily induced to fabricate a believable scenario, and the interviewers are doing everything they can to encourage him to fabricate a believable scenario.

b) He told the interviewer where the gun was, which is a strong indication he is guilty, but it is about 1% possible that the gun was not the murder weapon and the police hid that fact. If he were not guilty he would have been working useful details into his story, and it's possible the gun was there for another reason. Unlikely, but possible, and a person should not trust the police to tell the truth about twists like that. In other words a person does not know unless they research it properly.

c) Notice the comment at 

Anonymous said...

I went to middle school and high school with John Browning (the father). The ironic thing is that about 35 or so years ago, one of John's sisters was killed by an accidental gun discharge in the family home. Someone looking through old Howard County police and news could probably find more details.

So a person knows there was an accidental shooting in that family one generation prior, and the boy had probably been told things about it, and probably had imagined many scenarios. Depending on what he knew about that shooting the pressure from the interviewers could have caused him to insert one of the scenarios he had imagined previously, if there were indications he tended to daydream and construct fantasy worlds.

d) There is some indication of that.

During his time in prison, PEN America awarded Browning an honorable mention in the Edward Bunker Prize for Fiction in the 2020 PEN America Prison Writing Contest followed by a 3rd Place prize in Fiction in the 2021 PEN America Prison Writing Contest. 

e) He says the mother woke up when the father was shot then went back to sleep, then he shot her. Sounds unlikely, possible though.

f) One of the biggest warning signs is the lying and manipulativeness of the interviewers. If they were competent then all that posturing would not be necessary. The main lesson from all the lying that the police did during the interview is that a person should be careful with their results. They may have stumbled blindly on the truth, but there also may be something else going on.

Conclusion A person would have to check the actual autopsy reports and if they match up with his scenario e.g. head shots etc then he probably did commit the murders, 99%+.

If they do not then the chance of him being guilty drops to around 50%. Generally if there is a discrepancy in this sort of thing the police will hide it, so the only way to research that is to look at the original report filed with the medical examiner.


2) Sabrina Zunich /99.9999% guilty, but questionable responsibility 

The main lesson from this story is that if you create a murderer then you get a murderer. Sort of like any recipe. If you put flour and water and yeast in a bowl and mix it then cook it, don't be surprised if you see a piece of bread after a while.

The foster care system carefully messed up her mind then put her in a house where the 'father' was using her for sex and told her to kill the 'mother' of the house. She did exactly what she was supposed to do, exactly what society trained her to do.

She received exactly the same sentence as her most recent teacher, life in prison with parole after 30 years.

In some places she would be considered not guilty, but she did stab the victim and in the United States that means that unless she is wealthy or connected she is guilty regardless her age or history.


3) Brandon Spencer

Here is a Youtube video "5 guilty teenage convicts react to life sentence"

Googling one of their names / 

And a paywalled article that probably has info 

It isn't clear what the evidence is. 


4) Jhenea Pratt

A woman and her boyfriend were caring for a child. Somebody put fentanyl in a 'sippy cup', probably to put the kid to sleep, but the kid died.

This is the rare interrogation video where the interviewer is competent and polite and is doing his job properly. 

If there were any reason to believe that the killing was deliberate there might be reason to push it further, but it looks like one of two people are guilty of using a less intelligent way of putting their kid to sleep, and it could reasonably be called an accidental death.

There is a 50% chance the woman is guilty and a 50% chance the boyfriend is guilty. 

She lost her child and got 10 years for there being a 50% chance she accidentally killed her child. If they had tested her for fentanyl use and if she did use fentanyl then it might be closer to reasonable. Lots of educated people give something to children to help them sleep, small amounts of brandy, benadryl etc and her or his intention was the same as those people, all that was lacking were a few iq points.


5) Bever Brothers / pretty nearly 100% that they are guilty / added to balance other cases that are less than 100% 

Another rare competent interviewer. The boys were obviously playing social roles and were exactly the same as most boys that age, the only difference being the specific roles they chose. If they had decided to join the army so they could kill the enemy du jour they would have been on more solid social ground. In either case they would eventually regret their actions but in this case the regret came sooner because there was no social payoff and they had a natural revulsion to what they did.


6) Timmy Brent Olsen / about 5% chance he is guilty of murder / additional 100% cases will be added later to balance this outlier 


7) Sean Riker / Guilty of enough, regardless what it is / 95%+

This person has at least two Twitter accounts by one or more people claiming he is innocent, so a person has to consider it possible. 

There are some legal appeals online that seem to have enough evidence that, at the very least, he should probably not be living with his wife and kids. 

It could be that he is claiming to be innocent of a previous conviction which was for bombing a store, a school and another business. 

The first priority in that case would be some kind of psychological research that would have to precede any research on the particulars of the bombing conviction. It is very possible the bombing conviction was improper, maybe a 10% or greater chance, but even if he didn't do the bombing there are many thousands of people who would be further ahead in any line to get reviewed.

Every case where anybody claims to not be guilty should be reviewed, including this one, but this one would be a lower priority than most.

There may be a slim chance of some exaggerations in charging him though, since the comments made by the appeal judges involving the shotgun are not sensible. If the shotgun was not loaded, and if everybody there knew it was not loaded, then he committed a crime, but a lesser crime, in that one incident. A person should treat any gun as loaded, but an unloaded gun is not in the same category as a gun that misfires regardless what those judges want people to pretend.


8) Dalia Dippolito / Quite guilty / 99%+ 

That video is interesting for a different reason though. The channel is called "JCS Criminal Psychology", but the focus is not actually psychology.

An interesting bit from 29 minutes 20 seconds "What Dalia is doing here is gaslighting, a textbook type of manipulation used by psychopaths, sociopaths and all those with narcissistic personality disorder", then the host says "She is trying to cultivate doubt in his mind by...etc".

The first part of that statement is nonsense mumbo jumbo, which is then 'legitimized' by adding a simple fact which is true.

Loaded words like 'psychopath, sociopath, narcissistic personality disorder' have nothing to do with psychology. They are fantasy gang phrases one group of people use to make themselves appear superior to another group. Perfectly appropriate for judges and legal types paid to do that, but that is not psychology.


9) April Rose Wilkens / Guilty of what? / ?%? 

If a person looks at the timeline, there is not a lot of doubt that the killing was reasonable.

A person could argue that she provoked him to some extent in certain situations, as he argues. 

But at the end of the day if the only thing left in your pocket is a gun then you should use it.

Those who support her having been charges, and remaining in prison, should articulate their position clearly in public. It may be that there is some other crime she committed or some unknown justification, but it looks unlikely. 

Prosecutors and judges are paid a lot of money, and supposedly work for the public.

If they take x dollars per hour to put people like that in jail they should also be willing to answer questions about their decisions for the same amount of money.

In many cases, such as this one evidently, the success of the prosecution depends on its lack of accountability and its immunity from scrutiny.

In this particular case, a big factor may be political corruption. In the United States criminal cases which are skewed by corruption are virtually immune from scrutiny because law enforcement bureaucrats do not want to harm the public image of their colleague bureaucrats in other branches.

An interesting contrast to the United States is China, where corrupt officials know that they may face scrutiny and accountability from other bureaucrats. This is probably a key part of China's growing power since it has lead to a significant portion of the Chinese population supporting and trusting their bureaucrats, something virtually non existent in the U.S.


10) Chanel Lewis 

Discussed further on 'Identifying False Confessions' page.


11) Donald Eugene Younge 

This could be another case of prosecutors playing with DNA evidence, but he is probably guilty of something.

Deseret News Nov 24, 2009 

SLTrib November 7, 2012 

"Donald Eugene Younge, 46, was originally charged with capital murder and eight other felonies in connection with the stabbing death of 22-year-old Amy Quinton, but on Monday, Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill filed a one-sentence order asking for all of the charges to be dismissed without prejudice, meaning prosecutors can file charges against Younge in the future in connection with Quinton's death.

Gill said there were "evidentiary issues" that caused concern, and that as the case progressed some inconsistencies arose, particularly dealing with suppression issues and issues dealing with identification."

 For a case like that to be dismissed in Salt Lake City it has to have some big problems.

 Most likely it was dismissed in exchange for something about police or prosecutors not being given to media.

 An interesting side note about one victim in those cases, Amy Quinton. 

 In 1978 Salt Lake City had two unsolved murders and one missing person's case involving people over 7 feet tall. 

So it's possible some of their problems stem from entering inaccurate information into databases.

Amy Quinton is one of many unusually tall people murdered in that area.


In Progress