Crimes and confessions, copy-pasted. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Biased language

Use of loaded, emotionally charged, or mocking wording that nudges readers toward a particular judgment.

Examples include: - "Our sleuths are as naive as my buddy at times." - "Straight copy-paste jobs!" - "your probe tools remain as darkly mediaeval as the Spanish Inquisition." - "stage-managed drama." - "a mental wreck after having spent 18 years in the lonely death row" These phrases go beyond neutral description and frame police methods as uniformly crude and archaic, and the process as theatrical and malicious.

5 suggestions

Replace "Our sleuths are as naive as my buddy at times" with a more neutral formulation such as "Investigators in these cases appeared to rely on similar, potentially flawed methods."

Change "Straight copy-paste jobs!" to "The confessions were highly similar in structure and wording, suggesting they may have been derived from a common template."

Replace "your probe tools remain as darkly mediaeval as the Spanish Inquisition" with "some investigative methods still rely on coercive practices that are inconsistent with modern standards of due process."

Change "stage-managed drama" to "the court found that the recovery of knives and bones appeared to have been orchestrated rather than independently discovered."

Retain the description of harm to the accused but phrase it factually, e.g., "He was released after spending 18 years on death row, with significant psychological impact reported."

Appeal to emotion

Using vivid, emotionally charged imagery or narratives to provoke feelings (outrage, pity, fear) in place of balanced argument.

The article uses strong emotional framing: - "They let him go, a mental wreck after having spent 18 years in the lonely death row and once having been readied for the gallows." - "Both acquittals outraged us, honest citizens who had swallowed the police stories hook, line, sinker, limbs and bomb shards." - Graphic description of alleged necrophilia and cannibalism: "killed them, had sex with the dead, chopped their organs, and even ate parts of them." These details and metaphors are designed to shock and stir outrage rather than simply inform.

3 suggestions

Summarize the alleged crimes and later judicial findings more clinically, e.g., "Police alleged multiple murders involving sexual violence and mutilation; the Supreme Court later found the confession unreliable and evidence insufficient."

Replace "mental wreck" and "lonely death row" with a factual description: "He spent 18 years on death row before acquittal, and reports indicate serious psychological consequences."

Rephrase "swallowed the police stories hook, line, sinker, limbs and bomb shards" to a neutral statement such as "Many members of the public initially accepted the police narrative without close scrutiny."

Hasty generalization

Drawing broad conclusions about a group or system from a small number of cases.

The article moves from two specific cases to broad claims about policing and investigations: - "Our sleuths are as naive as my buddy at times." - "your probe tools remain as darkly mediaeval as the Spanish Inquisition." - "Torturing suspects, tutoring witnesses and faking proofs will no longer get you conviction..." These statements imply that torture, tutoring, and faked evidence are typical or defining features of police work, based mainly on a couple of highlighted cases.

3 suggestions

Qualify the scope: "In several high-profile cases, investigators have been accused of relying on torture, tutoring, and questionable evidence, which courts have rejected."

Avoid system-wide characterizations like "darkly mediaeval" and instead specify: "Some practices in certain investigations have been criticized as outdated and coercive."

Add acknowledgment of variation: "While many officers follow due process, these cases show that serious abuses can and do occur, with devastating consequences."

Oversimplification

Reducing complex legal and investigative issues to simple, one-sided explanations.

Examples include: - "The court had no go but to let them go" – implying acquittal was purely mechanical, without acknowledging legal standards of evidence and reasonable doubt. - "Torturing suspects, tutoring witnesses and faking proofs will no longer get you conviction from smart defence counsel and wiser judges" – suggests that these are the main or only reasons for acquittals and that all modern judges will reliably detect such practices. - The portrayal of public reaction as a single, uniform outrage: "Both acquittals outraged us, honest citizens..."

3 suggestions

Clarify legal reasoning: "Given the similarity of the confessions and documented evidence of torture, the court found the prosecution case unreliable and acquitted the accused."

Rephrase to avoid implying that all acquittals are due to torture or faked evidence: "Reliance on coerced confessions and questionable evidence is increasingly unlikely to withstand scrutiny from defence counsel and courts."

Qualify public reaction: "Many citizens expressed outrage at the acquittals, having previously accepted the police narrative."

Stereotyping / In-group bias

Attributing characteristics or motives to people based on group identity (caste, religion, majority/minority) and assuming a uniform public mindset.

The article discusses prejudice but also risks reinforcing group stereotypes: - "To us, all the accused had fitted the villain bill—Koli because he was dark and a dalit, the other bunch because they followed a faith that the majority didn't, were poor enough to be recruited for evil, smart enough to make bombs, and evil enough to trigger them in trains to kill people." This sentence, even though critical of prejudice, repeats and amplifies stereotypical associations between caste, religion, poverty, and criminality, and speaks as if "we" all shared these biases.

3 suggestions

Make clear that these are prejudices held by some, not objective traits: "Many in the public appeared to see Koli as a villain because of his caste and appearance, and the others because they belonged to a minority faith and were stereotyped as potential terrorists."

Remove or rephrase "poor enough to be recruited for evil, smart enough to make bombs, and evil enough to trigger them" to something like: "They were often portrayed as easily recruitable and technically capable of terrorism, without sufficient individual evidence."

Avoid speaking for everyone: change "To us" to "To many observers" or "To some sections of the public and media."

Confirmation bias / Narrative fallacy

Selecting and arranging facts to fit a preferred narrative, while omitting or downplaying complicating details.

The article builds a coherent story: police routinely torture and tutor suspects; courts heroically expose this; the public is prejudiced and easily misled. It focuses on two dramatic acquittals and does not mention: - Any cases where police investigations were careful and convictions upheld. - Any evidence or arguments that initially supported the police versions beyond confessions. - Nuances in judicial reasoning or dissenting views. This selection supports the author’s thesis but does not present a balanced picture of law-enforcement performance or public opinion.

3 suggestions

Acknowledge that the highlighted cases are examples, not exhaustive: "These two cases illustrate how serious miscarriages of justice can occur when investigations rely on coerced confessions."

Briefly note that there are also cases where police work has been rigorous and convictions have been sustained, to avoid implying that all investigations are abusive.

Mention, if available, what evidence initially persuaded courts or the public, and how that evidence was later reassessed, to show the full process rather than only the failures.

Unbalanced reporting / Selective use of sources

Presenting only one side’s perspective or only those facts that support a particular stance, without engaging with counterarguments or alternative views.

The article: - Cites the High Court and Supreme Court findings against the police narratives but does not include any response or perspective from law-enforcement agencies, prosecutors, or investigators involved. - Does not mention any institutional reforms, training, or constraints that might complicate the picture of police behavior. - Frames the judiciary and defence counsel as uniformly "wiser" and "smart" without acknowledging possible errors or limitations on that side. This creates a strong asymmetry: police are criticized; accused and judges are defended; other perspectives are absent.

3 suggestions

Include, if available, official police or prosecution responses to the acquittals, even if only to explain why the author finds them unconvincing.

Note any ongoing reforms or internal debates within law-enforcement about interrogation methods and forensic use.

Acknowledge that courts and defence counsel can also err, while still emphasizing the importance of due process and safeguards.

Misleading or exaggerated metaphors (related to sensationalism)

Using extreme metaphors or analogies that exaggerate the situation and can distort perception of scale or intent.

Examples: - "as darkly mediaeval as the Spanish Inquisition" – equates contemporary police practices with one of history’s most notorious systems of torture and religious persecution. - "old Magyar wives' tales" – dismisses the police narrative as pure folklore. These comparisons heighten drama but may overstate the similarity between the historical reference and the present situation.

3 suggestions

Replace "as darkly mediaeval as the Spanish Inquisition" with a more measured comparison, such as "reminiscent of discredited coercive methods from an earlier era."

Change "no more credible than one of old Magyar wives' tales" to "the Court found the narrative implausible and unsupported by physical evidence."

Generally prefer precise descriptions of practices (e.g., specific forms of coercion, lack of corroborating evidence) over historical or folkloric analogies.