I'm not what you would call a prosecutor's dream juror. Without full video of an interrogation, I would never trust a confession elicited during questioning at a police station, nor would I trust eyewitness identification by a stranger. Aside from stranger eyewitness I.D., I would treat eyewitness recollections of crimes with considerable skepticism. There is an abundance of academic research, as well as many real-life case histories, that support my skepticism in these matters.
And I wouldn't give you 2 cents for jailhouse-snitch testimony or testimony from parties offered the possibility of leniency if they implicate others.
If I was arrested, I would never answer questions in an interrogation without an attorney present, nor would I believe one word out of the mouth of a police officer investigating a crime. Lying is part of what they may do during an interrogation to make the suspect feel that they might as well confess since the police have proof of the crime. The problem is that this technique is one of many that leads people to confess to crimes they haven't committed.
I understand that some police departments have taken serious measures to avoid the kinds of mistakes that have been exposed in the research literature, but others seem to stubbornly ignore the research on false confessions and faulty witness testimony.
I don't think much of the Reid Method, either.
Like I said, I'm not a prosecutor's dream juror.