1228, 1232 (Fla.1985). Martin states that the detectives encouraged him to confess so they could bring Jacey back to her mother. The detectives stated that the Bible teaches forgiveness and that whether or not “god is number one in your book, it is for people like [Jacey’s mother].” However, this exchange, as with the others previously addressed, did not render Martin’s confession involuntary. Despite this Court’s denunciation of the Christian burial technique in Roman, this Court did not suppress the confession in that case. In fact, the Roman Court upheld the admission of the defendant’s confession because it found that the use of the Christian burial tactic did “not directly result” in the defendant’s confession. 475 So.2d at 1232; Hudson v. State, 538 So.2d 829, 830 (Fla.1989) (<HOLDING>). The Roman Court explained that the use of the
holding that question of whether a confession was coerced was not to be resolved by considering the truth or falsity of the confession holding that later declarations during defendants confession leading officers to evidence of the crime constituted part of one continuous confession that began at the police station holding that counsels failure to move to suppress the defendants confession constituted ineffective assistance because it was obvious that the confession would have been suppressed holding confession admissible despite officers plea to defendant to help law enforcement locate the body so that the family would be able to lay the deceased to rest holding that a confession was voluntary despite the fact that an officer falsely told the defendant that physical evidence connected him to the crime