My brilliant new premise

[Frederick]

Here is my revised premise:
Police are not qualified, nor do they have enough information to be doing anything more than taking people into custody.

Once in custody, the accused may be lied to ONLY if it is documented that the accused was lied to, and that the accused responses may not be used against them UNLESS the information given is VERIFIABLE.  In other words, statements made under duress should not be admissible, however they can be used to further the investigation of the case.  Here is an example:  interrogator lies to suspect and says "we know you stole the wallet and unless you confess we will put you in prison for 20 years"  The suspect then confesses and reveals where the wallet is…  however, since that confession was made under duress of a lie, then the following would apply:
1.  If the wallet was found WHERE the suspect said it was, then that confession solved the crime, and the plea bargain is valid
2.  If the wallet was NOT found where the suspect said it was, then that confession must be considered to be false, the plea bargain is not valid BUT the confession can NOT be used against the suspect!

Everyone is entitled to a FAIR trial by jury.  To be fair, no matter what, if the jury is intentionally told a lie, and that lie is not corrected by the prosecution, then at the very least, you have a mistrial, if not an acquittal.  There is no excuse for presenting a jury an intentional lie.  In OJ's trial, he got acquitted because the lead detective committed perjury.  OJ's trial could have been ruled a mistrial, however in that case that went on for over a year, they decided that a do-over would not work because the testimony of the lead detective could not be used in the re-trial. 
In the mysterious case I often refer to.. the jury was lied to not once.. not twice.. but constantly.. and not only by the prosecution, but the accused man's own defense attorney was a fraud who did more harm to the defendant than the prosecution did.