Several confessions were said by police officers to have taken place in a squad car immediately after arrest. Sometimes, the suspects were taken to police stations some distance away from the arrest, in contravention of PACE regulations. Squad car interviews represent an opportunity to interview suspects without a solicitor, and make it relatively easy for officers to claim that incriminating statements were made, including through falsification of signed notes. Signed confessions were shown from Dandy's case onwards to have been tampered with, due to forensic ESDA evidence. However, the original statements were generally destroyed, as noted above, making it impossible to make this analysis in most cases. Instead, courts later worked on the assumption that certain officers may have tampered with signed confessions on the basis of previous behaviour, making a conviction unsafe if it relied on this evidence. Many confessions were recorded but not admitted to by defendants. The confessional statements were generally short and undetailed, even in the course of long interviews. Kaye notes in his examination that such confessions would be unusual as most of the suspects were criminals with several confessions, so likely to be very familiar with police procedure and the effect of such convictions, if they were insisting on their innocence. Often the phraseology of the confessions was similar and hackneyed. Kaye records that many of them were variants on: 'That's a bit heavy' 'You're spot on' 'That bastard's really put me in it' 'You're putting a good case against me' Kaye adds that the language of the statements were generally very similar, lacking differentiation in phraseology and colloquialisms, whether from Birmingham or the Black Country, nor reflecting the diverse backgrounds of the suspects, who may have been Asian, Afro-Caribbean, from different regions of Britain or Ireland. Only in the case of Afro-Caribbeans did he note any difference, where suspects would use the word 'man', despite using the same language patterns in every other respect. Other evidence for interference with statements comes from the length of the statements. Where the content of the statements is claimed to have been added to, these frequently show implausibly fast note taking. Kaye calculates the transcription rate as being around 30 words a minute, rather than a more typical 20-23 a minute. In John O'Brien's case, DC Shaw was asked in court to read back his notes from an interview that was marked as having taken 15 minutes: