I'm not on the spectrum, but I was a rebellious kid who didn't like to take shit from teachers. My defiant and sarcastic reactions to accusations were often considered evidence that I'd done wrong when I was innocent.

It's not that lie-spotting heuristics work better for neurotypical people or worse for people on the spectrum. They don't work at all for anyone. We're all in the same boat.

You were rebellious. From the point of view of a common teacher, that means you are not innocent. There is actually a old common saying, when some kid got a beaten, but it later turned out to be not guilty of that ... "well, he deserved it anyway" or "well, then the beating was in advance for something he is about to do" "or some other hidden sin", instead of a apology.

Which means self fulfilling prophecy. Punishing someome for something they didn't do - and for sure there will be reasons later on for things they will have done.

There are still way too many teachers and alike, who think a childs free spirit needs to be broken first, before they can learn something useful.

It is!

But you don't need to break someone, to help them learn it. Breaking people is just the cheapest method.

For instance, it'd be incredibly unfair for me to accuse you of being a jackass for a comment like this, when I know nothing about you... it'd also be equally unfair for me to assume you're an authoritarian... because I don't know anything about you, and therefore have no reason to make such an assumption.

Sort of like the teachers in the prior comments.

I had a time where a group of bullies picked up the innovation of using the school administration to harass. So I found myself in the situation of having chats with the principal a few times a week.

The optimal strategy was to courteously deny and be silent. It works over half the time. I’d also use my time waiting around to “charm” the support staff by being nice to them and making myself useful. Eventually, most disciplinary referrals ended up getting lost, as the secretaries clued up to what was happening.

[1]

  10 PRINT "C:\> "
  20 READ
  30 PRINT "Bad command or file name"
  40 GOTO 10

We were in the class next door that had one computer and we could hear it go off.

Hilarious hijinks until caught/blabbed on. Serious business afterwards. Teachers are scared shitless of computers even now and ‘hacking’ back then... well, I was waiting for MI6 to come get me.

I was brought in front of the board for expulsion after a litany of these types of things, and questioned about anything and everything for about two hours.

We took the case to the board of education and got copies of all of the board members notes, one of which enraged me then and now.

Scrawled in the margins of this members notes - random physiological and psychological phrases. "R.E.M?" for rapid eye movement, "no empathy", "slouching" etc.

Some armchair psychologist that thinks a kid in a high pressure situation, looking around at a board of nine people, is displaying sociopathic traits. That somehow my seating posture related to my character.

They expelled me, and it was ultimately overturned by the state. Still bothers me that people try to apply these dogshit cues to make real life major decisions.

"Vindictive" and "spiteful" were some other good ones. They'd convinced themselves I was doing it to get them or something. The truth is, I was a bored unstimulated kid and the only consideration they got, was how I could avoid them as much as possible. Absolutely zero interest in sticking it to them or making their lives more difficult.

And they go on believing forever that that weird first random idea they got, was right.

(I might be exaggerating a bit.)

I don't mean to give you grief because I've been in similar situations. But I hope you've learned from it that people will hold you responsible for behaviors they observe, and not for your intentions behind them (e.g. acting sullen because you are actually terrified inside).

Not saying it's easy, especially for a kid, but if you go in front of a panel like that, if you can demonstrate remorse and desire to change, it goes a long way.

It sounds like you're presuming to know more about what happened there than you can. I fully expressed remorse, and explained how in hindsight I understand that what I was doing was disruptive, and that I wouldn't behave that way in the future, etc.

Their rubbish analysis was just that. Also, how is "slouching" a fair thing to observe in analysis? I sit with bad posture. I did then and I do now. It's completely irrelevant.

Oh, I should also point out that by this point I had been clinically diagnosed with ADD - which they expressed, and I'll have to paraphrase as it was about 13-14 years ago, was "made up" and that it couldn't possibly explain my behaviour.

This only furthers the advantage of those most willing and able to lie. Especially so when the system and punishment is arbitrary and capricious rather than rooted in first principles. We should focus on outcomes and shared goals, not easily faked attitudes.

The presence of the word "only" clearly makes an assumption that it is a lie.

I wonder if thinking "I get paid anyway the same each month, what does it matter if they believe me or not" helps (unless one might get fired)

Now convenience and reliability are issues. Also maybe intelligibility.

The more yes answers to the above, the more likely the person is lying to you.

Well worth the time.

EDIT: Seems I wasn't the first to make that recommendation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26608636 ;)

The trial is about figuring out the truth.

Even that is an assumption.

Yeah, he couldn't.

In summary, you lose the moment you agree to talk.

I’d be interested if anyone has experience of the UK system and if the same strategy of staying silent would be advised in the uk.

There is an interesting TV show called 24 Hours in Police Custody[1] that follows people in the 24 hours after they are arrested. Naturally, there are many scenes of police questioning. Plenty of people do just answer "No comment" to every question, even after consulting a solicitor.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_Hours_in_Police_Custody

this is my understanding of the UK system too (note: I am an american). it's quite different in the US because, among other things, the jury is explicitly instructed not infer anything from the defendant's use of their 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination. even if you have a perfect explanation for what happened, it's often best to just be quiet and let the prosecution fall apart.

So, if you are arrested for beating up X, and you invoke your right to silence, THEN at trial you put forward a defence of "I wasn't there!" without any substantive evidence to back it up, the prosecutor can say "well, look, if there was an alibi, why didn't you tell the police about it?" The judge is supposed to then instruct the jury that they can draw an inference as to your honesty on the grounds you didn't bring it up during police interview.

The legislation that brings that into force are ss34-39 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/part/III/crossh...

absolute nonsense

the statute with the meaning that you are trying to whitewash your argument applies only to application for dismissal of the indictment based on a claim it's reasonable for you to have provided earlier thereby preventing the proceedings progressing to court

precisely because that's the best advice that you will get from a solicitor in the circumstances!

I rather belaboured my earlier responses to this same question, because I wanted to make it understood how rarely there's any justification to arrest someone. UK LEO arrest people by default and they absolutely do not have a automatic right to arrest anyone and certainly not only to bring you in to interview.

For example, the police can get you to show your documents, name, address if they think you are not a UK citizen. Another example: in a stop and search you must tell the police what they might find during a search.

i.e. https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/sto...

this requirement you linked to also provide your address I'd have to look at further to tell you categorically that providing your ad is specifically in connection with this stature, but when you are asked to identify yourself providing a address is quite normal, but I am surprised that I actually don't know if you have to give your address with your name by law or if your name is always sufficient for all other cases. it is equally likely that I'm trying to clarify ambiguity that arises only from the language of the linked information of course

In addition, England (dunno about Scotland) does NOT have the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine regarding illegally or improperly collected evidence as is seen in a lot of US legal dramas.

The best strategy if arrested in England is to seek legal advice, either from your own solicitor or from the duty solicitor.

a court "may" infer from your silence a negative presumption...

so goes the doctrine

"may"

"may"

"may" conduct a mis-trial if they do.

the UK police have very few powers in reality.

you may not be coerced to provide a statement or submit to a interview.

you can be arrested for justified suspicion and required to attend a police interview.

you are not required to respond in any way

you can elect to provide a prepared written statement instead, which must be construed by a court to have answered and not been un-cooperative. It is a good idea to prepare this prior to your interview and amend if you wish afterwards.

Handing over a statement won't excuse you from a formal interview when under arrest.

But a advance statement can enable your attorney to challenge the grounds for your arrest and detention.

the UK has very strict controls governing arrest for investigation purposes.

arrest is in fact prohibited unless the arrest is required for your attendance or protection of evidence.

the justifying facts can be challenged at any time. A good attorney will pay close attention to the detail of your interview questions and your attorney and you both have the right at any time to stop the interview and seek advice and counsel in private including from additional specialist lawyers. no time limit applies to the time out you call, although it may not count for the maximum limit of time you can be detained without judiciary approval

this being hn I'm g to assume that you have some recourse to the agency of trusted friends and financial resources.

specifically if you have such resources, I cannot recommend enough for you to make your solicitor instruct a reputable criminal barrister the moment you find out what's going on. cooperation with interview obviously helps you learn something helpful and if it doesn't you absolutely should be alarmed and proceed as follows :

you require your counsel to immediately obtain your warrant and any advance information available from the Crown Prosecution Service to be able to advise you on the possibility that your arrest is prejudicial because of a preexisting theory of your guilt.

bogus arguments for your arrest will never be fully compiled for reference and the possibility of embarrassing you calling you at work surely applies to most of us and all who we know.

unless you are unlikely to attend interview on request and unless you are provably likely to destroy evidence or interfere with witnesses YOU SHOULD NEVER BE ARRESTED AT ALL

the fact that potential witnesses won't be disclosed to you normally before interview is why you need to find out what you can as well as decisively excercise your right to counsel the moment you understand more regardless if it's two minutes into a interview everyone took all day to arrange.

as soon as the police can be said to not be forthcoming with witnesses you supposedly will meddle with, presuming you are not vagrant, the game is over for keeping you under arrest

now for 24 hours the duty custody sergeant must authorise your detention at intervals usually connected with the fact that the sergeants job is to oversee the correctness of proceedings and the provision of the rationale to go arrest you and slam you in a cell.

UK police sergeants are good stuff and I say that notwithstanding the contrary is true for too many officers in UK LEO - sergeants are on a different career path and don't like nonsense. they're also much older and more experienced folk. you'll be stood in front of yours at various times when you get your phone call and when you are called to interview and if the station isn't busy you can usually question them directly about your detention. officers have played endless games and detectives likewise - that's the business of it. UK LEO is in a woeful state but your Sarge is the sanest voice of reason you'll hear through your experience and including your attorneys because they're playing another game as well and one which I think has caused a lot of transgressions by officers to take place in the knowledge that you have to be seriously lucky to get a good station attorney attending on you and blessed by the Lord to receive someone who is going to be on point for you if you are arrested in the UK today.

I stress these points : Sarge Good : your attending attorney : suspect.

although anyone who cares will obtain a lot of details very quickly convening your situation, your reality created by silence and concurrent reticence on the part of the police, during the first stages, gives nothing whatsoever for anyone who can do anything for you to go on.

if you are brought before a judge the next morning (Saturday courts do operate and >24hr detention isn't allowed unless you are charged of a offence, IF CPS FAIL TO BRING TO YOUR FIRST HEARING ANY EVIDENCE CAPABLE OF DISPROOF OF THEIR CHARGES FROM THAT MOMENT THE WHOLE PROCEEDINGS ARE ONLY A ABUSE OF PROCESS AND UNLAWFUL AND THE DISCOVERY OF INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE LATER ON IN PROCEEDINGS IS IRRELEVANT. I have forgotten the case you'll find it in Blackstone Criminal Practice (the 2 volume reference for barristers to apply proceedings in criminal law - nota very bene because the other volume covers civil law few firms have copies of this vital reference work.

[0]

I'M WRONG YOU CAN purchase Blackstones Criminal Practice individually and for only £350 which is much cheaper than the 2012 set including the companion civil practice volume, which cost me a thousand pounds together.

GET a copy!

I'm crazy huh?

just get your copy and start reading it from a random page : I will take bets (friendly, I'd feel bad for taking from you too easy) that you will be astonished to learn that the foundations and assumptions that you have accumulated inadvertently over the years are simply utterly rotten and dangerous nonsense, within the hour.

(you'll find the critical case law I refer to if you look at the maximum detention of a accused person and regardless I'm going to find a place where this can be found, myself, but it is also in the Judicial Review Handbook (Fordham / Hart Publ. £202) and was given in 1951 meaning that you can pick up used copies of these references for a very modest price which is easy to recoup - at least firm demand always existed however the reduction in price by almost twenty percent for BCP makes me think someone's finally scanned all the thousands of Bible weight oversize pages..

I've placed such emphasis on the value of reference texts because if you can prove to me that a solicitor attending a arrest or representing a first hearing, had any awareness of these vital rights I'm describing today, I shall gladly make it my genuine pleasure to gift you this year's editions as well as additional copies for the use of whomever you subsequently instruct to represent your abrogated rights and obtain for you n necessary redress. only condition to be the payment for as many more copies out of the costs ordered against or settled with your I learned former lawyers to offer the same again to the next soul who was effectively sacrificed by the incompetence of the only profession who by law not only can but must be paid for their work fully in advance at all times except for attending to arrests.

I must wrap up my points but I hope that I have made it abundantly clear ideally beyond the possibility for doubting the importance to us all in or visiting the UK, this fact that the rights we are supposed to enjoy are so rarely sought for anyone's benefit that I can fairly assert that in criminal prosecution in the UK, the rotting fishes head is this carelessness and ignorance right here.

[0] https://global.oup.com/academic/product/blackstones-criminal...

but I haven't even ever heard anything said in any court about the accused giving a no comment interview. never.

I probably shouldn't have gone to such length as I did earlier only to respond to your questions, either, but the reason why I replied at length is because it is so important for people to learn how much everything is biased against the individual member of the public in every way beginning with our popular understanding of the applicable laws and logic.

the warning that you quoted, the UK Miranda equivalent warning, people somehow always seem to think applies to subsequent procedure in particular the interview process.

if you are arrested on suspicion of committing a crime, the first thing you should do is to establish whether you should have been arrested in the first place and prior to letting anything else further happen to you.

obviously this is a little difficult when you are in custody.

police station solicitors even for large firms are a neglected and weary bunch totally disconnected from the rest of everything that is going to happen to you. right here is the worst disconnect of incentives imaginable because the actions of a smart lawyer in the earliest stages of every proceedings can have disproportionate and incredibly serious consequences.

I wrote to tell anyone who is in such a position where possible to get a barrister specialist in police law to consult with as soon as you have gained any understanding of the situation at all.

this will not make your solicitor happy. but a solicitor who refuses the instructions of their client in the UK commits a crime and your life is not a joke but the kind of service for anyone in this situation who hasn't prepared or already gotten good connections, sure makes you think someone's laughing at your rights.

it should be obvious that you want to stop the police before they think that spending time and resources on finding evidence to incriminate you is a good idea. But it doesn't seem to occur to anyone that this is when you can do this and about your only chance very likely.

I think the majority of arrests are actually unlawful in the UK, because it has been standard procedure for all of my lifetime and the knowledge of anyone older than me I've asked, to automatically go arrest the person of interest and bring them in to custody as if that's their perfect God given birthright. Well heck it is not!

I only hope by my admittedly rather long comments that somebody who has to go through things like this can possibly experience UK LEO without a bunch of unnecessary fears and emotions and prejudicial ideas in their heads that are altogether doing nothing except work against the individual freedoms and rights which we still mercifully but effectively tragically don't in effect often really have.

But maybe in 99.99% cases speaking the truth and co-operating quickly will spare you many months of stress and time.

All I'm saying is, that from the video alone it is not clear to me what the risk/reward here is and of course it is situation dependant.

That's not true. The police will interview everyone connected to a crime. Like if your SO turns up dead you're going to be one of the first people the police talk to. Depending on what else they've found they will have varying levels of suspicion. That level will absolutely change on how you do in that interview or if you refuse to talk.

Never, ever agree to be interviewed by police without your attorney. There is no reason not to have someone who knows the game play for you. You have no clue what the police know or think they know already and your innocuous answer about something that seems unrelated may seem to confirm some wrong information they already have.

Again, your word cannot exonerate you but it can absolutely get you charged or even convicted.

Of course it is. The police aren't the sole decision maker in the process, but as a rule if they don't think you did it you won't get arrested. Conversely if they think they can prove you did it you probably will end up getting arrested.

>Again, your word cannot exonerate you but it can absolutely get you charged or even convicted.

Sure it can. Juries and the police are fallible and can be swayed by a convincing performance. Jeffrey Dahmer, as an infamous example, managed to get the police to return one of his drugged victims by convincing them he was drunk and it was a lovers quarrel.

Every assertion you make to police opens you up to being prosecuted for completely separate crimes, including lying to the police, depending on what other information they already have (correct or incorrect).

Take the advice that every cop, every attorney takes and also gives to their kids: don’t talk to the police. Just get an attorney.

(A wild scenario of police catching someone in the act of a crime is not only not what we are talking about, but that individual was not exonerated.)

But if you knew you did something that could land you in prison and you were supposed to hide it, that would be a completely different scenario.

Even in the article they mentioned 85% success rate after some training.

My point was not that detectives are useless, interrogation does work wonders -- in some cases making the criminal confess, in others making the innocent confess to something he did not do.

My point was getting convicted based on some lie detection bullshit or just some confession alone is evil.