Distefano's Guilt Summary

A third factor in the conclusion of DiStefano’s guilt is his statement of activities, it is extraordinarily unbalanced. True statements follow the same format as a lecture or story with three mostly equal parts, an introduction talking about the events leading to the crime, the crime itself and then a conclusion and aftermath. DiStefano’s statement, however, doesn’t follow this trend. He uses short sentences with little detail rounding to the nearest 5 or 10 minutes to describe most his day. Then when it comes to the period concerning the crime, he suddenly becomes very detailed in his whereabouts and what he did, giving detailed descriptions, down to the minute-12:03 AM. Then after the period surrounding the crime where an evenly sized conclusion

should be is simply one sentence completing his list of activities for the day. The imbalance in detail and proportion surrounding the entirety of DiStefano’s statement are consistent with inconsistencies in a guilty person’s statement. The detail orientation in the time around the crime is like an objection stating I couldn’t have done it because was at work- look at all this detail. The innocent person doesn’t do that they are constant in detail and simply didn’t do it they don’t have a further justification for their objection.
The final consideration demonstrating DiStefano’s guilt is his logic.

The first issue is how he states the fact that he only gave a confession because he is tired and wanted to go home and be done. He assumed that they would let him confess to killing someone and leave. No reasonable person believes that they can confess to murder and then just walk away from a free man. In fact, he didn’t even believe this himself. For in preliminary hearings regarding the validity of the confession one of his arguments was that he thought he was in custody. He states how he felt like he couldn’t leave, there was no way they were going to let a murder suspect walk out of there and he is correct. However, he can’t have it both ways, he can’t reasonably say he thought he would be able to leave after confessing, but then also say that thought he wasn’t free to leave before he even confessed because he was a suspect. This issue is important because it dilutes the strength of his argument as to why he would give a false confession, simply you don’t confess to go home, you confess to go to prison. The other part of DiStefano’s logic which is problematic is how he argues the validity of his confession. He states how factual parts of the confession are wrong or uncorroborated and thus the whole confession must be wrong. However, just because part is wrong this doesn’t change the fact that he confessed, nor the fact that details can be wrong or falsified while the main idea, Christopher DiStefano

killed Christine Burgerhoff, is still true. His argument based on details making him innocent is typical of a guilty person, an innocent person is innocent-period, a guilty person couldn’t have done it because of a, b, c. DiStefano is trying to convince people of his innocence through careful calculation and debate over what could be purposely falsified details not since he didn’t do it. Simply, part of the confession being false doesn’t mean it all is, but that’s the argument he makes for his innocence.
Christopher DiStefano’s language, actions, and statements both written and verbal demonstrate the actions of a guilty man, but just as he likes to point to details he was right on one, the wrongness of conviction.

He is guilty, the initial verdict was correct in that regard, but the PA Superior Court was also correct in overturning his conviction. DiStefano was the target of the investigation, it was made very clear in the interrogation process, and therefore, constitutionally, he needed to be given his Miranda Rights. Having not received those a craftily gotten confession gets thrown out. The outrageous oversight on the part of investigators took all the work on the investigation and wasted it. Without an admissible confession, there wasn’t much to convict him on so he pleas down and walks free, self-proclaimed a factually innocent

man.
Christopher DiStefano’s language, actions, and statements both written and verbal demonstrate the actions of a guilty man, but just as he likes to point to details he was right on one, the wrongness of conviction. He is guilty, the initial verdict was correct in that regard, but the PA Superior Court was also correct in overturning his conviction. DiStefano was the target of the investigation, it was made very clear in the interrogation process, and therefore, constitutionally, he needed to be given his Miranda Rights. Having not received those a craftily gotten confession gets thrown out. The outrageous oversight on the part of investigators took all the work on the investigation and wasted it. Without an admissible confession, there wasn’t much to convict him on so he pleas down and walks free, self-proclaimed a factually innocent man.