[ad_1]
Five teenagers falsely admitted to raping a woman in Central Park in 1989, but were later cleared by DNA evidence and paid $41 million in a settlement. A 2015 study found that innocent people can develop false memories of crimes after a few hours of discussion with real facts. The use of true details in false accounts can make them seem plausible. Other crimes have also led to false confessions, some for attention, others due to grueling interrogation, and some due to genuine belief in guilt.
In 1989, after a lengthy police questioning, five teenagers admitted to raping a woman jogging in Central Park. The youths, who became known as the Central Park Five, later recanted their stories, but were still found guilty. When a serial rapist confessed to the crime in 2002, confirmed by DNA evidence, the five were cleared and paid $41 million dollars in a settlement with New York City. But why would anyone admit to something he didn’t do? Canadian researchers studying the phenomenon in 2015 found that innocent people can easily be convinced that they committed a crime when they were young, after only a few hours of discussion intertwined with real facts. In fact, 71 percent of study participants developed a false memory of a crime, and more than half of those who said they’d assaulted someone created false memories of their dealings with the police, none of which actually happened.
Anatomy of a false confession:
The researchers said using true details in their false accounts, such as the name of a real friend, helped the study subjects believe the made-up stories from the past were plausible and true.
Other high-profile crimes, like the 1932 kidnapping of Lindbergh and the 1996 murder of JonBenét Ramsey, spawned plenty of voluntary false confessions.
Some people confess to getting attention. Others give in to grueling interrogation, either to appease the interrogator or simply to make him stop. Still others are actually convinced that they are guilty.
