BY KRISTEN DELGUZZI
The Cincinnati Enquirer
When Cincinnati police first interviewed the accused gunman in the deaths of Maher Khrais and Zaid Khreis, they immediately advised him of his Miranda rights.
The drill was the same when they interviewed the man accused of brokering the deal that led to the Nov. 22 slayings of the two Jordanian men.
Police say they also followed that protocol when they questioned Mr. Khrais' wife, Linda Khriss, who is accused of hiring a hit man to kill her husband.
But an expert in false confessions testified Wednesday that he doubts police advised Mrs. Khriss of her rights because it is not reflected in their written notes as it was with the two other suspects.
"There's no confirmation of that when in the other interrogations, it's there -- other interrogations by the same officers," said Richard Ofshe, a social psychologist and professor at the University of California at Berkeley.
The lack of notation is just one reason Dr. Ofshe thinks Mrs. Khriss' statement to police is false. In the Dec. 4 statement, she admits to hiring someone to beat up her husband for $2,000.
Mrs. Khriss is charged with aggravated murder for the death of her husband and could be sentenced to death if convicted. Jurors will begin deliberations today, after closing arguments before Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Ann Marie Tracey.
Though she appears to be speaking freely and voluntarily on the taped statement to police, Mrs. Khriss now claims detectives tricked her into telling the incriminating story, by saying it would help them build their case against the accused middleman. Police and prosecutors say Mrs. Khriss' story is ridiculous. But Dr. Ofshe, who has studied nearly 100 examples of fake confessions, said it has merit.
He says that during the initial interview -- it lasted more than two hours -- detectives carefully outlined the story they wanted Mrs. Khriss to tell. Then once she had it, they put the statement on tape. The taped version is 39 minutes long.
"If these are notes of her story (from the first interview), it should only take 39 minutes to tell," he said. "But if this is formatting -- working out details of their story -- then (the time difference) makes sense."
Prosecutors attacked Dr. Ofshe's conclusions, saying he had reviewed only portions of testimony and evidence and was assuming too much.
Assistant Prosecutor Steven Tolbert also questioned the conclusion that the taped statement was a fabrication, noting that many details -- including Mrs. Khriss' birthday, Social Security number, phone number and history of her relationship with her husband -- are accurate.
