Reply to post: Re: It seems odd

Re: It seems odd

If he provided statements without counsel it's because he agreed to do so after his Miranda Rights were provided to him. He has the power at any time to end questioning/interview.

You've never been through a police/fbi interview have you? For a start, they will do everything they can to not have you get a lawyer, from outright lies about what your rights are, to charging you under terrorism or other acts (no rights to counsel in a lot of this stuff), to use of psychology (yes, strangely some cops are capable of such levels of intelligence!). I've read transcripts of interviews where a young family member kept asking for his mother or a lawyer or someone to be present, and the pigs kept questioning him and telling him that he would not be allowed to see them till he told them the truth¹. Now admittedly this case is in the US and the accused is not quite so young, but they use whatever tricks they can and a person who still lives at home with his parents, spending time abroad for whatever, could have all sorts of insecurities those scum will play on.

And as Domquark said, they may not apply since he's foreign.

Given the evidence provided so far, it's likely the prosecutor asked him a lot of questions he already knew the truthful answers to. If Hutchins lied on a lot of these questions it obviously will not be favorable for him.

No. They claim to know, they badger people with "we know what really happened so you just need to confirm it". But in many cases stuff is made up. It's something you have to actually experience first-hand, or see someone you love go through it, to understand just how nasty these scum are and the sort of stuff they do. Very seldom do they have any real clue about what has happened, though they can sometimes employ logic about an event. Of course they have to have the right person as well, often they have someone who loosely fits the description (wrong height, weight, age, skin colour, sex, hair style, hair colour - but they're human and breathing so it's close enough).

I've even seen the pigs produce what they call "statements of facts" in court that can be very easily proven to contain a lot of false material (eg "the accused was driving his blue Toyota Camino"² when they have a green Mondeo and don't know anyone who has a blue car), but the courts don't seem to care that if you can prove even 10% of it to be wrong with independent 3rd party stuff (eg traffic camera footage, or bus timetables ("He was on the #15 from Taranaki St to Port Rd at 12:15am" when a) there is no bus at that time, b) no bus on that route and c) no #15 bus anyway) then it's clear the rest should be in doubt, especially the stuff that can't be proven externally.

I used to believe that in NZ probably at most 1 in 1,000 accused were innocent, maybe a few more were "guilty but not necessarily fully as charged". Today, after it happened in my own family, I would suggest it may be as much as 20% not guilty and as much as 50% are over charged. I am not alone in this belief in NZ, anyone who has had it happen to a family member they know is innocent (eg was a kid at home, sick and in pyjamas in the lounge under blankets in front of family when they were supposedly out joyriding in stolen cars) knows just how much the scumbag pigs will lie to get a conviction. They're not interested in solving crimes, they're not interested even remotely in justice, they're only after convictions. That's what pays their wages, and if they can badger some poor teenager into confessing to something they didn't do, then they don't have to get off their arses and do real work.

¹ Many such cases in NZ despite it being an illegal practice. When the family cannot afford a good lawyer, they can't easily get anything done about it. The police are happy to present the kid confessing to the courts, but will not present the "totally irrelevant" rest of the transcript and can make it difficult for the family/lawyers to get hold of the entire item. Sometimes they'll redact large parts under either our privacy act or another act that lets them do to "to aid in the discovery of crimes" or "to prevent covering up/hiding of crimes" (ie "we're claiming that something he said here might tip the family off to cover up other stuff by other people, so you cannot see it ever". If it can be proved that the kid was there without representation then the case may be thrown out of court, but "the honest cops would never ever consider that and the nasty parents of the even nastier little criminal are just making up stories to keep their kid out of jail where he rightfully belongs".

² Yes, non-existant vehicle brands - they just plan to sound good, they don't have to have it match reality or even possibility.

TL:DR; Cops lie, don't trust their evidence, ever.