Printable View
I just have one question and it's pretty straight forward; if a confession is the only evidence that a store has against a shoplifter, is that enough evidence to convict that person of the alleged crime in court?
I.E. The dude who confessed to killing JonBenet Ramsey was let go because prosecutor's said that the confession was not enough evidence to convict him.
Is the confession written or recorded? And what do you mean by "the only evidence" - they didn't find any items in the defendant's possession? The defendant didn't have access to the items allegedly stolen? The evidence they found didn't correspond to the defendant's confession? Or what?
Confession was written and a video camera was on while it was written out. There were no items found in the defendents possession and anybody, and I mean anybody could have had access to the item's that were allegedly stolen (customers, managers, employees, janitors) it was a retail store.
What I mean by "the only evidence" is that if the store just had a tip that an employee was stealing and just confronted that employee about it w/o any physical evidence just to see if he/she would confess, is that enough for a conviction?
In other words, the person did have access. That may be enough, coupled with a confession, to support conviction.
I would ask the ever so unpopular question, if you did not steal it, why didn't you fight it, and why did you confess in the first place? Was this confession coerced?
I'm not speaking for myself, I'm speaking for someone else who doesn't have access to the internet. I am pretty sure the confession was probably coerced but I will have to ask.
If this goes to court however, do you really think my friend will be convicted on just the confession alone? I just don't see how you can convict somebody of a crime if you don't have physical evidence to back up all of the allegations for the alleged stolen merchandise.
Once he confessed, they didn't need much more evidence, he said he did it! Since it was on video, he would have a hard time saying it was coerced, because the actions of those involved in getting the statement may be on there also. It would be next to impossible for him to be found not guilty with a taped confession. It sounds like if he really wanted to try to get out of it, he may have to have an attorneys help, and even that would not guarantee he will get out of it. Sorry!
From what my friend tells me, the confession was coerced and he was denied his right to an attorney by Loss Prevention. He was told that if he didn't cooperate the police would be called and he would be arrested etc etc...however none of this is on tape; they didn't start recording until the actual confession part or whatever began. From what he tells me, Loss Prevention was a real prick towards him and possibly denied him some of his rights.
I'm going to try to get him to come over so he can type a more detailed explanation rather than me trying to type his words on here via the telephone. Any other helpful advice until then would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
An employee has no right under the law to request an attorney when being spoken to by their employer. LP is not the police, Miranda does not apply.
I don't remember you saying it happened at work, did this happen at work, for that fact, I don't even know what he was accused of, can you enlighten me please!!
The reading-between-the-lines element for me is that this was most likely a "cold" interview wherein the employee confessed to what they had actually perpetrated when confronted with the facts and circumstances. It is highly unlikely that LP interviewed based on just some sort of out-of-the-blue presumption. Unbeknownst to the 'confessor' they were probably not the only interviewee.
LP most likely used a concept called 'exclusive opportunity' as a basis to initiate their interview process. And, they had facts to back up their initiation of the interview process to begin with.
One last thing, in signing the confession either the signer is guilty as sin or too silly to know the difference to NOT autograph a document that they are not guilty of.