Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

524 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
police surgeon on 22 December that his sex drive had now improved and that
he was masturbating frequently and able to ejaculate, were to have crucial consequences
for him. The doctor considered it essential to obtain a semen sample
from Kiszko and compare it with the semen found on Lesley Molseed’s clothing.
The results from subsequent analyses, which clearly proved that Mr Kiszko was
not the murderer, were suppressed at trial by the police and resulted in a wrongful
conviction. The suppression of this crucial evidence was discovered by police
officers who re-investigated the case in 1990–1991, following an application to
the Home Secretary by a new defence team (Rose, Panter & Wilkinson, 1998).
The Police Interviews
Kiszko was initially questioned on 5 November 1975 in connection with a complaint
concerning indecent exposure that occurred on 4 October 1975, and about
his whereabouts at the beginning of October. These officers were not to interview
Kiszko again. Instead, the detectives investigating the murder of Lesley
Molseed were informed about Kiszko and the complaint of indecent exposure
relating to 4 October (Rose, Panter & Wilkinson, 1998).
Kiszko was later to be interviewed again at his home on 7 and 10 November by
homicide detectives regarding his whereabouts on the first weekend in October.
He gave varied accounts of his activities and whereabouts, which made the
police suspicious about his motive for doing so and he was challenged about
this. It seems from reading the relevant statements that Kiszko was unsure
about the precise date when he returned home from hospital.
At approximately 10.30 a.m. on Sunday 21 December 1975, Kiszko went
voluntarily with the police to Rochdale Police Station (he was not arrested
until the following day). He was to be extensively interviewed over a period of
three days. He was 23 years of age. At the time he was employed as a clerk with
the Inland Revenue. He was an only child and lived with his mother and aunt.
During the first interview, which occurred shortly after Kiszko arrived at
the police station on the Sunday morning, he is asked about his whereabouts
since the beginning of October 1975 and the indecent exposure allegation. It is
pointed out to him that the police had information that contradicted his previous
statements to the police that he had been in hospital at the time of the murder.
Kiszko then admits that he had previously made a mistake about when he was
discharged from hospital; he now states that he was discharged from hospital on
15 September, but he insists that he never left his home between 15 September
and 12 October. He was also confronted with witness accounts that he had been
out on Bonfire Night on 5 November, a date on which Kiszko claimed he had
been at home. He then admitted that he might have gone out on 5 November,
but had not got out of his car. He blamed his inconsistent and hazy memory
account on his injections. According to Rose, Panter and Wilkinson (1998):
Whilst Kiszko had been shown to be a liar, and there was little doubt that those
lies had been told to conceal guilt of one or more offences of indecent exposure,
there was now a strand of suspicion, linking his lies to the murder, and that his
last answer as to his ‘damned injections’ added strength to the link (p. 102).
At 2.35 p.m. Kiszko is interviewed again. He states that he does not ‘fancy girls’,
but mentions that before the murder he had received injections from his doctor