"Take The Money And Run"

[parliboy]

Then that goes back to my issue about not knowing what the rules really are, because in the absence of any other information, it seems absolutely trivial to come up with a theoretically possible lie, stick to it, and laugh at the cops when they use techniques that only really have an effect when the possibility of genuine criminal punishment exists.

Which is perfectly legal:

Why do the contestants answer questions during interrogation?  Why don't they just remain silent for 48 hours?
             A:  Rules state that the contestant must answer the  questions they are asked and may not use an answer                         that is gibberish or impossible (i.e. "The case  is on the Moon").  In exchange for having to do that, they                         may lie and be as creative as they like about  it, as long as it is plausible.  How well can you deceive the                         experts?  Will they catch you spinning a web of  lies?  Will they find your achilles heel?

[Matt Ottinger]

Imagine getting an hour to hide the case somewhere and then having to endure two days in Val's octagon, because that's what it seems like. The game doesn't take place in a vacuum, these are real people, and two of the games have ended in favor of the detectives because the crooks cracked under the stress of the investigation.

I haven't seen the show so it's probably not fair for me to comment, but in general, I tend to agree with Chris.  Because they're not crooks and detectives, they're "crooks" and "detectives".  If I'm a "crook", and I want to say that the money is stored in a mayonnaise jar on Funk & Wagnalls' porch, what's going to make me change my story?  Some other game show contestant yelling at me?  Please.

All I can figure is that the producers have found "crooks" who lack the ability to separate between what's real and what's reality television.  Which, honestly, probably wasn't that hard for them to do.

[tvwxman]

All I can figure is that the producers have found "crooks" who lack the ability to separate between what's real and what's reality television.  Which, honestly, probably wasn't that hard for them to do.

This is one of the best lines I've ever read about reality tv contestants. Spot on.

[TLEberle]

If I'm a "crook", and I want to say that the money is stored in a mayonnaise jar on Funk & Wagnalls' porch, what's going to make me change my story?

"The GPS coordinates from your getaway car that we received at the beginning of your incarceration show that you were nowhere near Funk & Wagnalls. But this parking stub from the garage on Frenulator Avenue shows you parked for twelve minutes. What did you do there?"

[Matt Ottinger]

If I'm a "crook", and I want to say that the money is stored in a mayonnaise jar on Funk & Wagnalls' porch, what's going to make me change my story?

"The GPS coordinates from your getaway car that we received at the beginning of your incarceration show that you were nowhere near Funk & Wagnalls. But this parking stub from the garage on Frenulator Avenue shows you parked for twelve minutes. What did you do there?"

I played Angry Birds.  What's it to you?

My point is, this guy is just another contestant, and I know that.  He's my opponent, and I'm not going to help him.

Now, if he's able to deduce my comings and goings through dogged detective work, then good for him.  But if this game comes down to an "interrogation" (and again, that's in quotes for a reason), then I win.

[TLEberle]

I played Angry Birds.  What's it to you?

I prefer Crush the Castle myself, but that's neither here nor there.

Now, if he's able to deduce my comings and goings through dogged detective work, then good for him.  But if this game comes down to an "interrogation" (and again, that's in quotes for a reason), then I win.

And detective work is a huge part of the game. The detectives are given the entire GPS path of the getaway hour (which means they know when and where someone stops); they have all text messages sent and received, they have the phone numbers called incoming and outgoing, they know that the team had a hundred dollars, so they also see how much was spent and the team has to turn over any receipts for stuff or services during the hour. The detectives also do things like look at the soles of shoes to see if there's grains of sand or grass there and if that might lead to a particular kind of location. They match the driving to the phone calls to see if there are particular time periods that are more likely to be when the case was stashed, and when the team was driving and couldn't have done a drop. The interrogation makes for more arresting television, but there's also a whole bunch of boots on the ground detective work happening in those two days--knocking on doors, interviewing shopkeepers and that sort of deal. If the pair of detectives find the money, they divide it; the interrogators are there pro bono for each police pair.

If you would enjoy watching a game show/police procedural, you'd enjoy it. If you wouldn't, you wouldn't.

[Matt Ottinger]

And detective work is a huge part of the game.

I am immediately more interested.  Our conversation had centered around the interrogation and the fact that at least two pairs of numbskulls fell victim to it.  This sounds like much more fun.  If Survivor is the reality version of Lost, then it sounds like this is the reality version of Law & Order?

[TLEberle]

then it sounds like this is the reality version of Law & Order?

You are about nine-tenths there, yes.

[clemon79]

"The GPS coordinates from your getaway car that we received at the beginning of your incarceration show that you were nowhere near Funk & Wagnalls. But this parking stub from the garage on Frenulator Avenue shows you parked for twelve minutes. What did you do there?"

Again, hence, plausible.

They were in Chicago last night. After hiding the briefcase, drive within a few blocks of Ditka's Bar & Grill, stop for a couple of rounds of Angry Birds, and tell them you put the case under a table where four guys with the same bushy moustache and sunglasses were sitting. No, you didn't talk to them, because you didn't want to be subject to the rule where accomplices have to be available for questioning.

Do not deviate from that story. Ever.

"You're lying! Our people went there and found nothing!"

"Not my problem. Tell Craft Services to bring me a sammich on the way out."

For every other stop they ask you about, you tell them you stopped the car and played Angry Birds. Man, that game is addictive!

I agree with the points about the rest of the evidence being potentially useful, but I see not one reason a plausible alibi can't be drummed up based solely on location, and no reason AT ALL to cooperate with an interrogator who is threatening you, because that approach is utterly pointless when it's Just A Game. If they can find it using the rest of the evidence, fantastic, they would have had that anyhow, but it's trivial not to help them through the questioning, and for the sake of drama, the program they present places a LARGE emphasis on the interrogation angle.

I agree with Matt, they simply found morons for contestants where anyone with a modicum of sense should win the game handily. And that to me isn't interesting television. The part they emphasize, for my money, is absolutely the weakest part of the show.