In People v. Salinas, 347 Ill.App.3d 867, 283 Ill.Dec. 337, 807 N.E.2d 1178 (2004), the First District held that the corroboration rule requires only that the independent evidence tend to show the occurrence of "a" crime (as opposed to "the" crime to which the defendant confessed). See Salinas, 347 Ill. App. 3d at 880-81. Such an interpretation would separate the corroboration rule from its purpose, which is to ensure that a particular confession is reliable; the fact that some crime, unrelated to the confession to be verified, has been committed does not in any way corroborate the confession. The Salinas majority justified its ruling by reasoning that, because "the identity of the accused as the offender is not part of the corpus delicti, logically, the specific offense also is not part of the corpus delicti. This is so because the identity of the accused will often determine which specific offense is charged, e.g., whether the offender acted directly or in an inchoate manner. The independent evidence need only show that a crime occurred, not the crime for which the defendant specifically was convicted." Salinas, 347 Ill. App. 3d at 881. The First District cited two cases in which, according to the court in Salinas, "the courts held that the State established the corpus delicti for attempted armed robbery when each defendant confessed to the crimes of both robbery and murder, although the independent evidence directly corroborated only the portions of the confessions relating to the murder charges." Salinas, 347 Ill. App. 3d at 883. "the purpose for requiring independent evidence is to ensure that the confession itself is reliable." Salinas, 347 Ill. App. 3d at 883.