Would you talk with the police?
 

A story in the news got me thinking. It seems that everyone including the police immediately look at the spouse as the prime suspect when someone goes mysteriously missing. So given the following hypothetical circumstances, what would you do?

You come home from work to find your spouse, who is usually home by this time, absent. As the evening passes, you try to contact him/her via cell phone, coworkers, friends and family without success. Overnight you wonder why he/she might be gone and cannot conceive of a likely reason. Your relationship with your spouse has seemed fine up until now. Mid morning you call the police and they advise you to call back when your spouse has been missing for 24 hours. You call back at the 24 hour point and formally report him/her missing. The next morning police arrive to get information about the missing person. They ask no questions that would lead you to believe they are suspicious of any wrong doing. Two days later police find your spouse's car abandoned on a seldom traveled road. The police then ask if you would come to their office to provide more information about your spouse's life. Would you go and answer all questions without reservations? Would you go but decline to answer questions about yourself? Would you take a lawyer with you? Would you decline to talk to the police? ... Knowing you are innocent of any wrongdoing, but that police may be starting to think of you as a suspect, what would you do?

In this type of case,stats OVERWHELMINGLY indicate the spouse as the culprit.SO that's where the cops are going to look first.THe clock is ticking and each second gets more important.SO,you are going to get"talked to".Take a lawyer with you.

If you are innocent, and the truth will dismiss you as a suspect, I would tell the truth with the police. I have enough "interrogation" practice training to be a B-52 crewmember to defeat any cops tactics. Piece of cake.

Tommy ... having almost been in that situation about 8 years ago when my wife died , I would definitely have a lawyer with me on ANY conversations with the police . I was 8 hours and 3 states away , was the last one to talk to her ( by phone ) ... and was the one who called and requested she be checked on when I couldn`t get in contact with her for 24 hours . When she was found , the room was messed up where our dog had torn up some things as he was with her when she died .... and stayed with her . Because of the condition of the room ( even though they had to get someone to let the dog out ... 90 lb Doberman ) , they started questioning all the neighbors about our relationship ... even though I was 8 hours and 3 states away with many witnesses . They also went through the whole house and took serial numbers of my rifles ... just in case ... even though she died of natural causes . You know you are innocent of anything , but the police don`t ... and they can get pretty aggressive and also have blinders on . If it had gone any further , you better believe I would have had a lawyer !!

Good advice Bobcat. For those of us without "B-52 Interrogation training" ( :) ) no way in heck would I even consider talking to the police without a lawyer. They may very well "bend" your story to fit theirs. I wouldn't rule out the possibility they would lie, straight up. You would be a fool to talk to them without representation, in my opinion. Cooperate, with a lawyer...

Before answering my own question, let me state that I am not married and have no "significant other," so my question was entirely hypothetical for discussion. It seems to me this is a no win situation in which the choice is between two bad options. If an innocent person secures the services of a lawyer and restricts conversation with police, it would seem to increase suspicion by the police, family, friends and neighbors. Further, even talking with a friend or family member could turn out to be a recorded conversation that might be taken out of context by police or prosecutors. On the other hand, if in an all out effort to help authorities find the missing spouse, the innocent person answers all questions candidly and without reservations, he/she could be helping the police build a case against him/her. In my opinion, I'd rather lose suspicious friends and family than end up wrongly convicted and in jail. So I would reluctantly secure the services of an attorney.

It makes me wonder how many of these guilty looking people who get attorneys after their spouses go missing are actually innocent.

That's spot on Tommy, if you secure a lawyer you WILL piss them off and they may well become suspicious or more so as a result. Yup, your going to be miss understood, possibly loose friends, it's a nightmare. But in the end, you have little choice, GOTTA have a lawyer present.

As long as I'm innocent, I would talk to them without a lawyer present.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc This should answer this question. Jim

Jim,

That is a very good video and one that I may use in our CCP classes. We have lawyers tell the people to not talk to the police as they are going to take them in for 24 hours anyway and they get excited if they have to use a weapon and will invariably say something that can be twisted around. I know this is different from what the question was, but it applies in almost all situations. Say NOTHING and if they arrest you get a lawyer. In this case the spouse is always the first suspect even if he/she is hundreds of miles away as they are then going to assume they had an accomplice and were establishing an alibi by being away. And this is in no way knocking the LEOs, as they are doing a tough job and usually under some Prosecutor who is more interested in their conviction record to prepare them for a higher office than the actual facts.

Ron

I suspect there are a lot of folks in the "I'm innocent, so what's to fear from talking with the police" camp. I'm not and perhaps its because of an incident that happened to me when I was a freshman in college. My incident had nothing to do with the police, but it did open my eyes to the fact that an innocent person can appear very guilty and runs the risk of being found guilty.

In my case, a classmate visited my dorm room while I was gone and copied the opening paragraph of an essay I had written for an English assignment. After that assignment was turned in, the English professor kept us after class to tell us he was giving a grade of zero for cheating, and reporting us to the Honor Committee for action. My classmate seemed unsurprised by the professor's words while I was stunned and confused. The professor suspected we had both copied from the same source, but I knew my writing was my own original work. I had no idea what had happened. On the day the Honor Committee met, I was still without a clue about how to prove my innocence. Fortunately for me, the classmate confessed and the committee called my roommate who confirmed that he had allowed my classmate into my room while I was absent. Had my classmate not confessed, I would likely have been branded a cheat and forced to withdraw from the university. It could have been a life changing event and I would never have been able to prove my innocence to anyone.

It's possible to look at my story and conclude that the system worked. But it's also possible to conclude that circumstance sometimes make innocent people look guilty. That is why I place some stock in the concepts "innocent until proven guilty" and "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

P.S. Good video.

It is legal for the police to lie to you during an interogation. Like, "Your buddy has all ready confessed, so we know you are lieing." Maybe your buddy did, maybe not.

I learned this lesson when I was 10 years old. Accused of taking the bottle caps off of coke bottles in a coke machine and drinking the contents with a straw. Cops told me my sister confessed that we BOTH did it (a lie). They also said they had my fingerprints (I'd never been finger printed, but I DID believe them)! They did find the guilty party (neither myself or my sister), but it was a "life lesson" akin to realizing Santa isn't real. Cop's lie, I was stunned, it changed my out look on life overnight.

I think I would tend to agree, unless the questions seemed to be singling me out as the only suspect they were planning to pursue (and hence not as focused on actually finding my wife). My priority would be on finding my wife and helping in anyway that I could, not in worrying about protecting myself since I would be innocent.

That video really changed my outlook on talking to the police, and I change my response in that I will never speak to the police without my lawyer present.

Good post.

Wish I would have sent this to my brother-in-law. He just went through 1 1/2 years of dealing with the police and court system in 2 counties. His lawyer bills were over $40000. He talked to the police because someone with his same name was always in trouble and they always called him in. That video was sent to me about a year ago and one I'll never forget. If you haven't watched it because of the length of it, please take the time. Jim

So after watching the video, I would still consent to an interview (probably with a lawyer present) if I could provide information that would help find my wife (the priority since she is only missing in your hypothetical and not dead), but in other circumstances I would refuse.

I would not have a problem under any circumstances talking to them WITH a lawyer present. No way without one, even my if my wife was missing...

After seeing about a million tv shows, movies and reading several books relating to the death of a spouse, one would think we would all naturally be a suspects.
It appears to me that most crimes of passion and simple street hits are resolved by the police in good order.
Then there are the "planners" that kill but are too stupid to do a thorough job of it. Failing to consider modern science, buying giant life insurance policy and having a track record of fighting with their spouse in public, and multiple dead spouses from prior marrages. These all make good tv stories and are interesting to watch, but dumb.

It's quite simple, if things look ordinary and routine...go to and answer their questions and then lawyer up just incase.

And that my friends is at the root of most of the law enforcement problems. If we held prosecutors accountable and not allow them to use their "record" as campaign fodder, many of the problems would vanish. Why can private citizens be held for perjury, but when prosecutors railroad someone for a conviction they are not charged. If DNA evidence reveals that the convicted was no where near the scene and were wrongly convicted, the citizens foot the bill for reparations and the ones that created the tragedy continue cluelessly.
I look at the Constitution from the perspective of the framers. They knew what it was like to have the "Crown" railroad innocent people and they hoped to prevent the same here. I think we get so consumed with someone "getting off" we forget that many are railroaded. I could tell stories that will make you sick...and in a "free" country no less.
The comments on the video regarding the amount of laws on the books reiterates by view that no one in this country is innocent. The leeches on society have created a web of laws designed to make everyone (they of course exempt themselves) in the country guilty ...of something.