In In re Wayne H. (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 595, the Supreme Court held that incriminating statements made to a probation officer were admissible at a fitness hearing, but could not be admitted on the substantive question of guilt. (And see Ramona R. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 802, 810.) The role of the probation officer in eliciting the statement "is not the marshalling of evidence on the issue of guilt, but rather the assembling of all available information relevant to an informed disposition of the case . . . or to assist in the evaluation of the minor's fitness for treatment as a juvenile." ( In re Wayne H., supra, 24 Cal. 3d 595, 599.) The role of the police, of course, is to marshal evidence to establish guilt of the perpetrator. A coerced confession implicates fundamental due process.