I don't see anything here which indicates the prosecution's evidence is not credible.
while everybody knows
Everybody who? Straw man...
that they extracted false confessions
There is no indication here that any false confessions were "extracted." Some defense-hired psychologist CLAIMING that SOME people COULD make false confessions does not make it so in this case, nor in any other. Psychology is not a science, in spite of people trying to claim that it is.
(unless you think that death threats are acceptable police tactics as a way to make someone confess crimes)?
I don't see where there is any proof in this article that cops made death threats against these people. The suspect's confession was to people they believed were partners in crime, apparently. The article says they believed the agents to whom they were speaking were mobsters, not the fuzz - hardly a 'confession' in the traditional sense, more like being too gabby to shady fellow private citizens, which is what they thought the agents were, as opposed to the good cop bad cop routine down at police HQ with the bright light and one way mirror thing.
You are better looking very carefully at this very complicated case,
Well, post some links so we can see just how 'complicated' this case is. The article certainly doesn't give much indication of a confusing or complicated case.
and I doubt that if you're an honest citizen,
Your intent being to say, if people don't agree with you and blame the cops for being unethical without any proof, then people aren't honest?
you will be reassured bu the methods used by the police against Burns and Rafay.
Mention some methods that were used in this case, but this time actually provide links to support your assertions; there might be some articles out there to support your view, I just haven't seen them yet.