TalkLeft has frequently called attention to the problem of false confessions. Donald Connery writes today about three Connecticut convictions that were the product of untrue statements made during police interrogations. Two of the innocent confessors have been set free, but the judge in Richard Lapointe's case has, in Connery's view, shown little interest in finding the truth.

I heard Judge Stanley T. Fuger proclaim, "I don't know anything about this case." Worse, he seemed determined not to know anything. He told the lawyers at the beginning that he would read no briefs at the end. He refused to look at a just-arrived DNA report favorable to Lapointe. After just three days of testimony, he abruptly announced that he had heard enough.

A Lapointe supporter asks:

"How could he do it? It was a highly athletic murder. Boy Scout knots were tied around her neck and arms - Richard could hardly tie his shoes," said Perske, who has been making the hourlong trip from his house to visit Lapointe at least once a week for the past 17 years.

Lapointe's case is another example of the injustice that follows when "confessions" aren't recorded. The jury never heard the the interrogation tactics that were employed against the mentally disabled man, and therefore had no basis for deciding whether his incriminating statements were coerced.