Yeah, the Professor isn't lying - much of that is exactly as he says.
The Investigator's part was pretty much based on what happens after a fairly detailed investigation - not from an interview conducted by the first responders (street cops) during the initial investigation. So yeah, he gave a fairly truthful account of what the Police do to interview suspects.... but not at the street level (well, except for the weak speeding ticket scenario....
)
The thing I don't agree with is how the Professor prefaced his lecture by saying "Never talk to the Police". It's a bit misleading - particularly for the innocent.
It's not always true that when the Police want to interview someone - they already have the probably cause to arrest, but want to get incriminating statements to bolster their case. Most times they have the PC, but not always and this actually can be to the benefit of the person being interviewed - if they talk.
For example: I responded to a Domestic Violence call and spoke to the battered/injured wife. She tells me her husband assaulted her, while she was holding their 6 month old child. Her injuries consisted of redness/bruising on her right forearm, a knot on the right side of her head above her ear and severe pain in her lower rib cage area (later determined to be a broken rib). She said she was punched and back-handed 3 times by him and that he was left hand dominant. Fortunately, the child had no visible injuries. Sounds very plausible right? She said he's likely at a nearby bar.
I contacted him at the bar, had him come outside to talk to me. I informed him of his wife's allegations and advised him of his Miranda warning. He declined to make ANY statement at the time.
Here's what makes things difficult for the accused when they decide to not talk with the police -
the police have no choice to then make an arrest based SOLELY on the statements made by the victim. And that's exactly what I did. I booked him in on Felony Domestic Violence assault and Child Abuse.
What would later come out in court was surprising. In short, the victim lied about having been assaulted. The husband was attempting to leave to avoid the argument and she kept standing in his way in the kitchen area. He became frustrated enough that he pushed his way past her to leave. She slipped on the tile floor and fell on her right side over the back of a kitchen chair and then to the floor. The fall over the chair broke her rib and the injuries to her head and forearm were from falling to the floor over the chair. She admitted to all this in court. She also admitted that the child was asleep in it's crib during this incident.
So, how could have talking to the police been beneficial to the husband in this case? His side of the story would have given me reason to re-interview the wife and possibly resulted in her recanting her initial statements. Or his statements may have provided me with the probable cause to actually arrest her for being the initial aggressor by having committed False Imprisonment (keeping him from leaving for any length of time by being a physical barrier).
When the husband made no statement at all, he had to be subjected to immediate surrender of his civil rights and arrest. He had to stay thru the weekend until his first court appearance, post a bond, was subjected to a temporary restraining order, couldn't see his child at all during the time it took for the case to be brought to court and decided by a Judge (about 8 months IIRC). He'll also always have an arrest record - not a conviction, but the arrest for D.V. and Child Abuse will be a part of his permanent record unless he takes the time and money to have it expunged - which requires another court proceeding.
Was it worth it? That's the decision everyone has to make before ultimately deciding to not talk to the Police. But I gotta disagree that many times it can in fact be in a person's best interest to provide an initial statement - and be savvy enough about their rights to know when things aren't looking favorable and then decline to comment until they consult with a lawyer.
My personal feeling about the Professor's motivation for doing this kind of lecture? Bolster his and other defense attorney's "value" in being retained and ultimately make $$$........ when in many cases they're totally unnecessary.
Of course....... not talking to the Police when you know you did wrong is a totally different story........
