The practicality of this rule is obvious. General admission of such statements could seriously handicap the administration of justice in tempting everyone accused of crime to introduce perjured testimony that a third party, then deceased or beyond the jurisdiction of the court, had declared that he, and not the accused, had committed the crime. The rule is sound and should not be departed from except in cases where it is obvious that justice demands a departure. But it would be absurd, and shocking to all sense of justice, to indiscriminately apply such a rule to prevent one accused of a crime from showing that another person was the real culprit merely because that other person was deceased, insane or outside the jurisdiction of the court. [Unquote]
They go on to state that an exception to the general rule to NOT admit this "confession" should be made - in light of the many other evidence errors.
Letterich was convicted in 1950 of Roberta's murder, and he was sentenced to death. In 1952, his appeal resulted in the first trial being overturned. In 1953, prosecutors declined to re-try him.
I do not believe that Herlindo Perez Arias ever took a lie detector test. And even if he had, it would neither prove nor disprove his guilt or innocence. Lie detector tests and results are not admissible as evidence.
Accounts that I have seen concerning the Perez Arias confession state that it was only made to According the the account I have seen, Perez Arias confessed to Dr. William H. Haines, director of the Behavior Clinic of Cook County, on 22 December 1948. Exactly what he said in that confession is not generally known, although it is possible that at some point police and/or prosecutors got the information secondhand (hearsay) from Dr Haines.
Six days later, on 30 December 1948, Arias committed suicide. Where this occurred is not stated in documents I have seen.
