IN THE MATTER OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Judgment of the Tribunal

Presiding: The Honourable Tribunal

This Tribunal has jurisdiction.

This Tribunal applies the law as it exists. The same law. The same standards of evidence. The same definitions of unlawful detention, misconduct, conspiracy, and fraud that have been applied in this system to others for the entirety of its operation.

This Tribunal will now deliver individual judgments.

THE INTERROGATOR

The Accused

Any person who, after the publication of Bond and DePaulo (2006), conducted an interrogation using the Reid Technique or any substantially similar guilt-presumptive methodology. Who applied a credibility assessment framework to a subject under custody conditions. Who obtained a confession under those conditions and presented it as voluntary evidence of guilt.

Findings of Fact

The accused knew, or in the exercise of their professional duty ought to have known, the following:

That the methodology they were trained in produces false confessions at a rate of between 12% and 30% of verified exonerations. That the conditions they created — detention, sleep disruption, isolation, acute stress — elevate the suggestibility of the subject by 80 to 120% above their normal baseline before the first question is asked. That the credibility assessment framework they applied interprets authentic cognitive effort as deception and rehearsed performance as honesty. That the training they received increased their confidence without improving their accuracy.

The accused will say: I was trained. I followed procedure. I did not invent the methodology.

The Tribunal finds this unpersuasive.

The Nuremberg tribunal heard the same submission from every person who operated within an institutional framework producing documented harm. The submission was rejected then. It is rejected now. A trained professional op