on page 230, this conversation takes place between Laura, Vic and Frediani: “Then how come we have your DNA?” “As far as DNA evidence, oh, I’m sure you’ve got some DNA evidence that probably points to me. Where you got it, how you got it, that’s a whole different matter. I’ve been in your custody for a long time.” “Why would we want to plant evidence?” Clearly these prosecutors are trying to get a confession out of him in a tactic that seems to be duress. Frediani remains calm and shows no evidence of fear or nervousness. He claims that the obtained DNA at the scene was not directly pointing to him for the crime. I feel that sometimes, if the prosecution is biased against the defendant, they may try and squeeze out a vague and false confession just to put him away. Is this type of aggression during interrogations fair.
In this chapter, the police interrogated a 17 year old boy in hope to obtain enough evidence in order to convict him. Being that the boy is still a minor, do you think the police denied him of his natural rights in some way? I feel if the boy had a lawyer or a guardian by his side this interrogation would have gone differently. It is more than likely that the boy has never been in a situation similar to this one, it may be a possibility that the police got a false confession from acts including duress. It is also likely that the boy had not been familiarized with his right to a lawyer. I feel this situation would have went down a lot differently if an adult was by his side.