Drzava

In Crime and Punishment, Petrovich knows that Raskolnikov killed the old woman, but he has no evidence, so he talks to him and tries to get it out of him. This also happened in the King of the Hill episode where Hank was suspected of killing Debbie, the sheriff would drop by here and there to keep him informed on the case.

Is this kind of small talk still used? If only one man suspects someone of a murder, does he have to interview them formally and get everything on record, or can he use a more underhanded aproach and try to coax it out, by letting the suspects know that he knows, and it will only be a matter of time?

I've searched all over the internet, but can only find stuff related to CSI or corpse as a scene or forensics or all this other stuff that has no relevance

k3ng

The word of 1 man isn't enough to convict. I think. I'm more than half sure of that.

__________________
Learn Malaysian English at the C10 site! -->http://c10site.blogspot.com/
Come see why your life sucks -->youaremediocre.wordpress.com

'In truth, those who cringed at the use of cliché were their own cliché.' - Ted Dekker in Saint

Drzava

Well, not to gather evidence to convict, but to make the suspects nervous enough to slip up or come forward themselves.

Drzava

Unfortunately a lot of that wit is being lost in the later seasons. "Oh no! Professor told us not to let him get a boner!"

Drzava

Well, providing the murderer is just an ordinary person who was under a lot of stress and just snapped, but got away with it. But I am curious if, whether or not it will work, if it would even be attempted, mainly in a small town that doesn't have much crime or a homicide team, and just one detective who has a hunch...

Or, would it be violating procedure to talk to the suspect casually?

Spooky

Um, if it is John Q Public being nosy and looking into things then, yes, its perfectly acceptable.

Generally I don't think a law enforcement officer would act like that, only because it might be impossible to make something like that stick in court (or get the person to confess again, officially), and the person would have to be mirandized before any interrogation (or discourse, if you like that better) could occur.

I have seen instances where law enforcement officials will keep someone abreast of the case, or tell them things to gauge their reactions, but that's certainly not the norm. This is the age of forensics, after all. There's always something.

Drzava

Froensics really does mess it up, the date the story takes place doesn't matter as long as it is 80's-90's-present, perhaps in the early 90's it would be more acceptable?