Why Do People Confess To Stuff They Didn't Do?

We watched Making A Murderer on Netflix this last week.  I didn't know how to write about the show without talking about what happens.  But then I saw a short article in the paper yesterday saying that Steven Avery has filed an appeal.

So, if you are in the middle of watching Making of a Murderer, you probably should stop reading right now.  Not that I'm going to give any spoilers.

There's a newscast early on that talks, in the normal urgent, almost astonished tone of news broadcasts, about the confession of Brendan Dacey, the 16 year old burdened with guilt, who told investigators in gory detail how he went to his uncle's trailer and found a naked woman handcuffed to the bed.  She begged him to help her.  Instead, at his uncle's urgings, he raped her an slit her throat, and shot her in the head.  Then they burned in in the burn put out back."

Sounds pretty damning doesn't it.

But as the show continues, you see the hours it took to get the confession from this low IQ, quiet, introverted kid.  They didn't use physical force.  They didn't even raise their voices.  But they constantly told him they were there to help him - his court appointed lawyer wasn't there and his mom said she wasn't even told about the interrogation - and all he had to tell the truth.  He kept denying things until he starts guessing at what they want to hear.

"What did you do to her head?"
"Nothing"
"We know, we just need you to tell us."
On and on until
"Hit her."
"Is that all"
"Yeah."
We know there's more.
What else did you do to her head?
"Cut off her hair?"
It goes on and on until the detective asks if they shot her in the head.
"Yeah."

The cops were sure they had the right guy and they used every trick to get him to confess.  It wasn't hard with a very immature, slow, quiet teenager, with no record at all.  (At one point he's on the phone and tells his mom, "they said I was inconsistent.  What does that mean?"  His mom doesn't know either.)

Here are some pictures of his court appointed attorney's investigator interrogating Brendan.  This guy is supposed to be working for Brendan, but he's working hard to get a confession.

"Do you want to get out and have a family someday?"  Image from Making a Murderer

"Well, that means you have to cooperate with me" - Image from Making a Murderer

He tells Brendan to draw a picture of the woman handcuffed to the bed, and Brendan does as he's told.  In a conversation with him mom, when she asked why he confessed to something he didn't do, and where did he get these ideas from, he says, "I guessed what they wanted, like I do in school."

Here's that same interrogator, in the courtroom responding to Brendan's new attorney, one with experience in coerced confessions.  Remember, this guy was supposed to be on Brendan's side. He's talking about Brendan's family, the Avery's.

These people are pure evil  - image of Brendan's mother and grandmother

"A friend of mine suggested 'This is a one-branch family tree'"

"Cut this tree down.  We need to end the gene pool here"

 The only thing positive I can say about this guy is that he seems to believe in evolution if he's talking about genes.   He gets this guy to acknowledge that he was trying to get the confession to help the prosecutors' case against Brendan's uncle.  (I didn't use 'admit' because he doesn't seem to think he did anything wrong.)  Brendan's new attorney is incredulous about the interview and this testimony.

While Brendan's confession is not allowed in Steve Avery's trial, it is allowed in Brendan's.

The film makers clearly believe that Steve Avery is innocent and that Brendan's confession is coerced and pure fiction.  There's a lot they left out - the trials lasted weeks.  One tantalizing lead I would have like to know more about was when they asked if the story about the assault and murder wasn't true, where did he get his ideas.  Eventually he says he read it in a book and names the book.  The show didn't say if anyone followed up and found a copy of the book.


My flight to Seattle is about to board, so I'm going to post this, but I may add some more later.  Or make a Part 2. (My granddaughter said, "I want you to come to my birthday party."  What could I do but say yes?)  But I can say, I'll never 'hear' a reported confession the same again.



Confessions Part 2 is here.

UPDATE Jan 20:  Here's an LA Times article about LA settlements with two men wrongly convicted of murder who served 34 and 26 years in prison and who were awarded $16 and $7 million.  I don't think confessions were involved, but there was enough wrongdoing by police officers that city attorneys argued against going to court.

Snow, But Still Out Of Synch

I posted a picture of our snow free back yard the other day.  It's white again.  But according to the ADN today, businesses in town that depend on snow and cold are hurting and that we have had very little snow this year.

image from Alaska Dispatch News

And that three inches all came in the last week.

Their other charts show we have had more snow than last year - which was a record low snow year, but we've had more "no snow depth" days than last year, only six days (through Jan 15) behind the record "no snow depth' year to this date - 2007-2008.

Road Closed Lost And Found

This barrier and sign have been at this alley since last fall, maybe September or October.  Some utility did some work in the alley then left.  But they also left the sign behind.  I called MLP and asked if it were their sign and if not could they check with other utilities who might have left it.

But it's still here in January.

Maybe it belongs to a contractor.  I couldn't find any identifiers on it.  I'm thinking about offering it on Craigslist.  Anyone leaving something like this lying around for three months is guilty of littering and surely this could qualify as abandoned.

On RoadTrafficSigns.com you can buy a Road Closed sign like this from $42 to $72 depending on the quality.  I suspect this is the cheaper quality.  And I found similar traffic barricades ranging from $463 to $896.

You'd think someone would have notice these missing.

Well, if you lost these, let me know and I'll tell you where they are.  Or if you're looking for something like this, I'll tell you too.

[Sorry for those seeing this reposted - Feedburner problems again. This seems to be getting all too common.]

Today's IRS Time: One Hour 30 Minutes [UPDATED After Visit To Local Office]

[Update at the bottom] Monday I called the IRS again in hopes of resolving the payroll tax snafu for my mom's caregiver.  Regular readers know my mom died in July.  Although she had an experienced accountant and he'd suggested I hire ADP, one of the largest payroll companies in the world, to take care of the caregivers' state and federal taxes and other deductions, things got screwed up.

The payroll company did all the deductions at first.  Then they told us that, for a small household account with just one employee, they don't do the federal taxes.  They  had done the first three quarters in error and it was my responsibility to do the fourth quarter deposits.  In conversations between ADP and the accountant, they decided to put all the deductions into my mom's personal income tax return and ask that the money ADP deposited be transferred there.  And I found a payroll company that specialized in home care employment so this wouldn't happen again for 2015.

Then I started getting letters from the business side of the IRS saying they had $12,000 but no returns and from the personal side saying they had a return, but that I owed $12,000.  Sounds pretty simple right?  The business side just needed to transfer the $12,000 to the personal side.  That's what I thought anyway.  After regular monthly notices and phone calls, in September a business side IRS agent said that the way to resolve this was to amend the personal income taxes and leave out the payroll information and submit 941 forms to the business side.  And tell them to transfer the fourth quarter payment that went to the personal side to the business side.  (Remember, my mom is now dead, which seems weird to me, but the IRS doesn't worry about such things, those most of the agents I've talked to have been quick to offer condolences.)

That was done by early October.  I also was told that the power of attorney I had that allowed me to speak on my mom's behalf was no longer good because she had died and that I had to file a Form 56. (This is important to understand today's encounter and why I'm headed over to the IRS office now.)  I filed Form 56 on Oct. 16 - I have a copy of the stamped form in front of me because I went to the IRS office to do this.

I kept getting various notices - mostly fines and penalties adding up on the missing payments.

So, Monday I called the IRS again.

Agent 1:  On the business side.  Said she couldn't really help and I should talk to the personal side.  Besides, her shift was over and the next shift person was waiting to use the desk.  She transferred the call.

Agent 2:  On the personal side now.  Spent more time looking into it and finally said that the case had been sent to Advanced Account Services and she'd transfer me to someone there.

Agent 3:  The man at Advanced Account Services said he'd never heard that term before, but would like to help.  It should be easy to fix, but unfortunately, the computers had been down since 10am Eastern time (it was now around 5pm Eastern time.)  I'm not sure how the previous two agents I spoke to had looked up my stuff on the computer if it had been down all day, but I try to be polite on the phone calls so I didn't say anything.  He said I should call the Tax Payer Advocate.

Taxpayer Advocate:  The recording said they were there to help people who either had a hardship or who had problems that couldn't be resolved.  But the lady who answered the phone asked if I had a hardship.  Well, I'm not going to be thrown out of my house because of this delay, so I said 'no' but I have a long unresolved problem.  She said that they can only help people with hardships.  I pointed out what the recording said.  She said, "We got a notice recently that we are only to deal with hardship cases and she was sorry the recording had not been fixed."

I understand that Congress is not funding the federal government to the level they need to deal with the workload.  So I can understand that the IRS is trying to focus on the most urgent problems - like people who are in a financial crisis.  I also suspect this is part of the legacy of the Reagan policy to "starve the beast."  Today, the tax cut policy, along with actually cutting the budget, this means that government agencies like the IRS are understaffed.  You can wait 90 minutes for someone to answer your call.  (Today it was only 35 minutes fortunately, but as April nears it will get horrendous.)  This causes people like me, who have done everything they were supposed to do and paid their taxes correctly, to get really frustrated.  If I didn't have special expertise in public administration, I would probably be ranting and raving about how bad government is.  I suspect that there are some among the Republicans who want exactly that to happen.  I at least understand it's not the IRS, but Congress that's the problem for me.  Well, I do think someone at the IRS should have been able to fix this.  But this is an aside from my story here.

Senator Murkowski's office:  OK, if an agent tells me to use the taxpayer advocate and the advocate says they can't help me, I need to go to a higher authority.  I called my US Senator's office and gave them permission to get information about my (mom's) taxes.

Today.  I began at 8:05am.  I waited 35 minutes on hold.  The agent listened and spent a lot of time looking at the (now lengthy, I'm sure) record on the computer.  But it boiled down to this:  "You aren't authorized to represent this account."   Again, she tells me, because my mother died, the power of attorney is no longer valid.
Me:  "But I filed a Form 56."
IRS:  When?
Me:  I have a copy of the stamped form here.  October 16, 2015.
IRS:  We don't have a copy.  You sent one for the personal side, but not the business side.  You need to fill one out with the EIN number (my mom had to be a business to do the payroll deductions and so she was assigned an EIN number.)
Me:  The Form 56 I submitted has both the EIN number AND my mother's social security number.
IRS:  Well, we don't have it.
Me:  Can't you call the personal side (of the IRS) and get a copy?
IRS:  No.

Mind you, I've talked to about five or six agents on the business side since my mother died.  Only Monday and today did this issue of the power of attorney come up.

So I'm off to the IRS to file a second Form 56 and this one will only have the EIN number on it.

GRRRRRR!!!!!!!!

I know I should proof this, but I need to get to the IRS office and I have a ton of other things to do as well.  So please correct the typos as you read.

UPDATE 1:29pm (original posted at 10:30am today) -  It took less time to walk (15 minutes) to my local IRS office and wait there (3 minutes) than it took earlier to wait for an agent to talk to me on the phone (35 minutes.)  The agent who saw me did NOT say she couldn't talk to me.  She did NOT say she couldn't see the business side or the personal side.   I'd gone in to refile Form 56 which allows you to represent someone you have power of attorney for after they die.  Well, that's not entirely correct.  It allows you to establish that after the death you still have the authority to represent the deceased.  I'd already filed the form in October for both the business and personal side.  The personal side has said they have it, but the business side today said I needed one for the business side before she could talk to me.  Even though the form I'd filed listed both the EIN (for business side) and the SS#.

But Ms. E took the old form I'd filed (and had stamped because I'd filed it in person) and said I didn't need to refile.  Instead she went into the computer and went to the business side and added the Form 56 info for them.  She checked what they were doing and she checked on what the personal side was doing.  The personal side had received the amended return in early December and there was a note to transfer the money over to the business side when the review was completed.  She went into the collections side and put in a note saying to hold off on collections because they were processing the amended form.  While she didn't move the money over and make all the issues go away, she did more than any of the folks on the phone have done.

She said there's a big push to do everything electronically, but what I needed couldn't be done that way.  Or via the phone easily.  So being a walk in at the local IRS was both faster and more productive that calling on the phone.  At least in the Anchorage office.  AND I got a nice walk through the fresh snow instead of sitting around on hold.

[Sorry for those seeing this reposted - Feedburner problems again. This seems to be getting all too common.]

Blue And White

These are two Mexican shallow bowls and three candle holders that we brought back from my mom's house.  Each has its own unique pattern.  They were small (about 6 and 3 inches in diameter respectively) and easy to pack.  And their colors and patterns pleaded with me to take them.  Looking at them makes me feel good.


And when we got home I thought about a post I'd started before about all the blue and white items we have.  Is there something special about these colors?  Is it just us or are lots of other human beings particularly fond of this combination?

I took pictures of other objects we have with these colors.  I looked for some answers, but didn't find much.  There's lots of stuff on color wheels and color combinations, but white isn't in most color wheels.  Finding info specifically about blue and white was more difficult. But I'll put in what I found.  Maybe Mark, if you see this, you'll have more to add.




   Here's a Chinese vase, and that leads to the origin of this color combination.   From the Blue and White Porcelain page on Wikipedia.

"In the early 14th century mass-production of fine, translucent, blue and white porcelain started at Jingdezhen, sometimes called the porcelain capital of China. This development was due to the combination of Chinese techniques and Islamic trade. The new ware was made possible by the export of cobalt from Persia (called Huihui qing, 回回青, "Islamic blue"), combined with the translucent white quality of Chinese porcelain.  Cobalt blue was considered as a precious commodity, with a value about twice that of gold.[4] Motifs also draw inspiration from Islamic decorations.  A large portion of these blue-and-white wares was then shipped to Southwest-Asian markets through the Muslim traders based in Guangzhou."

This Thai bowl surely originates from the same Chinese tradition.















And this Japanese vase as well.





















But what about this Portuguese plate that was a present from close friends of my wife's parents who were always so good to us?
















And here's a Japanese cup and saucer made for the US market that has a completely different look.

And here's a very American bowl that is basically blue and white, but adds a few other colors.

Were you getting the sense it was only pottery?  I was.  But here a couple blue and white shirts.

As I was photographing all this I was reminded of how wide the range is of what we call white and what we call blue.


But I still hadn't found much on why people like this combination.


This short introduction from  From Houzz   succinctly repeats the Wikipedia info and adds some aesthetic reasons for the color combination.

"Blue and white is a popular color scheme steeped in history. This classic color palette dates back to the ninth century, when cobalt-blue pigments were used to create motifs on white pottery and porcelain in China. During the 18th century blue and white printed fabrics began popping up in France. 

Blue and white is an appealing combination because it is a very serene palette that looks natural to most people. In design it creates a feeling of elegance and simplicity that is unparalleled."

"Unparalleled elegance and simplicity."  Did the writer just make that up, or is there something more concrete to support that conclusion?

The Anthrotorian, in a post on blue and white in Greece, adds a political reason for the combination:

It wasn’t until 1967, when a military government was in power in Greece, that the other colors disappeared for good.  Thinking that the blue and white showed unification, and supported their political agenda, this government mandated that all buildings must be repainted in blue and white if they weren’t already.

When you do internet searches, you get hits that are vaguely related, but really take you off in a completely different direction.  Like this Harvard Law School paper on the history of the regulation of lipstick from 3500 BC to the present.  I think it showed up because, in addition to more traditional reds, Egyptians used a blue-black lipstick.

For more focus on color, here's a favorite post, from 2011, Are Color Distinctions Natural or Culturally Created? More on Language and How We See the World?

Potpourri: Brent Crude, Science Literacy, Burner Phones, And Hidden Netflix Codes

Some stuff that might interest folks.


1.  What is Brent crude?  When they talk about the price of oil, they mention West Texas Intermediate (WTI), and Alaska North Slope (ANS), they also mention Brent Crude.  What does that mean?  This Wikipedia post spells it out.  There's even a goose involved.


2.  Here's a good discussion on American science ignorance at Quartz, or put another way matching this blog's underlying theme, the American way of not knowing.  This physician begins by pointing out that the US as a country is one of the very best in science, but as individuals we've got a lot of ignorance. She picks out a study that defines scientific literacy in terms of whether subjects could identify 'correct' scientific facts.  She writes,

Scientific literacy has little to do with memorizing information and a lot to do with a rational approach to problems.

And she gives three reasons the fact based approach to scientific literacy is problematic.

• Facts change.  That may come as sacrilege to some, but she points out that old ideas get modified by newer experiments.
• It encourages people to dig in their heels about what they think they know.
• The interpretation of data requires critical thinking.  

Actually, I don't think Americans have a monopoly on scientific ignorance, but I suspect we market ignorance in a more sophisticated way than most other places.

3.  The Quartz page also had an article about El Chapo and Sean Penn and mentioned burner phones.  That led me to a post that explains the evolution of burner phones.   The Wire is mentioned as where many people first heard the term.  I watched The Wire but didn't remember that word.  So here's the burner phone post on PureTalk.

4.  Netflix codes for all their different categories.  This lets you get beyond what they think you'll like.

State Overreach - Micciche Marriage Bill Would Have State Override Local Decisions

'Federal Overreach' is a conservative pejorative meant to convey the idea that the federal government is meddling with state matters and overriding state autonomy.  During desegregation they used the term 'states' rights' to fight the federal dismantling of Jim Crow in the South.  

Then states' rights was about keeping the status quo that allowed whites to legislate their power over blacks.

Today, federal overreach is often about the power of states to allow development and exploitation of public resources without concern for local wishes or environmental damage.  If there was a real concern for local control by people who know the situation better (as they claim), then the state (and I'm using Alaska here as my example) wouldn't have wiped out the Coastal Zone Management protections that allowed local folks to protect themselves from development that would destroy their way of life.

Often today, federal overreach, at least in Alaska, really means the feds interfere when a state rolls over for corporate interests.  After all, Koch sponsored Sen. Dan Sullivan was one of the folks who first championed the idea of federal overreach in Alaska.  At his confirmation hearings to be attorney general in 2010 he talked about how he would be joining with other attorneys general to fight in court against the Endangered Species  Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Act to protect 'economic opportunity.

This is not to say that there aren't legitimate states' rights issues - as when the federal government tries to nullify strong state laws designed to protect the voting rights and  the health and safety and of state residents.

And now that the Anchorage Assembly has finally passed and gotten a mayor to sign an ordinance that has added lgbt folks to our anti-discrimination law, Micciche has submitted a bill to have the state void a big chunk of it.  He and others just aren't content to give Anchorage the autonomy from the state that they claim the state should have from the feds.

Basically, this bill is to allow people to refuse to marry or provide any services (food, photos, location, flowers, etc.) for a wedding of a same-sex couple.

Principles are a good thing.  But often they are just makeup to hide a the raw exercise of power.

This bill truly has the state fighting what they'd say is federal overreach in approving same sex marriage and then turning around and exercising state overreach to nullify a good chunk of Anchorage's newly amended anti-discrimination ordinance.

SENATE BILL NO. 120

"An Act relating to marriage solemnization."
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
* Section 1. AS 25.05.261 is amended by adding new subsections to read:
(c) Nothing in this section creates or implies a duty on a person authorized to solemnize a marriage under (a)(1) or (3) of this section to
(1) solemnize a marriage; or
(2) provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of a marriage.
(d) A person permitted to solemnize a marriage under (a)(1) or (3) of this section is not subject to criminal or civil liability for refusing to solemnize a marriage or refusing to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of a marriage.
(e) The state or a municipality may not penalize a person who is permitted to solemnize a marriage under (a)(1) or (3) of this section for refusing to solemnize a marriage or refusing to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or municipal contract, grant, or license. privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of a marriage. In this subsection, "penalize" means to take an action affecting a benefit or privilege guaranteed to the person by law, including a tax exemption or state or municipal contract, grant, or license.

The Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage would not require any religious authority to perform a same sex marriage if same-sex marriage were against the tenets of that religion.  So the part about solemnizing a marriage seems moot to me.  However, people who provide commercial services to the public are now required to provide services for a same-sex marriage as they would for any marriage - a Jewish, or Catholic, or Hindu, or Muslim, or a marriage of two Asians, two African-Americans, two Russians, two Koreans,  and any combination of two people from any of those groups.  [UPDATE January 27, 2016:  After reading Micciche's January 24  commentary and rereading the bill and the statute it amends, I see that  commercial businesses are not exempted, but non-profits do seem to be exempted if they are connected to a clergyman who can solemnize a marriage.  I have a call in to Sen. Micciche to clarify some of the other claims he makes in the article about this having nothing to do with same-sex marriage, the Anchorage ordinance, or that "It does not protect anyone refusing services to interracial or special needs marriages."  I don't see anything in his bill that says clergy may refuse based on their religious doctrine.  It just says they can't be held liable for refusing, period.]   And if this law were passed, it would put a kink in things for gay and lesbian folks.  But I suspect only for as long as it would take to get to the state supreme court.

Our legislature has huge fiscal challenges ahead.  This seems a mean-spirited, divisive, and ultimately futile way to spend the little time our legislators have to settle the state's finances so that our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren can live in a socially and economically and environmentally healthy Alaska.

For The Record

It's January 9, 2016 and there's no snow in our backyard.

In the 38 years we've lived here, we've never even been close to snow free in January.

This alone doesn't prove global warming.  But given all the other evidence that is piling up, we don't need my snowfree backyard to prove it.  There's more than enough other evidence.

Tiptoeing North

Leaving a freshly washed LA.

Passing Mt. Hood.

Passing Mr. Ranier.

The Martian - Book or Movie?

When I read the book, I kept being surprised at the level of detail author Andy Weir took me through.  He didn't just say that Mark Watney created water using the oxygen and hydrogen he had, but he went through very specific details about how he did it.  I was amazed that he was doing it and also that I didn't get bored.  I got a general idea of what he was actually doing.

So the movie's glossing over the details was unsatisfying in the beginning.  I kept wondering how those in the audience who hadn't read the book knew what was going on.  Would they understand why he was doing this or that.  They didn't know why the MAV blew up or why he cut off the roof of the rover and stuck a bubble of plastic on it.

In the interview afterward screenwriter Drew Goddard said that he didn't understand all that Weir had explained in the book and that the audience didn't need to know exactly how he created water, just that he needed the water to survive.  And, of course, the movie doesn't have time for that kind of detail.  They even left out the huge storm that almost wipes things out toward the end.  But actually, in the book, that seemed like a plot device to add to the tension, and really wasn't necessary.  But then a number of the disasters, individually, weren't necessary.  But collectively they were needed to demonstrate how difficult surviving would have been.

In fact, after the film, the first question from the LA Times writer Meredith Woerner asked each of the panelists was how long they thought they could survive on Mars. Production designer Arthur Max said, after a pause, "About a minute." The others didn't give a lot longer. Radiation would do you in they said and a suit strong enough to protect you would be way too bulky to be able to do anything in. I think it was good to get that out of the way - hey, this is fiction and despite all the science used to get Mark out of each problem, the book and movie never deal with the fundamental problem of radiation.

In the end I was marveling at how manipulatable humans are, as we get emotionally involved in this
set of images on a screen that we know is made up. In a situation that couldn't have happened. Yet we go with it anyway.

Sorry about the quality of the picture, but it gives you a little sense of the four panelists and the interviewer. From left to right: interviewer, Meredith Woerner; screenwriter Drew Goddard; composer Harry Gregson-Williams; director of photography Dariusz Wolski; and production designer Arthur Max.

I'd like to add more about the discussion, but it's late and we fly home tomorrow and still have to get the house a bit more presentable for our friends who will be staying here.  Though I'd like to add that I didn't catch all their names at the time and had to check when I got home.  It was only then that the screenwriter's comment about having grown up around scientists in Los Alamos, New Mexico clicked.  But after checking on Robert H. Goddard,

"American engineer, professor, physicist, and inventor who is credited with creating and building the world's first liquid-fueled rocket, which he successfully launched on March 16, 1926"

I could find no mention of him having any children.  Maybe there's a connection that I just didn't find, but it seems fitting for a Goddard to do the screenplay of The Martian.

Both the book and movie were worth watching.  I found the book much more compelling, but I think the movie would have been better if I hadn't read the book.

[UPDATE Jan 7, 2016 7:15am:  I forgot to mention that the credits went on forever, but apparently didn't list everyone involved.  At the very end the credits said something like "Over 15,000 people were employed to make this movie."  That's a good thing in and of itself I guess, but just think if we could mobilize whatever it takes to make school a positive experience for every child.]