as a matter of law even if it had been conducted according to Hoyle. We disagree. It is well settled that interrogation is a legitimate police investigative tool which the police have a right to pursue no matter how strong the other evidence of a suspect’s guilt may be. It is obviously desirable for the police to get as much exact information as they can in-any criminal case, and especially in a first-degree murder case, so as to reduce to an absolute minimum the possibility that an innocent person will be convicted. Indeed we have found no support for the dissent’s novel sugges tion that even if the police have conclusive evidence of the identity of an offender, it is improper to interrogate him. 8 . See also Stein v. New York, supra, 346 U.S. at 185-86, 73 S.Ct. at 1093-94 (<HOLDING>); Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918, 926 (11th
holding that creditors could not seek relief from a bankruptcy stay because they were not the real parties in interest and lacked standing as they were not holders of the notes and failed to establish that mers was the holder or had authority to transfer the notes holding confessions voluntary and noting that these men were not young soft ignorant or timid they were not inexperienced in the ways of crime or its detection nor were they dumb as to their rights holding that neglect was not excusable where the defendants did not do all that they were required to do after they received the summons and complaint in that they did not contact a lawyer or make any other arrangements with respect to their defense holding that tort claims were arbitrable because they arose out of and were related to contract holding that statements downplaying internal control problems were actionable because they misled investors into believing the problems were not as serious or extensive as they were