Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

Misleading Special Knowledge 537
CONCLUSIONS
There is no doubt that post-admission details and apparent special knowledge
often weigh very heavily against the accused at trial. An apparent intimate
knowledge of the offence by suspects is very incriminating, and often rightly so.
However, problems sometimes arise when too much emphasis is placed on pieces
of special knowledge and it is assumed that only the real culprit could have
possessed that knowledge, when in fact there could be a number of explanations
for it apart from genuine guilt. The case of Kiszko is a case in point. On the face of
it, his apparent special knowledge was extremely convincing and incriminating,
but we know now that it must have originated from the police. Even when
there is absence of any knowledge about the offences and the confession is
unconvincing, as it certainly was in the cases of MacKenzie and Fell, defendants
are still convicted on the basis of their confession.