of the defendant, because ... confessions, even those that have been found to be voluntary, are not conclusive of guilt. And, as with any other part of the prosecutor’s case, a confession may be shown to be “insufficiently corroborated or otherwise ... unworthy of belief.” Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 689, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986) (quoting Lego, 404 U.S. at 485-86, 92 S.Ct. 619). Whatever doubts the jury could have entertained about Brisbon’s videotaped confession — or any taint from its erroneous admission — would have been outweighed by Brisbon’s subsequent and independent confessions to Route and to the prosecutor that were removed in time and circumstance from the videotaped confession. Cf. Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 299, 111 S.Ct. 1246 (White, J., dissenting in part) (<HOLDING>). On this record, where the jurors were
recognizing that the legislature would not generally use a different meaning for the same word in a legislative provision unless a different purpose was intended holding that the plaintiffs had relied on illinois law because they could have filed in a different forum having a different statute of limitations recognizing the two different types of conspiracies under the federal statute recognizing that in some cases two confessions delivered on different occasions to different listeners might be viewed as being independent of each other recognizing different factual situations may dictate application of a different valuation ie other than fair market value of the damage to the property