JOHN E. REID AND ASSOCIATES.

INC
INVESTIGATIVE TIPS

CRIMINAL
INTERROGATIONS
AND INTERVIEWS

1
The use of Visual Aids During an Interview or Interrogation

Investigators rely extensively on their verbal communication skills to elicit information duringan
interview and to persuade a suspect to tell the truth during an interrogation. It is often beneficial
to reinforce verbal communication with visual aids. Consider the difference between verbally
telling a person how to get from point “A” to “B” as opposed to reinforcing the verbal
directionswith a written map. With the visual aid, the person is much more likely to arrive at the
destination. This web tip will address the use of visual aids to increase an investigator’s rapport,
credibility, and ability to learn the truth.

Not all visual stimulation is desirable. For example, it is much easier for a person to tell the truth
if there are not visual reminders of being punished. Consequently, a police officer should remove
a gun and handcuffs before entering the interrogation room. Similarly, it is not desirable to have
on the wall of the interview room a poster depicting a policeman escorting a handcuffed
shoplifter into a police car. It is also clearly inadvisable to have any recording equipment visible
to the suspect. A tape recorder sitting on top of a desk or a video camera mounted in the corner
of the room serves as a huge reminder of punishment, e.g., your words will be used against you
later.

During an Interview

At a recent seminar, a loss prevention investigator explained how she used photographs of her
pet dog and cat to help establish rapport with employees at the outset of an interview. After
getting basic background information from the employee, she would ask, “Do you have any
pets?” This served as an introduction to discuss her pets along with their photographs. In this
way, she established an initial emotional connection with the employee, which made it easier for
the employee to later tell her the truth.

A visual aid can also enhance the effectiveness of a bait question, which is a question in which
the investigator asks the suspect about the possibility that evidence may link him to the crime.
For example, in a robbery of a liquor store, the suspect may be asked the following bait question:
“Bill, if we were to review the surveillance video outside the store that day, is there any reason
we would see you on the video?” The question is designed to elicit behavior symptoms reflecting
confidence from the innocent suspect and uncertainty from the guilty. These behaviors may be
enhanced through the use of visual aids as the following examples illustrate, where the visual aid
is in brackets:

[Latent finger print on an index card] “This very recent finger print was recovered from a door of
the stolen car. Is there any reason this would be your fingerprint?”

[photocopied signature] “We have submitted this signature from the back of the check for
handwriting analysis. Once they scan and enlarge the signature, they use computer software to

2
make statistical comparisons with the exemplar that you gave me earlier. Is there any reason the
results of that analysis would indicate that you wrote this signature?”

[Photograph of tire or shoe print] “This photograph of a tire (shoe) print was taken outside of the
victim’s home. As you can see, the tread marks are pretty clear and distinctive. Is there any
reason they would match any tires on your car (any of your shoes)?”

Interrogation

Prior to an interrogation, the investigator should prepare visual props that may be used during the
interrogation. During our seminar we teach that, at a minimum, the investigator should prepare
an evidence folder that can be referenced when the suspect is confronted, e.g., “Joe, I have in this
folder the results of our entire investigation...” The following are suggestions for additional
visual aids.

A third person theme is a story about another person who engaged in behavior similar to that of
the suspect’s. An effective way to develop a third person theme is by introducing it through a
newspaper article. When making reference to the article during the interrogation, it is helpful to
highlight certain words or phrases. The week that this web tip was written there were three
newspaper articles that could easily be cut out and used to develop a third person theme.

The first was a research finding that showed a correlation between childhood exposure to lead
and later criminal behavior. This article could be effectively used to reinforce the concept that
sometimes things happen to us that are out of our control and that those factors need to be taken
into consideration when understanding why someone did something.

The second article was from a terrorist who was caught smuggling explosives into Heathrow
airport. He testified at his own trial to clarify that his only intention was to set off the explosives
at the airport to cause confusion, not to blow up airplanes and kill people. This article would be
very effective in stressing the point that it is human nature to think the worst:

“My gosh! Had this man not explained what his true intentions were people may have jumped to
the conclusion that he was some sort of menace to society and they wouldn’t understand that he
just wanted to cause confusion. This is why you need to tell the truth!”

Finally, there was the Tatum O’Neil story. This celebrity was arrested for possession of crack
cocaine but the court granted leniency because of her “traumatic childhood”. This article is a
natural introduction to the following theme:

3
 “Judges are not robots or computers. They make personal decisions of what is appropriate given
all sorts of different considerations. In Tatum’s case, the judge considered her childhood, which
was very rough. She had a father who was a popular movie star and she acted in movies at a very
young age. It’s like she never had a childhood to learn lessons from. All of a sudden she was in
an adult world with adult temptations and opportunities, but she still had a child’s judgement.
Just as there were extraneous factors to consider in Tatum’s case, I think there are extraneous
factors to consider in yours. But you’re not a public figure like Tatum O’Neil. People don’t
know your history. They don’t know what pressures you’ve been under or other factors that may
have influenced your decision that day.”

As a legal caveat, it is important that a third person theme does not transmit a promise of
leniency. If the suspect, through wishful thinking, chooses to believe that because of extenuating
circumstances he may be afforded leniency, that is fine. However, the investigator cannot state or
imply that the suspect will receive a lesser punishment if he tells the truth.

During our advanced course an interrogation technique is presented where the investigator
discusses negative aspects of the suspect’s life as a result of his continued deception regarding the
crime. An investigator attending the seminar described the use of visual aids to reinforce this
technique. He was interrogating a woman who had a long criminal record for crimes ranging
from prostitution and drug use to burglary and auto theft. To prepare for the interrogation he put
together a picture album of the suspect’s mug shots over the past ten years. The first showed a
naive, pretty young woman but over the years, as the drugs and criminal lifestyle took their toll,
the photographs became less and less attractive. While slowly flipping through the pictures, the
investigator developed a theme about how the suspect’s choices in her life have caused so much
pain and hardship. By the time the investigator got to the suspect’s most recent photograph, she
was in tears and confessed not only to the issue under investigation, but implicated a number of
other suspects in unsolved crimes.

Visual aids can also be used to reinforce the existence of evidence against the suspect. In some
cases, where actual physical evidence was recovered from the crime scene, the investigator may
visually present the evidence to the suspect during the interrogation (even though analysis of the
evidence does not link the suspect to the crime.) This technique was used successfully in a case
where an employee had fished a deposit out of a safe using a coat hanger with chewing gum
stuck to the end of the coat hanger. After the suspect offered repeated denials the investigator
pulled out a plastic bag containing gum residue and told the suspect that it was the gum residue
from the deposit bag. He then explained that the suspect’s DNA would be found on the gum
residue. This visual prop was instrumental in persuading the suspect to eventually tell the truth
about stealing the deposit money to pay off a debt her brother owed a street gang.

In the previous case there actually was gum residue recovered from the inside of the safe,
although no DNA analysis was done on it. In many investigations there is no actual physical
evidence to produce. Under many circumstances, the investigator may be able to create a visual
prop in an effort to convince the suspect that, in fact, there is evidence against him. For example,
the suspect could be shown a latent finger print and told the following, “This is your fingerprint.
We found it inside that stolen car so don’t insult my intelligence by telling me you weren’t inside

4
the car. We know you were.” Similarly, the investigator may produce a VHS tape with a label
indicating the date of the crime. The investigator may explain, “This is the surveillance video
from a camera mounted across the street from the liquor store. I reviewed it this morning and it
shows you going into the store just before the robbery. It’s as clear as day; there’s no doubt it is
you.”

There is an important legal guideline to consider when using a visual prop to persuade a suspect
that there is evidence which implicates him in the crime. The ruling comes from a case in which
the investigator typed up a fictitious crime lab report indicating that the suspect’s DNA was found
during the victim’s autopsy. After reading the report, the suspect confessed to the killing. The
appellate court suppressed the confession and ruled that a distinction must be made between false
verbal assertions (which are permissible) and fabricating evidence (which is impermissible).1

The court’s concern in this case had nothing to with obtaining a false confession through
fabricated evidence. Rather, they felt that the practice of manufacturing evidence against a
suspect threatened the integrity of the evidential system, e.g., “What if the manufactured crime
lab report found its way into a trial or was used to issue a search warrant?”

To be in compliance with this ruling, we offer the following test: If someone did not know the
history of the visual aid, is it possible that the person may believe that it represents actual
evidence against the suspect? If the answer to this question is “Yes”, the visual aid should not be
used. As an example, it would be permissible for the investigator to place his own fingerprint on
an index card and falsely tell the suspect, “This is your fingerprint that we got from inside that
stolen car.” On the other hand, it would be impermissible to take the suspect’s own fingerprint
and place it on an evidence card labeled in such a way that another person may believe that the
fingerprint was found inside the stolen car.

In conclusion, visual communication is an important skill for investigators to utilize to be more

effective in their job. For example, a sketch artist’s drawing of a robbery suspect is infinitely
more helpful than a physical description in identifying the perpetrator; a simple crime scene
sketch reveals information that pages of written text could not capture. Similarly, an investigator
can use visual aids during an interview or interrogation to develop further information from a
suspect and eventually persuade a deceptive suspect to tell the truth.

Evaluating One-On-One Allegations May-June 2008

One-on-one allegations are very common in criminal investigations. The accuser may

5
be an alleged victim. The accused, of course, denies involvement and offers an
explanation for the false allegation. In other situations, an incident occurs and there are
only two possible suspects. Obviously, both suspects will name the other as being the
guilty party.

These “He said, she said” cases are inherently difficult to investigate for a number of reasons.
Often, there is not a clear separation between a truthful and false account. That is, both parties
may be telling part of the truth and also omitting or embellishing information. In many cases,
these interviews are conducted when one or both parties are in an emotional state of mind which
can cause misleading behavior symptoms. Finally, because these cases are often spontaneous, a
decision to make an arrest must be made without the benefit of conducting an interview in a
controlled environment. This web tip will offer suggestions to help assess the credibility of the
people involved in one-on-one allegations.

1. Question both parties separately.

There is no better illustration of the problems associated with having both the accused and
accuser present during questioning than on television court shows such as, “The People’s Court”
or, “Judge Judy.” Invariably, the liar becomes more committed to his or her position and rarely
confesses even when confronted with evidence. The truth-teller may become angry or reticent
out of frustration and staunchly face the judge with his or her arms crossed. Suffice it to say, to
learn the truth requires that both accused and accuser be questioned separate from each other.

In a domestic violence case involving a husband and wife, for example, one investigator could
question the wife in one room while another investigator interviews the husband in a separate
room. In a traffic stop, one occupant may be left in the vehicle while the other is questioned
away from the vehicle. Following the initial interview, the first occupant could be asked to wait
in the vehicle while the second is questioned away from the vehicle.

If the interviews are conducted by the same investigator at different times, it is beneficial to first
interview the accuser and then the accused. If two possible parties to a crime need to be
interviewed, the person most likely to tell the truth, or least likely involved, should be
interviewed first. This assessment may be based on age, strength of evidence, as well as
behaviors or attitudes displayed during initial questioning.

6
2. Consider having both parties write out a statement.

In a controlled environment, such as a business where an employee is making allegations of

unwanted sexual advances against a supervisor, it is often beneficial to not only question each
party separately, but also to have each party first write out a statement. This suggestion applies
equally well to any one-on-one allegation where both parties are in a controlled environment.

To obtain the statement the investigator should give the suspect a couple of sheets of lined paper
and pen. At the top of the paper the investigator should write out a question which he instructs
the person to answer in writing. The question should require that the person explain everything
about their behavior, knowledge or observations. The following are possible introductory
questions to ask in different situations:

Domestic violence: “Tell me everything about what happened between you and your husband
(wife) this evening.”

Sexual harassment (complainant): “Tell me everything about what you experienced at (Company)
that led to your complaint.”

Sexual harassment (respondent):“Sally Smith reported that you made sexual remarks to her. Tell
me everything about any sexual remarks you have made to Sally Smith.”

Gun found in dorm room: “Tell me everything you know about the 9mm gun found in your dorm
room last Friday night.”

Hit and run with two possible drivers: “Tell me everything you know about the damage to the
front right bumper of your room mate’s car.”

While it does take extra time to obtain a written statement (most of these, even from truthful
subjects, are only a couple of paragraphs long) there are a number of benefits. First, the
statement can be assessed for credibility by applying statement analysis techniques. Second,
information from the statement can help the investigator prepare for a formal interview of a
suspect in that he knows what topics to cover and may have identified problem areas within the
statement to pursue. Finally, because the statement is a permanent document from the suspect,
any documented lies or inconsistencies can be used to support decisions relating to the case
disposition.

7
3. Obtain behavioral information from both parties.

It does the investigator little good to learn that a husband yelled at his wife and scared her. To
assess credibility, the investigator must develop behavioral information. Behavior is objective
and fixed in time. It is not subject to justification, rationalization or individual interpretation.
The investigator needs to find out specifically what was done, who was present, what object was
used, where something happened, what was said, etc.

While it is certainly more efficient to ask questions that require a yes or no response such as,
“Did your husband threaten you with a weapon of any kind?” or, “Did your husband strike you at
all?”, these closed-ended questions can invite deception. Especially during early portions of an
interview, the investigator should ask open-ended questions that require a narrative response.
This approach is much more likely to result in truthful information as the following dialogue
illustrates:

I: “What happened here this evening?”

S: “My husband came home drunk and starting yelling at me and accusing me of cheating on
him. We argued and he threatened me. I was scared for my life. That’s when I called 911.”

I: “Tell me how he threatened you.”

S: “He was yelling and calling me a bitch, and he said I would pay for what I did.”

I: “Tell me about any physical contact he had with you this evening.”

S: “Physical contact? He got right in my face and was yelling and threatening, like I said.”

I: “So he did not have physical contact with you this evening?”

S: “No, but I think he was going to.”

I: “What did he have in his hands when he was arguing with you?”

S: “Well, nothing. But his voice had a threatening tone.”

If two investigators are simultaneously questioning the accused and accuser, it is much easier to
establish what really happened if both investigators focus their interviews on behavioral

8
information. When the two investigators compare notes, they can identify which behaviors both
parties agree upon, and which behaviors are disputed.

4. Suggested behavior provoking questions

The unique dynamics of one-on-one interviews present the opportunity to ask a number of
behavior provoking questions that may be helpful in determining which party is telling the truth.
One of these is a BAIT question where the subject is asked, “If (accuser) was given a polygraph
examination concerning the statement that you pointed a knife at her this evening, what would
her polygraph results be?” An innocent suspect typically predicts that the accuser will fail the
polygraph. On the other hand, the guilty suspect will not have that level of confidence and may
offer an evasive response, e.g., “I don’t really know much about polygraphs” or perhaps even
predict truthful results, “She’s a really good liar – she might be able to beat a polygraph.” As a
legal aside, an employer is not in violation of the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act by
asking an employee how another employee would do on a polygraph.

A second behavior provoking question is the CREDIBILITY question. It is simply phrased,

“When (accuser) says that you (did issue) is he/she lying? e.g., “When Sally says that you
forcibly pulled down her jeans and underwear, is she lying?” It is very difficult psychologically
for a person who knows that the accuser is telling the truth to respond to this question with a
confident agreement. A deceptive suspect may offer a qualified response, “I believe she might
be, yes.” or an evasive response, “I know what happened, and that’s all I can say.”

In the controlled environment of a laboratory study, one-on-one allegations are the easiest type of
case to solve. By design, one subject is telling the truth and, therefore, the other subject must be
lying. In real life, however, these cases are often not cut and dried because the subjects’ behavior
is contaminated by numerous outside variables including intense emotions, intoxication of one or
both parties, and the telling of partial truths. An important key in assessing the credibility of
parties involved in a one-on-one allegation is to interview both parties separately and focus the
interview on specific behaviors, not opinions or judgments. In a controlled environment,
requesting that both parties respond in writing to a central question can be beneficial both in
making an initial assessment of credibility as well as conducting a subsequent interview.

Are you a good listener?

9
An investigator’s ability to solve cases relies extensively on his/her ability to develop rapport, ask
the right questions, identify deceptive responses and analyze elicited information relative to
evidence and other factual information. What is often overlooked, however, is the investigator’s
ability to listen. Just as there is a distinction between seeing and observing, there is also a clear
distinction between hearing and listening.

The importance of listening skills is readily apparent when reviewing an electronically recorded
communication. The following example comes from a consultation in which a woman went into a
police department to report that she had repressed memories of being raped by her father on her
14th birthday. The following is a portion of that interview:

I: “After he brought you back to his apartment, what happened?”

S: “He took advantage of me.”

I: “In what way?”

S: “Well, he got me drunk and then forced me into sex.”

I: “So he had sex with you?”

S: “I’m sure he did.”

I: “Why are you sure?”

S: “Because I hurt the next day.”

I: “And this happened in his apartment?”

S: “I’m having a hard time believing it myself.”

I: “Did it happen more than once?”

S: “It had to be.”

During this interview the investigator heard that the woman’s father forced her to have sexual
intercourse with him on multiple occasions in his apartment, and that is exactly what the criminal
complaint alleged. However, upon reading the transcript, it is perfectly clear that the woman
never told the investigator that she recalled having sexual intercourse with her father on even one
occasion.

10
This example illustrates an important point - it is much easier to interpret written material than
spontaneous information heard during a conversation, i.e., accurate reading is easier than accurate
listening. With the growing trend to electronically recording interviews and interrogations, the
issue of accurately hearing what a suspect, victim or witness actually says is going to be raised
with increased frequency. To help address this important issue, this web tip will identify three
common listening errors and offer a remedy for each type of error.

11
 1. Making unwarranted assumptions

As listeners we all tend to fill in gaps of missing information. A subject tells us one
thing, but we hear something else because we want the subject’s response to answer our
question. During our training seminar we show the interview of a college coed who reported
that she had been abducted from a parking lot at knife- point by a man. Upon arriving at her
parents’ home, following the alleged abduction, her dress was torn, she was crying and her
long hair had been cut short. During her interview the investigator asked her to tell him what
happened. During her account she explained that the man, “started to cut my hair.” She never
said that the abductor cut her hair, rather, she implied that he did. Other examples of phrases
that imply that something was done, even though it may not have been, include: “I wanted
to...”, “I thought about...”.

Another example of an unwarranted assumption is when the subject is asked a specific

question and then offers a generalized response. For example:

Q: “What time did you arrive home from work last night?”

A: “I usually get home right around 6:30.”

While the suspect’s statement is accurate in that he usually does get home around 6:30, he is
not saying that he necessarily got home last night at 6:30. The suspect has generalized his
response through the use of the word, “usually”. Other generalization phrases include:

“I like to...” “The policy is...” “As a habit...” “I generally...”

Another category of response that may cause unwarranted assumptions is called estimation
phrases. The following examples illustrate responses in which the suspect is estimating an
answer rather than stating a definitive position:

Q: “Did you verify the money received from the vault that day?

A: “I’m sure I did”.

Q: “ Have you ever seen this document before?”

12
A: “My answer would be that I have not...”

Q: “Is that your signature on the back of this check?”

A: “I would have to say that it’s not.”

An investigator’s failure to recognize the difference between a personal judgment and a

factual statement can lead to all sorts of incorrect assumptions. Consider the following victim
account:

“He smelled like he was drinking and came right at me. We fought and I was able to

get away and run to my neighbor’s house. He got in his car and drove off like a

drunken maniac. I was afraid for my life!”

If the investigator’s report reflected that the suspect had been intoxicated, operated a vehicle
while intoxicated, and that he struck the victim or threatened the victim’s life he would not be
able to defend any of those statements. The victim never said that the suspect had anything
alcoholic to drink, that there was a physical fight, or that he threatened her in any way.

Remedy: A simple technique to make certain that the investigator accurately understands
what a subject said is to offer a summary of the subject’s account and elicit confirmation that
the summary is accurate. For example:

“Let me make sure I have this right. You’re telling me that your dad took you out to a
restaurant for your 14th birthday and bought you alcoholic drinks, which you
consumed. He then drove you back to his apartment where he had sexual intercourse
with you on several occasions. Is that correct?”

Another technique to guard against making unwarranted assumptions is to develop a habit of

clarifying ambiguous information during an interview. When the suspect offers a generalized
response, uses an estimation phrase or offers a personal judgment the investigator needs to
clarify the subject’s statement:

13
“Did the man cut your hair?”

“How confident are you that you verified the money that day?”

“Did he strike you?”

It must be realized that any normal conversation is filled with ambiguous statements because
their use simplifies communication. In the following statement, each underlined phrase
represents an ambiguous statement.

“It was cold out and the bus was real late. After waiting a long time it came and I got
on and there was no where decent to sit. The ride took forever and I finally got off.”

It is unlikely that the investigator really needs to clarify each of these ambiguous statements.
But if it is important for the investigator to know how late the bus was or what time the
subject actually got off the bus, it cannot be assumed that the bus was at least 15 minutes late
or that the subject exited the bus later than the scheduled time at that stop.

2. Misinterpreting Speech Errors

It makes for great TV drama for a detective to identify the guilty suspect who inadvertently
incriminates himself through some form of speech error. While a speech error could be an
unconscious admission, it is important to recognize that everyone makes speech errors for a
number of reasons including anxiety, fatigue and a feeling of being rushed. Examples of
common innocent speech errors include improper verb tense (“At that time I didn’t know that
my wife is dead”) plural vs. singular nouns (“I gave the checks to the cashier” ) and apparent
Freudian slips (“I gave her the tickets, I mean the tapes).”

As a general statement, speakers are accurate in reference to pronouns and genders. When a
suspect says, “We left the house that morning” someone was probably with him. When the
suspect says, “I gave him the check.” the person receiving the check was probably a male.
However, I have caught myself making pronoun and gender errors especially when I am
speaking in a hurry or when fatigued.

In detecting deception, word use, grammar and sentence structure are more meaningful in a
written account where the subject has time to prepare and mentally formulate the document

14
than in a spontaneous verbal response. Speech errors like those listed above could be the
result of a guilty suspect who unconsciously allows the truth to leak from his lips. But it is
certainly possible for innocent suspects to make identical speech errors.

Remedy: Just as a suspect’s statement, “Alright, fine I did it.” does not constitute a
confession, when the suspect’s grammar is inconsistent with facts or prior statements, the
investigator should not assume that the suspect incriminated himself and therefore, must be
guilty. If the suspect’s grammar is inconsistent with other statements, the investigator should
ask questions to resolve the inconsistency, e.g., “Tell me again, when did you first know that
your wife was dead?”, “How many checks were there?”, “Was the teller a male or female?”

With respect to an apparent “Freudian slip” recognize that alliteration and assonance are
common innocent speech errors, especially when a suspect is nervous. e.g., “I left and got into
the cab, I mean the car and drove home.” As always, when evaluating verbal behavior, context
is critical. If my boss brought me into his office and announced, “Brian I’ve decided to
terminate, I mean re-assess your position within the company,” I would probably be smart to
look for a new job.

3. Forming a mental set

Complete the following sentence:

The sky was dark and the wind was blowing right off the coast, rattling my front window. I
looked out across the bay and it was raining _____________.

Almost all readers would complete this sentence, “cats and dogs.” The problem is, the actual
completion of the sentence is, “on the horizon.” The tendency to form an expectation toward a
situation or event is termed a mental set.

I have to guard against this tendency when participants ask a question during a training
seminar. When the question is initially being asked I may anticipate what the question will be
and start mentally formulating a response before the question is completed. As a result of
forming that expectation, and, therefore, not listening to the entire question, I may offer a
response that is totally inappropriate.

15
An investigator who forms a pre-conceived notion that a suspect will lie to him, that a witness
has no useful information to offer or that a victim must be telling the truth may hear exactly
what he/she expects to hear. It requires a conscious effort to counteract the effects of forming
a mental set. Over the years I have learned to completely listen to a participant’s question,
clarify ambiguous information, and only then respond to the question.

Another casualty of forming a mental set occurs when an investigator fails to analyze the
logic of the subject’s statements because his mind is focused on learning specific information.
During our seminar an interview is shown of a suspect who falsely reported that a car cut him
off and the men inside the car stole an $8,000 deposit from him. The suspect had offered a
somewhat confusing and elaborate explanation of what happened. In an effort to get a better
grasp of the sequence of events, the investigator asked the suspect to tell him what happened
after he was cut off:

“The car cut me off and I slammed on my brakes. The biggest one, the only one

I saw get out of the car, approached the window, pulled open my door, grabbed the
keys... turned off the ignition and grabbed the keys and snatched the deposit bag.”

If we are only interested in understanding the sequence of events, this statement seems to
make sense. But if we ask the question, “Is the statement logical?” it most certainly is not. For
example, how could the victim know that the man who robbed him was bigger than the one
who remained in the car?

In other instances, a subject’s statement may not make sense because it does not follow
patterns of normal human behavior. Consider the following statement from a seven-year-old:

“I was playing in the park with my sister and two friends, Sally and Jessie.

This man came over and talked to us about stuff. When he was by me he

touched me where he shouldn’t.”

It seems highly unlikely that a child molester would fondle the girl in front of three witnesses
– child molesters try to get their victims alone. The girl’s account does not follow normal
human behavior and certainly requires clarification. I had a similar personal experience where
I was mowing our back yard on a hot day and removed my shirt. Two six-year-old twin girls

16
live behind us and when my wife saw them the next day they announced that they saw me
naked in our yard. Fortunately, my wife knows that I don’t mow the lawn bare naked.

Remedy: A mental set is formed to help focus attention and minimize distractions that may
thwart a goal. In many life situations, forming a mental set is a fundamental survival skill,
e.g., heightened awareness when in a dangerous neighborhood or driving at a high rate of
speed when responding to a robbery call. During an interview, however, an investigator needs
to consciously keep an open mind and remember that his goal is to elicit information and
objectively assess the credibility of that information. It is the novice investigator who says, “I
know this guy’s guilty and I’m going into that room to prove it!” It is the experienced
investigator who says, “There is evidence against this suspect, I am going to go into that room
to find out what his explanation is.”

In conclusion, the very nature of an investigator’s job increases the likelihood of listening
errors. There are time constraints to solve cases as quickly as possible, there can be a high
degree of emotional involvement when the investigator may strongly want to believe that
someone is telling the truth or lying, and investigators frequently work under conditions of
fatigue and high stress. Finally, it is not a high priority among many of the people
investigators question to be accurately understood.

A guilty suspect does not raise his hand to let the investigator know that he just lied by
offering a specific denial; a frightened witness does not contact the investigator a day after the
initial interview and announce that he withheld useful information. The victim who is
reporting only part of the truth does not correct the investigator’s misconception when he
believes that everything he/she reported is factual. Despite these inherent difficulties, good
listening skills can be learned and refined through practice and the simple awareness that each
of us are prone to listening errors.

Conducting A Custodial Behavior Analysis Interview Jan-Feb, 2008

Investigators who attend our training seminars learn the value of conducting a Behavior
Analysis Interview (BAI) as a reliable means of eliminating innocent suspects and identifying
the guilty suspect during the course of an investigation. During this structured, 30-40 minute
non-accusatory interview, the suspect is asked both investigative questions and specialized
behavior-provoking questions. The latter questions are designed to be answered differently by
suspects who are innocent of the issue under investigation as opposed to those who are guilty.
The suspect’s responses to the behavior provoking questions serve as the primary basis for
rendering opinions of guilt or innocence.

However, once an investigator has probable cause to take a suspect into custody, is there any
benefit to conducting a BAI? Experience indicates that there is. First, probable cause does not
mean guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, occasionally suspects are arrested for

17
crimes they did not commit and the BAI can be used to identify innocent suspects.
Furthermore, if the suspect displays deceptive responses during the BAI the investigator will
have greater confidence in the suspect’s guilt when going into the interrogation. In addition,
consider the following benefits of conducting a non-accusatory interview prior to any
accusatory interrogation:

1. The investigator can establish a rapport and trust with the suspect which is often
necessary to persuade the suspect to tell the truth during an interrogation.

2. Suspects are less guarded when engaged in a non-accusatory conversation and are
more likely to reveal opportunity, access or a motive to commit the crime.

3. The investigator can gain insight into the suspect’s possible motive to commit the
crime which will help to formulate an interrogation strategy.

4. The investigator can ask questions to which the suspect may lie, e.g., that the
suspect knew the victim, paid back rent with cash, was at the crime scene. These
documented false statements can then be used to great advantage later during the
interrogation.

5. The investigator can ask a bait question to test possible evidence to later be used as
a bluff during the interrogation.

In fact, the only circumstance we can think of which warrants the investigator skipping the
interview and directly engaging in an accusatory interrogation of a suspect is when the
evidence of the suspect’s guilt is so overwhelming that it would be irrational to ask the
question, “Did you commit this crime?”

Once a suspect is taken into custody the investigator faces some unique issues relating to the
interview. The first is that a custodial suspect must be advised of his Miranda rights, and give
a knowing and voluntary waiver of those rights prior to any questioning. Second, because the
suspect is in custody, there is an underlying implication that he is guilty of the crime. This, of
course, can make it difficult to conduct a non-accusatory interview.

18
With respect to advising a custodial suspect of his Miranda rights, we offer the following
recommendations:

1. The officer who takes the suspect into custody should not give the Miranda advisements
and, therefore, should not ask the suspect any questions about the crime. The reason for this is
at the time a suspect is taken into custody he is often defensive and guarded. If he is advised
of his constitutional rights in that frame of mind, he is more likely to invoke his rights. Of
course, any statement the suspect volunteers in the absence of questioning is admissible as
evidence.

2. The investigator conducting the interview/interrogation should be the person to give the
advisement. This arrangement not only means that only one person is completely responsible
for Miranda advisements but also only one person has to testify concerning the Miranda
waiver and the defendant’s confession.

3. Introduce Miranda casually. It is not required that the Miranda warnings be given in a
threatening or intimidating manner. It is often beneficial to ease into the warnings in a
conversation similar to the following:

“Joe, I’ve been assigned this case and I would like to hear your side of things but
before I can ask you any questions about (the cars missing from the dealership), I need
to remind you of your rights which you probably already know. You’ve got the right to
remain silent; anything you say can be used against you; you have the right to a
lawyer; and if you can not afford a lawyer one will be provided free.” After an
appropriate pause to permit the suspect to respond, he should be told: “I would like for
you to talk to me about this matter [specifying the issue under investigation]. Okay?”

If the suspect agrees to talk to the investigator, the formal Miranda warnings would then be
given. This is typically a standard form in which the four warnings are read out loud to the
suspect who initials each warning. The suspect then signs the bottom of the form indicating
his knowing and voluntary waiver of rights.

If the suspect waives his Miranda rights, the investigator then faces the second hurdle which
is to approach the suspect in a non-accusatory manner. As the following guidelines illustrate,
the key is for the investigator to not initially bring up any evidence against the suspect. If the
suspect asks about evidence or possible charges the investigator should offer an evasive
response, e.g., “I’m still waiting for some of the evidence to be evaluated”; “I don’t have the
authority to make charging decisions.”

19
1. Start off by identifying the issue under investigation and then ask a series of non-
threatening background questions.

“Joe, before we talk about those missing cars, let me just get some background
information. Could you spell your last name for me? What is your first name? What do
most people call you? What is your current address? How long have you lived there?
Are you presently employed? Etc.”

2. Ask the Reason for the Interview question in the following manner: “Joe, tell me
everything you know about those cars that are missing from the dealership.”

3. Ask the History/You question: “Joe, at this stage of the investigation I can’t share all of the
evidence with you and I am still waiting for some of the evidence to be analyzed. One thing I
can tell you is that I will be completely truthful with you and I’m going to ask that you be
completely truthful with me as well. So before we go any further, let me ask did you steal any
of those cars?”

4. From here the investigator can conduct a standard BAI, e.g., ask the Knowledge, Suspicion,
Vouch, Credibility, Attitude, etc. questions.

5. If the suspect is aware of the evidence against him, e.g., one of the stolen cars was found in
his garage, later during the interview the investigator should ask the suspect questions about
that evidence. For example, “Joe, how is it that one of those stolen cars ended up in your
garage?”

6. If the investigator has incriminating evidence that is unknown to the suspect, e.g., a
neighbor witnessed the suspect drive down the street in the stolen Honda Civic, this evidence
should not be revealed during the interview. Rather, the investigator should ask questions
designed to document the suspect’s denials, e.g, “Have you driven a 2007 Honda Civic on
your street?”; “Have you been inside a 2007 Honda Civic on your street?”

20
7. Incorporate questions designed to profile the suspect for the interrogation, e.g., “Under
what circumstances would you steal a car from the dealership?”; If you were the investigator
on this case and I stole those cars, what could I say to you for you to understand why I did
this?”

In conclusion, the relatively short period of time required to conduct a Behavior Analysis
Interview is well spent even when the investigator is quite certain of the suspect’s guilt such
as when a suspect is taken into custody. By conducting the BAI not only will the investigator
increase the likelihood of obtaining a confession from the guilty suspect but it may also allow
the investigator to identify an innocent suspect who may be caught in a web of circumstantial
evidence or who lied to protect a loved one, or to conceal some unrelated act of wrong-doing.
Prior to a custodial BAI, the suspect must waive his Miranda rights and, for the suspect’s
behavior to be validly interpreted, the investigator must conduct the interview in a non-
custodial manner. This can be accomplished by simply not bringing up the evidence against
the suspect or, if the suspect is already aware of the evidence, to ask for his explanation for
the evidence.

Interrogation Procedures: Promises of Leniency

For a confession to be admissible as evidence it must not only be trustworthy, but also
voluntary. The test of voluntariness answers the question, “was a statement made of the
suspect’s free will?” The concept of “free will” has a somewhat different meaning in law than
it does in psychology. A psychologist would argue that if a person is able to make any
behavioral choice he is operating from his own free will. Legally, however, the concept of free
will relates to whether a statement was made in the absence of threats or other inducements.
These “other inducements” generally refer to promises of leniency.

Promises of leniency occur on a continuum ranging from statements that clearly offer a lesser
sentence, “If you confess, I will make sure you don’t do hard time,” to statements that merely
imply leniency in exchange for a confession, e.g., “I want to help you out on this thing.” The
Canadian Supreme Court has established a quid pro quo guideline in evaluating promises of
leniency. In other words, only statements that clearly offer the suspect leniency in exchange
for a confession are prohibited.1[1] The U.S. Supreme Court will consider even implied
promises of leniency as part of the totality of circumstances in determining a confession’s
admissibility.

The courts’ concern over promises of leniency is that an innocent suspect who is caught in a
web of circumstantial evidence may decide to falsely confess to avoid a more significant
punishment. There is no doubt that decreasing consequences is a tremendously powerful
inducement to confess. An example of this occurs on rare occasions when we are permitted to
interrogate suspects on behalf of a defense attorney. Because we are operating under
privileged communication, anything the suspect tells us cannot be used against him in a court
of law. Once we mention this during the interrogation, almost all of these suspects confess
1

21
within a short period of time.

What is not established is that promises of leniency cause false confessions. An attempt has
been made to address this question through laboratory studies, 2[2] but there is no empirical or
statistical data that supports the premise that in real life interrogations promises of leniency
increase the prevalence of false confessions. Our belief is that a promise of leniency, in and of
itself, would not be likely to cause an innocent person to confess. On the other hand, when a
promise of leniency is coupled with a threat of more significant consequences, we believe
there may be a significant risk of a false confession.

Even the courts seem to acknowledge that a promise of leniency, if made under proper
circumstances, is permissible. For example, it is a common practice for a prosecutor to offer a
plea bargain to a defendant. Under this arrangement, the defendant agrees to plead guilty in
exchange for leniency. The leniency may involve reducing the number of criminal charges
against the defendant, decreasing the charge e.g., rape to battery, or a lesser sentence, e.g., life
in prison vs. execution. To guard against innocent suspects entering into this agreement,
courts generally require that the defendant confess details of his crime during the hearing.

Seeing the ease at which prosecutors obtain confessions by offering defendants plea bargains
has caused some investigators to try the same tactic during an interrogation, e.g., “Joe, you
can avoid a first degree murder charge if you tell me that you didn’t plan this out.”3[3] The
investigator is then bewildered when the court suppresses the defendant’s confession. The rule
of law is very simple: An investigator cannot offer the suspect a promise he cannot keep. Our
criminal justice system affords prosecutors and investigators different powers in the effort to
obtain evidence against a defendant. Prosecutors alone have the authority to make charging
decisions and sentencing recommendations. Even if the investigator is best friends with the
prosecutor and is almost certain that the prosecutor will go along with the suggested leniency,
the promise is still impermissible because the investigator does not have the legal authority to
offer it.

In an attempt to get around this legal technicality, investigators have made statements
designed to allow the suspect to perceive possible leniency in exchange for a confession.
Especially when an interrogator repeatedly mentions implied leniency, a court may suppress
the confession.4[4] Examples of statements that courts have ruled communicate an implied
promise of leniency include:

“The best thing you can do is to confess.”

2
3
4

22
 “It would be far better for you if you tell the truth.”

“I want to help you out on this thing.”

“I want to be an advocate for you on this matter.”

“It will go worse for you if you don’t confess.”

On the other hand, courts have not objected to interrogation techniques designed to reduce the
perceived moral seriousness of a crime. Some of these permissible techniques include
expressing understanding toward the suspect’s decision to commit the crime, e.g., “Joe I can
understand why this thing happened”; referring to the crime with soft language, e.g., causing
the death vs. murder; avoiding any mention of possible consequences the suspect faces if he
confesses. Similarly, courts have not objected to the phrase, “I want to get something working
on your side” or, “I want to work with you to get this matter straightened out.”

Furthermore, there are unique circumstances where investigators can legally make a promise
to a suspect because the investigator has the authority to keep the promise. For example, in a
correctional setting, an inmate may be promised certain privileges in exchange for truthful
information. A corporate investigator may be able to promise an employee that he will not be
prosecuted. Under this principle a police officer could make the following statement:

“Joe, I’m not going to arrest you tonight. You can go home and put your personal
affairs in order and you can tell your wife whatever you want. Tomorrow morning I
will stop by your house and I’ll take you into custody at that time.”

This exception, of course, is only true if the investigator keeps his promise, e.g., provides the
inmate with privileges; does not prosecute the employee; allows the suspect to leave
following the interrogation.

Applying the same principle, we believe the following statements are each permissible during
an interrogation because the investigator is able to keep the promise:

“I’m not going to call up your wife and tell her that you are some sort of monster.”

“I’m not going to announce this to your co-workers or post it on the bulletin board.”

“I will include in my report that you were cooperative and that this is the first time
you’ve done something like this.”

23
Promises of leniency are often introduced during an interrogation when the suspect asks the
investigator, “What would happen to me if I told you I did this?” The following response in
no way implies leniency and satisfies most suspects:

“Jim, I don’t have the authority to tell you and I’m not going to lie to you and say that
I do. My job is to collect and analyze evidence. After that I just turn in my report and
let other people act on my findings. I would like to be able to include your explanation
in my report, which is why I am talking to you now.”

If the investigator slips up and finds himself making a statement that may be perceived as an
implied promise of leniency, often the damage can be repaired by making a prophylactic
statement, essentially setting the suspect straight by telling the suspect that the investigator
does not have control over the consequences the suspect may face.

In conclusion, especially with the increased practice of electronically recording interrogations,

investigators need to be very cautious not to make statements that may be construed as direct
or implied promises of leniency. It is our general recommendation not to bring up the criminal
justice system at all during an interrogation. An investigator can conduct a very effective
interrogation without mentioning possible criminal charges, how the prosecutor, judge or jury
may perceive the suspect’s crime or possible consequences for the suspect’s actions such as
substance abuse treatment, probation, counseling, community service, etc. Courts will be
favorably impressed to hear the investigator tell a suspect, “I cannot offer any promises about
what will happen to you if you tell me the truth.”

Proper Techniques for Witnessing A Confession Sept.-Oct. 2007

No investigator wants to have his testimony questioned because it is his word against the
defendant’s. It is precisely for this reason that the investigator needs to have a witness verify
that the investigator’s testimony is accurate. While it sounds like a simple concept, there are
important considerations and procedures to follow when having a confession witnessed.

This point became evident in the recent case of Commonwealth v. Miller. In this case, an
Appeals court ruled that the trial judge committed reversible error for not holding a hearing to
examine the voluntariness of a confession obtained by loss prevention investigators employed
by the defendant’s ex-employer. At issue were extremely discrepant accounts of an in-house
interrogation of an employee suspected of stealing $1,000.

24
The two investigators described a “low-key inquiry”of the defendant. They testified that the
defendant “vented” during the two hour interrogation, but ultimately broke down and
confessed to stealing the missing $1,000. The investigators denied doing or saying anything to
threaten the defendant and testified that the defendant did not exhibit any physical
manifestations of being threatened or intimidated.

Conversely, the defendant testified that she felt afraid as she was escorted to an unfamiliar
room and questioned by two strangers. She described the room as small and said that she felt
claustrophobic. According to the defendant, one investigator “loomed over her and made
threatening gestures” while the other blocked the door. The defendant claimed that she was
denied a request to call her husband or an attorney. She further claimed that the investigators
suggested that if she did not confess that the case would be turned over to the police which
may result in a conviction which, in turn, could lead to the defendant’s separation from her
special needs child.

As to the confession itself, the defendant testified that throughout the writing, editing and
signing of the confession she protested her innocence. According to the defendant, the
message conveyed to her was that she would not be allowed to leave the room until the papers
were signed. At trial, the defendant’s husband testified that his wife was crying and sounded
distressed during a phone call to him following the interrogation. This was corroborated by a
witness who heard the husband’s side of the phone conversation. A point not contested was
that the investigators violated company policy by failing to have a supervisor present during
the interview and interrogation of the employee.

Long before devices were available to electronically record interviews and interrogations,
investigators utilized a witness to document what happened during an interview or
interrogation and to verify that the suspect, in fact, did offer a voluntary and trustworthy
confession. The Miller case serves as an important reminder that if an interview or
interrogation is not electronically recorded, it is imperative that the investigator follow proper
procedures when having a confession witnessed.

It will be helpful to introduce this topic with a fundamental review of the psychology of
deception. Everyone lies for exactly the same reason; all lies are motivated to avoid the
consequences of telling the truth. The consequences a deceptive suspect fears may involve
loss of income or freedom (being fired, going to jail) as well as loss of pride or self-worth
(having to face co-workers or a spouse). Consequently, during an interview or interrogation
the investigator wants to do everything legally possible to reduce perceived consequences of
telling the truth. One of the most important considerations in this regard is to conduct
interviews and interrogations in private.

25
Privacy is considered the single most important psychological factor contributing to the
success of an interview or interrogation. Very simply, it is easier for someone to reveal
sensitive information to one person than to two people. Furthermore, it is easier to reveal
sensitive information to someone who is not associated with consequences than to a person
who represents consequences. Would a child rather confess wrong-doing to a parent or a
kindly uncle?

In our text books and other web tips we have offered many examples illustrating the
importance of privacy. The following experience comes from a recent seminar participant. For
many years he conducted loss prevention interviews and interrogations in private, working
one on one with employees. He enjoyed great success learning the truth in a private
environment and having the employee’s confession witnessed by a supervisor following the
interrogation.. This year his employer required that the employee’s supervisor be present
during the entire interview and interrogation. The investigator reported that he rarely obtains a
confession with the supervisor present during the interrogation.

Because of the importance of privacy, an investigator should do everything possible to

conduct interviews and interrogations in such a way that the suspect is only communicating
with a single investigator. However, it is also important to have a witness to this procedure.
There are two procedures commonly utilized to document a suspect’s confession and the
events that led up to it. The first is to have a witness present during the entire interview and
interrogation process. Second, the investigator can bring someone into the room to witness the
confession after it has been obtained. Under most circumstances, it is to the investigator’s
advantage not to have a witness present during the entire interview and interrogation. An
exception is when there is an obvious liability risk such as when a male investigator
interviews a female subject concerning a sexual issue.

If a witness is present during the entire interview and interrogation that person should be
someone who is not socially acquainted with the suspect e.g., another investigator, manager
from a different department, clerical staff. Furthermore, the witness should sit out of the
suspect’s sight and remain silent throughout the interview and interrogation. Certainly, the
witness should not be involved in questioning the suspect, i.e., the witness is merely an out-
of-sight, uninvolved, observer.

In the Miller case the “witness” was an investigator actively involved in trying to get the
defendant to confess. The court recognized that this “witness” was motived to deny that any
wrong-doing occurred during the interrogation. A person involved in obtaining incriminating
information can hardly be considered an objective, impartial witness to the confession.

If two investigators are present during an interview or interrogation, it is our recommendation

that they not “team up” on the suspect where both investigators simultaneously ask questions
or make persuasive statements. Rather, one investigator should be the communicator and the

26
other should be an observer. The communicator should be seated directly in front of the
suspect and do all of the talking. The observer should be out the suspect’s sight and remain
silent. It is acceptable for the investigators to switch roles, where the observer becomes the
communicator and vise versa. In doing so, however, the investigators should also switch
chairs so the new observer is out of the suspect’s sight. For obvious reasons, if two
investigators are involved in obtaining a confession, the witness to the confession should be a
third person brought into the room for that purpose following the interrogation.

If the decision is made to not have the witness present during the entire interview and
interrogation, the witness would come into the room following the suspect’s confession. It is
important that this witness can testify not only that the suspect offered a trustworthy
confession, but also that the confession was voluntary. It was the absence of such testimony
that greatly contributed to the reversal in the Miller case.

The witness who comes into the room following the confession may be another investigator,
the suspect’s supervisor or a manager from a different department. The conversation with the
suspect, Randy, would be similar to the following, “Randy, this is Mr. Buckley, my boss. I just
want to let him know what you’ve told me this afternoon.” At this point the investigator and
witness would face each other and the investigator would repeat the suspect’s confession in
the presence of the suspect and the witness, e.g., “Randy told me that he is the person who
stole $1,000 from his cash drawer last Friday afternoon. He said that he stole the money at the
end of the day at around 5:15, when he was balancing out his drawer. He needed the money
because of ...” It is important that while the investigator repeats the suspect’s confession, that
the investigator and witness continue to look at each other and not look down at the suspect.

It is improper, and psychologically wrong, to ask the suspect to repeat his confession in the
presence of the witness. Under this circumstance, the suspect is unlikely to offer a fully
detailed and corroborated confession in the presence of a stranger. However, once the suspect
knows that the witness has heard the truth, most suspects will openly discuss their crime. At
this stage of the process it is important that the witness independently question the suspect
about his crime. The questions the witness asks should develop information to corroborate the
suspect’s confession. In addition, because the witness was not present during the entire
interview and interrogation, it is important that the witness ask the suspect questions to
develop information to demonstrate that the confession was obtained without threats or
promises. The following questions would each help accomplish these goals::

“Is everything Mr. Jayne said accurate?”

“Do you have any of the money left?”

“Have you stolen money from the company before this?”

27
 “What bills did you pay with the money you stole?”

“Do you have any complaints about the way Mr. Jayne treated you?”

“Were you threatened in any way today?”

“Did anyone offer you any promises?”

The witness to a confession should be able to testify not only about the suspect’s physical
appearance and emotional state following the confession, but also that the suspect’s
confession was trustworthy and was the product of the suspect’s free will.

A very troubling aspect of the Miller case is that the defendant claimed that she was protesting
her innocence throughout the process of developing the written confession. It is one thing for
a defendant to recant a confession at some point after making it – that is not unusual.
However, to have a subject state that she was denying committing the crime at the time the
confession was being given, edited and signed represents either an incredibly bald-faced lie
under oath or a person who was coerced into signing a confession. Unfortunately, in this case
no witness was brought into the room to independently assess the suspect’s emotional state, or
to elicit information from the suspect about the details of her theft, to find out if she was
threatened in any way, had complaints about the way she was treated, etc.

In conclusion, there is no question that the best technique to document the events of an
interview or interrogation is a surreptitious electronic recording. When this option is not
available, the investigator should have a suspect’s statements witnessed by a person not
involved in obtaining the confession. If the witness is present during the entire interview and
interrogation, the individual should not be someone personally acquainted with the suspect.
Furthermore, that person should sit out of the suspect’s sight. If a witness is brought into the
room following the confession, the investigator should repeat the suspect’s confession in the
presence of the witness who should then independently question the suspect to obtain
corroboration that the suspect, in fact, committed the crime and to elicit information to assess
the voluntariness of the confession.

The Role of a Subject’s Attitudes in the Detection of Deception July-August 2007

Early in John Reid’s career, he had a secretary named Mildred. In addition to typing and filing
reports, Mildred scheduled appointments and greeted subjects as they entered the lobby.
Mildred had an uncanny ability to accurately predict the outcome of a subject’s polygraph
examination. After years of observing subjects’ behavior as they waited for their examination,
she noticed predictable differences between subjects who were later found to be truthful or
deceptive during their polygraph examination.

28
The conversation Mildred had with these subjects was limited to finding out their name and
letting them know if the examination would be at the scheduled time. She never questioned
them about whether they committed the crime under investigation. Consequently, her
observations were not at all related to whether the subjects told the truth or lied. Mildred’s
ability to correctly identify a subject’s guilt or innocence can be explained through a construct
called a person’s attitude.

An attitude represents a person’s expressed behaviors, thoughts and perceptions toward a

situation or event. Unlike a personality, which is influenced by genetic and environmental
factors and, therefore, tends to be fairly rigid throughout a person’s lifetime, an attitude is
dynamic and is influenced by expectations toward a specific situation or event. Both the
innocent and guilty suspects each knew whether or not they committed the crime under
investigation and whether or not they were going to tell the truth or lie during the polygraph
examination. This expectation caused innocent and guilty suspects to form different attitudes,
and consequently, display different behaviors while waiting for their examination.

To help understand the concept of attitudes, consider that you lived across the street from a
high school. On this particular afternoon there was a soccer game held at the high school and
you were able to observe the two teams leaving the field after the game. The players in the red
jerseys are laughing and yelling and are slapping each other on the back and jumping up and
down; they are anxious to interact with others and actively looking for people to talk to. The
players in the green jerseys are quiet and appear emotionally distant. As they stroll to the
parking lot their shoulders are bent forward and their eyes are glued to the pavement. They
avoid interaction with others.

The players in the red and green jerseys are in the same environment at the same location,
date and time. What makes them different is that one team knows that they won the soccer
game and the other knows that they lost. As a result of this difference, players from the red
and green team will form different attitudes at the end of the game. Based on observing the
players’ behavior and evaluating how they responded to similar stimuli one would be very
likely correct to infer that the red team won the game.

The various techniques used to detect deception have, at their core, the fundamental concept
that innocent and guilty suspects respond to the same stimuli differently not because they are
lying or telling the truth, but rather, because of their underlying knowledge and awareness that
they are innocent or guilty of the issue under investigation. For example, during a polygraph
examination all subjects are asked a broad question to which the subject, in all probability will
lie, or have difficulty answering truthfully. This question is called a control question. Because
of different underlying attitudes, an innocent subject typically focuses his physiological
attention toward the control question whereas the guilty subject typically ignores the control

29
question and focuses his physiological attention to the questions addressing the crime under
investigation. During a Behavior Analysis Interview both the innocent and guilty suspect may
be asked the question, “Under any circumstance, do you think the person who (committed the
crime) should be given a second chance?” The innocent suspect will typically not be willing
to afford leniency whereas the guilty suspect often agrees that a second chance is warranted.

Some research has attempted to identify specific cues associated uniquely with lying (nature
of eye contact, micro tremors in the voice, unique facial expressions, etc.). These efforts have
not produced accuracies much above chance levels. There are so many variables that
influence human behavior it is unlikely that man will ever identify any one unique behavior or
physiological response that only occurs when someone tells the truth or lies. Conversely, field
research has shown very promising results of inferring guilt or innocence (lying or truth-
telling) by observing or measuring criteria based on attitudinal differences.

Certainly the behaviors Mildred observed such as being late for an appointment, excessive
smoking, sitting in a chair far away from the door to the exam rooms, awkward attempts at
levity, or hyper-awareness of time are not unique to guilt. Nor did Mildred receive any
specialized training in detecting deception. Why was she often successful at predicting the
outcome of polygraph results?

The subjects all knew what issue would be covered during their polygraph examination

Before coming to our office, each subject agreed to take a polygraph examination that would
address a particular issue. Therefore, each subject knew whether or not he or she would be
telling the truth or lying during the examination.

Consider the situation where a man matches the general description of a rape suspect and is
questioned two blocks from the assault. The investigator never identifies why he wants to talk
to the man, but simply asks the man questions about his identity and recent activities. The
man may be totally innocent of the rape and yet display “deceptive” attitudes for a variety of
reasons (guilt to some unrelated matter, prior bad experience with authority, outstanding
traffic warrant, etc.) Behavior symptoms of truth or deception are only valid if the subject
knows if he is innocent or guilty of the issue under investigation.

The subjects all had advanced notice of their examination

30
Field research investigating truthful and deceptive attitudes all involves subjects who have
been given substantial notice for their interview or polygraph examination. Common sense
would indicate that at least some of the attitudinal characteristics form as soon as a subject is
informed of the issue under investigation knowing, at that instant, whether he or she is
innocent or guilty of the act. However, attitudes may be somewhat affected by the amount of
time that has elapsed between the commission of a crime and an interview.

For example, one of the attitudes commonly observed in innocent suspects is that they attempt
to mentally solve the crime prior to the interview. In their mind, they eliminate possible
innocent suspects, think about who may be guilty of the crime, and consider how the crime
was committed along with possible motives for the crime. Guilty suspects, of course, do not
go through this same mental process because they already know who committed the crime,
how and why it was committed. It is possible this “crime solving mentality” takes time to
develop and may not be apparent in a suspect who is questioned shortly after a crime was
committed.

Further empirical support for this premise is offered from investigators who have reported that
behaviors displayed by a guilty person questioned shortly after committing a crime
(confusion, extreme anxiety, illogical explanations etc.) are not necessarily seen from guilty
suspects who have been given notice for an interview and time to prepare responses.
Similarly, an innocent subject who is interviewed shortly after being robbed or assaulted
exhibits emotions such as fear, dread and anger which are readily apparent as sincere and
genuine. However, if the interview is conducted several days after the event, the innocent
subject’s emotions are often less intense and more ambiguous.

The observations were made in the same environment

Our lobby offers subjects a fairly limited choice of behaviors. They choose which chair to sit
in, how to position themselves in the chair, what to do while in the chair and, if they speak,
what to say and how much to talk. Furthermore, the lobby is relatively free from outside
auditory or visual distractions. Because of the controlled environment, the subjects sitting
within our lobby have very little extraneous stimuli to respond to other than their internal
thoughts concerning the upcoming polygraph examination or interview.

Just as an experienced lifeguard can look at 50 swimmers in a pool and quickly discriminate
between similar behaviors of frolic and distress, investigators become accustomed to
evaluating suspects within a particular environment. A border patrol agent is familiar with
how most people behave as they approach the inspection point; a traffic officer knows how
the average person responds when pulled over for speeding and polygraph examiners learn to
recognize the average person’s anxiety level during an examination.

31
An innocent or guilty person’s attitudes may manifest themselves differently depending on the
environment. For example, a guilty suspect may exhibit quite different attitudes depending on
whether the interview was conducted in their home or at a police station. It is important that
an investigator interprets a suspect’s behaviors and thoughts as a function of the environment.

The subjects were all operating from a high level of motivation

Subjects who come to our office are facing serious consequences ranging from losing a job
and their reputation to going to prison. The innocent subject is highly motivated to make
certain our opinion is accurate, i.e., that he did not commit the crime. The guilty subject is
equally motivated to convince us that he is innocent. If either suspect fails to accomplish their
goal, serious consequences await them.

Consider that an innocent suspect is questioned about stealing a $2000 deposit. The
investigator starts the interview in the following manner: “Julie, I certainly don’t believe that
you took that deposit but, because of your position, I have to ask you these questions. Did you
steal that $2,000 deposit?” Because Julie is not motivated to convince the investigator of her
innocence, the attitudes she displays may be quite different from other innocent suspects who
are concerned that they may suffer the consequences for stealing the deposit.

Similarly, if Mildred worked in a bank and observed customers waiting in line for an open
teller, it is unlikely that she would be very accurate at predicting which customers were going
to deposit a check or withdraw money. The customers certainly have different expectations as
they wait in line, but no strong drive or incentive to accomplish their goal. Without high levels
of motivation drawing inferences from human behavior is an exercise in futility.

The subjects Mildred observed were primarily adults who were not suffering from mental or
intellectual deficiencies.

Before we schedule a subject for a polygraph examination, we question the client about the
subject’s probable suitability for the examination. There are clearly intrinsic factors that can
affect a subject’s attitudes such as age, intelligence, psychological and emotional stability.
There are also dynamic variables which can cause short-term changes in a person’s attitudes
or behavior. Examples of these include drug or alcohol use, fatigue, and emotions.

32
Given any two random human beings from two random regions of the planet earth, there will
be far more similarities than differences. These two random human beings would predictably
form the same attitudes based on their knowledge of whether or not they were innocent or
guilty of the issue under investigation. The rare exception to this statement is when the person
is fundamentally different in some way that affects their thought process or ability to process
information.

Conclusion

The “behavior symptoms” investigators rely on to make assessments of a suspect’s credibility

are not the direct product of telling the truth or lying. Rather, they are expressions of
underlying attitudes the suspect forms as a result of knowing whether he is innocent or guilty
of the issue under investigation.

Some events cause very obvious and predictable attitudes, e.g., striking one’s thumb with a
hammer. Committing a crime and lying about it, however, does not fall within this category.
Not all innocent or guilty suspects respond exactly the same way when questioned about a
crime. While they both will form different attitudes, how the attitudes are expressed may be
influenced by a number of different factors. Investigators need to be aware of these factors
and take them into consideration when evaluating a person’s credibility.

Catching A Suspect In A Lie: Not Always A Symptom Of Guilt May-June 2007

A skilled investigator learns to withhold certain inside information from a suspect

during an interview in the hope that he can catch the suspect in a lie. For example,
the suspect may lie about knowing the victim, being in the vicinity of the crime or
having a prior conviction. This documented lie can later be used to good advantage
during an interrogation where the investigator states that just as he knows the
suspect lied about (knowing the victim) the investigator also knows that the suspect
committed the crime. Furthermore, the documented lie can be used to impeach the
suspect’s credibility and character, e.g., “If you don’t get this straightened out today
no one is ever going to believe anything you have to say in the future. People are
going to say, ‘We know Fred lied about knowing her, Fred is probably also lying when
he says that he is sorry he did this.’”

The attack on the suspect’s character does not end during the interrogation. At trial
the prosecutor may call the investigator to the stand to testify that during the
investigation the defendant lied about knowing the victim. The jury, of course, is led to
believe that if the defendant lied to the police about knowing the victim that the only
possible logical conclusion is that he is also lying when he denies killing the victim.
One need not possess a degree in philosophy to recognize the fallacy of this
argument – If Johnny comes home from school and lies about the grade he received

33
on a recent algebra test that lie does not increase the probability that Johnny is also
the student who pulled the fire alarm at school last week.

Nonetheless, it is true that guilty suspects do lie during the course of an investigation
and there are many documented cases where the person guilty of a crime was
identified primarily because he was caught telling a minor lie. Offsetting these cases,
of course, are those where innocent suspects have also lied to the investigator. This
web tip will offer guidelines to help the investigator determine how much weight to
place on the fact that a suspect has been caught in a lie.

Evaluate the Suspect’s Level of Motivation to Tell The Truth

Consider two suspects, Tom and Jerry, who are both on probation for selling
narcotics. A liquor store is robbed and Tom is seen standing in an alley two blocks
from the store. The investigator asks him general questions about who he is, what he
is doing in the ally and where he was ten minutes ago. The investigator then asks
Tom, “Are you currently on probation?” Tom lies and says he is not.

Jerry was also picked up for the same robbery about two blocks from the liquor store
but he was taken to the police station for a formal interview. The investigator has
identified that the purpose for the interview is to determine whether Jerry was the
person who robbed the liquor store. The interview questions all specifically relate to
the liquor store robbery. The investigator then asks, “Are you currently on probation?”
and Jerry says he is not.

Both of these suspect have lied about exactly the same thing. However, based strictly
on that lie, factual analysis would predict that Jerry is much more likely guilty of the
robbery than Tom. The reason for this is that Tom was operating from a much lower
level of motivation when he lied about being on probation. His interview was informal
and no clear purpose was stated for the interview; the questions were all general in
nature. Tom had very little motivation to tell the truth about being on probation. In his
mind he may well have figured that the questioning was routine and that his life
would certainly not be negatively affected by the lie.

On the other hand, Jerry’s interview was directed specifically toward the robbery and
was conducted in a controlled environment. An innocent suspect operating from a
high level of motivation approaches the interview with an expectation to tell the truth
– not only about the issue under investigation but about peripheral issues as well.

34
This is so even when the truth may reveal possible motives, access or opportunity.
With the heightened level of motivation associated with Jerry’s interview, he almost
certainly would have told the truth about being on probation if he was innocent of the
robbery. The fact that he chose to lie about his prior conviction becomes a strong
factor pointing to his probable involvement in the robbery.

Evaluate the significance of the lie relative to the issue under investigation

A woman was raped and murdered in her apartment between 8:00 PM and 10:00
PM. One of the tenants within the apartment told the investigator that the night of the
murder he was inside his apartment from 7:30 PM until the next morning. However, a
neighbor saw the tenant leave his apartment at 9:00 PM and not return until after
10:00 PM. A second tenant told the investigator that he was working late and did not
arrive at his apartment until after 10:00. In addition, he denied ever talking to the
victim or knowing who she was. A friend of the victim, however, reported that the
second tenant had asked the victim out for a date on a couple of occasions and she
turned him down both times.

Both suspects have lied during their interviews. Based strictly on the nature of their
lies, factual analysis would predict that the second suspect is more likely guilty of the
murder. While lying about an alibi can be significant, innocent suspects may lie about
an alibi to prevent the investigator from learning about other illegal or embarrassing
activity (selling drugs in the park across the street, having an affair with a co-worker.)

Considering that this homicide was sexually motivated, lying about a prior
relationship with the victim is a much more significant lie. If the second suspect was
innocent, why not reveal to the investigator the fact that he knew the victim and
asked her out for a date? Applying this principle, the following examples contrast two
possible lies a suspect could tell during an interview. The second listed lie is closer to
the issue under investigation and, therefore, a better indicator of the suspect’s guilt.

Lying about owning a handgun vs. lying about firing a handgun the night of the
murder

Lying about having an argument with the victim vs. lying about how the suspect
injured his hand

Lying about having financial difficulties vs. lying about where suspect got the money
to pay back rent

35
Evaluate the Reason for the Lie

Bob and Jeff are both interviewed as suspects in an investigation involving damage
to a company van. Surveillance video shows both of them driving the van on the day
it was damaged. During their interviews they both deny driving the vehicle on the day
the damage occurred. When confronted with his lie, Bob explains that he lied
because he used the company van to move some furniture to a new apartment.
However, when Jeff is confronted with the surveillance video he does not give a
tangible reason for lying other than to say that he simply forgot driving the van that
day. Based only on this information, the probability is that Jeff is more likely than Bob
to have caused the damage to the van.

When an innocent suspect is asked a question that would almost certainly lead to
adverse consequences he may choose to lie to the question especially if the
consequences to the secondary issue (unauthorized used of a company vehicle) are
of similar or equal seriousness to the issue under investigation. When the reason for
telling a lie involves significant consequences such as revealing illegal immigration
status, having an outstanding warrant, exposing infidelity or a falsified resume this
may simply be the innocent suspect avoiding consequences unrelated to the issue
under investigation.

Jeff could make up a story in an attempt to explain away the surveillance evidence
but that would involve telling another lie and further risking the investigator learning
the truth. When confronted with this situation guilty suspects often blame poor
memory bolstered by excuses such as being overworked, busy with something else
or distracted by outside concerns.

Lies of Commission vs. Lies of Omission

A fire is started in a business and the nature of the fire suggests anger or revenge.
The same week the fire was started Bill and Ted were both terminated from the
business for violating company policy. The two employees are brought in for a formal
interview concerning the arson. The investigation indicates that Ted is disgruntled
because he was denied a promotion. A criminal record check reveals that Bill has a
prior conviction for battery.

During a formal interview Bill and Ted both deny starting the fire or knowing anything
about the fire. When asked about his feelings toward the company, Bill never

36
volunteered any information about being disgruntled or being turned down for a
promotion. Consequently, Bill has “lied” through omission. On the other hand, Ted is
specifically asked whether or not he has appeared in court on any matter. Ted lies
through commission and says he has not. Based only on these two lies, Ted is more
likely guilty of starting the fire than Bill.

It requires much more confidence for a person to not only tell the truth but, further, to
volunteer the truth when doing so places the suspect in a negative light. Lies of
omission are commonplace in social situations and should not be considered strong
evidence of guilt when interviewing a criminal suspect. It is precisely because of this
that when a suspect volunteers incriminating information concerning motive,
opportunity or access that the behavior is considered more typical of a truthful
person.

In conclusion, it is an effective strategy to invite suspects to lie to the investigator

during an interview. For example, if the investigator knows that the suspect was given
the alarm code to the security system he should not ask, “I understand that you have
the alarm code. When is the last time you used it?” Rather, he should invite the
suspect to lie by asking, “Have you ever been given the alarm code?” Innocent
suspects usually volunteer the truth, even if the truth reveals possible motives,
access or propensity. Conversely, guilty suspects may lie to these types of questions.
That is the general rule but, as this web tip points out, there are certainly occasions
where innocent suspects will lie to the investigator.

When the investigator catches a suspect in a lie, the following rules are suggested for
interpreting the lie with respect to the suspect’s probable involvement in the issue
under investigation:

(1) Lies told in an informal, low motivational setting are not as significant as lies told
during a formal interview where the suspect is operating from a high level of
motivation.

(2) The more related the lie is to the commission of the crime, the more likely the
suspect is guilty. e.g., Lying about firing a weapon on the night of the shooting vs.
lying about possessing a weapon of the same caliber used in the shooting.

(3) When confronted with the lie an innocent suspect usually has a reasonable
explanation for lying, the guilty suspect may not.

37
(4) Lies of commission are more significant than lies of omission.

Electronically Recorded Confessions March-April 2007

The topic of electronically recording interviews and interrogations comes up frequently

during our seminars. Clearly, there is a national trend in which through state court decisions or
legislative efforts police officers are required to electronically record their interrogations and
confessions. Recognizing the benefits to the investigator, many departments and agencies
have decided, on their own volition, to electronically record interrogations and confessions.

It has always been our recommendation that if an investigator chooses to electronically record
an interview or interrogation session that everything be electronically recorded. This includes
the initial introduction of the investigator to the suspect, the administration and waiver of
Miranda or Article 31 advisements, the entire interview, interrogation and confession. On the
other hand, if only the suspect’s confession is electronically recorded the defense may attack
the interrogation. The argument is as follows: Obviously the investigator had access to
recording equipment but chose not to record the interrogation because he did not want the jury
to see or hear the threats and promises made to the defendant.

Despite this potential danger, there remain many investigators who only electronically record
confessions. Furthermore, many prosecutors prefer a summary account of the suspect’s
confession, even when the entire interview and interrogation that led up to the confession was
recorded. Quite simply, it is easier for juries to absorb a concise confession lasting several
minutes than an interview and interrogation that lasting several hours. If obtained properly,
the electronically recorded confession has tremendous persuasive impact at trial. Conversely,
if the recorded confession is not done properly it affords a defense attorney with tremendous
ammunition to attack the validity of the confession.

This web tip offers guidelines for obtaining an electronically recorded confession either as a
stand-alone document or as a summary account within an electronically recorded interview
and interrogation. For illustrative purposes, a burglary investigation will be used.

Introducing the recorded confession to the suspect

In situations where the investigator has not been electronically recording the interrogation the
following approach has been used successfully to get a suspect to agree to have a confession
electronically recorded:

38
 “Jim, at this point I need to document what you’ve told me because I need to make
sure that I understand everything correctly and that no one later says that you said
something that you did not say. So this is for your protection as well as mine. Now we
have a couple of choices. You could write out what you’ve told me or I could just ask
you about what happened on tape. What are you most comfortable with?”

Almost all suspects will agree to the easier procedure, which is to have the conversation
electronically recorded. This places the investigator in a desirable position when testifying. If
the defense attorney asks why only the confession was recorded and not the entire
interrogation, the investigator can respond by saying that it is not the department’s policy to
electronically record the interrogation but that in this particular case the defendant preferred
that his confession be electronically recorded.

If the investigator has already been electronically recording the entire interview and
interrogation session, he may introduce the summary account as follows:

“Jim, I really respect you for getting this clarified this afternoon. As you know, I have
to submit a report which will reflect the findings of our investigation as well as the
explanation that you have just given me about why you did this. My boss is going to review
everything and he likes to have a real quick summary of things to review. So what I’m going
to do is to work with you to summarize everything that has happened this afternoon.”

Start by documenting the date, time, location and people present

The electronically recorded confession should start with a brief statement explaining who is
present as well as the current date and time. To instill the sense of accuracy, times should be
given to the nearest minute. It is appropriate to identify the positions or titles of people present
such as investigator, attorney, human resource specialists, union representative, etc. The
suspect’s name should be given but he or she should not be referred to as a suspect (the people
hearing the confession will know his role in the conversation). The following is an example of
such an introduction:

“My name is Brian Jayne, an investigator with John E. Reid and Associates. With me is Mike
Masokas who is also an investigator as well as James Smith. The date is Friday, February 9th,
2007 and the current time is 3:07 PM. We are inside an interview room located at 209 W.
Jackson Boulevard, in Chicago Illinois.”

39
Document Miranda (Article 31) advisements and waiver

For a suspect to give a knowing and voluntary waiver of his constitutional right advisements
the investigator must document that the suspect was truthfully told about the issue under
investigation and that the warnings were administered properly. While not legally necessary, a
written waiver that was read out loud and which the suspect subsequently signed is probably
the best documentation for this purpose. Furthermore, for the waiver to be valid the suspect
must be an adult and in adequate physical and mental health. For example:

“At 1:00 PM this afternoon I met with Mr. Smith at our office on 209 W. Jackson Blvd. At
that time I told him that I wanted to talk to him about some thefts from a home on Madison
St. in Chicago and advised Mr. Smith of his Miranda rights orally and in writing. At 1:11 PM
Mr. Smith waived those rights and agreed to answer my questions without having an attorney
present.

(I) ‘Is that correct, Jim?’

(S) ‘Yes.’

(I) ‘Jim, what is your date of birth?’

(S) ‘June 21, 1982'

(I) ‘So you are presently 24 years old?’

(S) ‘That’s right.’

(I) ‘Do you have any mental health problems?’

(S) ‘Not that I know of.’

(I) ‘Are you under a psychologist or psychiatrist’s care?’

(S) ‘No’

(I) ‘How would you describe your physical health today?’

(S) ‘I feel good. I’m in good health.’

Introduce the confession and develop details of the crime

40
An investigator should not expect a suspect to spontaneously generate a perfectly court-
admissible confession. Rather, the investigator should introduce this area with a summary of
the suspect’s confession and then request details of the crime:

“During our conversation, Mr. Smith told me that he broke into the home located at 419
Madison street in Chicago and that he stole money, a lap top computer, and some jewelry
from the home. I would like to review the details of that statement.

(I) ‘Jim, how did you get into the home?’

(S) ‘They left the back patio door unlocked. I just opened it and went in.’

(I) ‘About what time was that?’

(S) ‘Around 9:15 or 9:20 that morning.’

(I) ‘Which morning was that?’

(S) ‘It was last Thursday morning. Two days ago.’

(I) ‘How much money did you steal from the home?’

(S) ‘Only about 75 dollars.’

(I) ‘Where did you steal that money from?’

(S) ‘It was in a desk drawer in the kitchen.

(I) ‘What else did you steal from that house?”

(S) “I stole a Toshiba lap top computer that was on the kitchen counter.’

[This dialogue would continue to cover all aspects of the crime to include development of
dependent and independent corroboration]

The following guidelines relate to questions asked about the suspect’s crime:

Do not ask questions you do not already know the answer to: Prior to any attempt to
summarize a confession or obtain an electronically recorded confession, the suspect should
have already fully confessed to the investigator. Clearly the investigator wants to avoid having

41
to re-confront a suspect whose memory is all of a sudden foggy. Similarly, the investigator
does not want to be surprised by learning new information about the suspect’s crime, e.g.:

(I) “Now you were alone when you entered the home?”

(S) “No, actually I was with two friends. They were the ones who actually took the stuff. I just
waited outside for them.

Do not include information about past crimes: One of the reasons prosecutors like to have
a separate summary account of the suspect’s confession is that there may be statements or
information developed during the interrogation that are inadmissible as evidence. A common
example is a remark about the suspect’s prior convictions or arrests. Similarly, courts consider
information that the suspect refused to take, or failed a polygraph examination as highly
prejudicial.

Clarify ambiguous responses: If the suspect’s response to the investigator’s question is not
clear or is possibly misleading, the investigator should ask follow-up questions, e.g.:

(I) ‘About what time was that?’

(S) ‘Around 9:15 or 9:20 that morning.’

(I) ‘Which morning was that?’

(S) ‘It was last Thursday morning. Two days ago.’

The investigator should introduce descriptive terminology when asking questions: The
suspect’s confession needs to acknowledge personal responsibility for committing the crime
and satisfy the elements of the crime. Consequently, the statement, “I took a laptop computer
from a home on Madison St. in Chicago.” does not satisfy the legal elements of theft. The
statement should be, “I stole a laptop computer from a home on Madison St. in Chicago.”
Guilty suspects do not feel comfortable using descriptive language when discussing their
crime. Therefore, the investigator should introduce this language when asking the suspect
questions, e.g.:

(I) “John about what time was it when you killed Sarah?

(I) “What did you use to intentionally start this fire?”

(I) “What did you have in your hand when you robbed the clerk?”

(I) “Approximately how long did your hand rub her bare vagina?”

42
It is better to elicit behaviors than opinions: Opinions are subject to interpretation and can
introduce irrelevant information within a confession. The following examples illustrate how a
question that addresses the suspect’s behavior is more likely to lead to relevant information:

Opinion Behavior

“Why did you do this?” vs. “What did you do with the money you stole?”

“Whose idea was it to start the fire?” vs. “Who lit the cigarette lighter used to start the fire”

“Did you get this job so you could vs. “When did you first divert stock funds to

embezzle stock funds?” your personal account?”

Do not ask leading questions

Leading questions are designed to elicit agreement from the suspect and represent one way to
elicit a confession, e.g.:

“So you are the person who broke into that home?”

“You stole money, a computer and jewelry from the home, correct?”

”You broke into the home the morning of February 9th, right?”

However, such leading questions are also easy to attack in court where the defense attorney
argues that the investigator spoon-fed the confession to his client who felt compelled to agree
with the investigator’s assertions. A confession has much more persuasive impact if the
suspect spontaneously volunteers detailed information about his crime. Consequently, leading
questions like those illustrated above should be avoided.

Use simple terminology:

(I)“So you are the person you illegally entered the domicile located at 914 Madison St.?”

43
(S) “huh?”

Many suspects who commit crimes do not possess a genius IQ or an extensive education. If an
investigator uses unfamiliar words in asking the suspect a question, an affirmative response to
that question is meaningless in a court of law. Also, a jury may resent an investigator’s
unnecessary use of “police-speak.”

Conclude the statement by documenting the suspect’s treatment

(I) “Jim is everything you told me today the complete truth?”

(S) “Yeah.”

(I) “Have you been offered any promises of leniency?”

(S) “What do you mean?”

(I) “Did anyone make any promises about what would happen to you if you admitted breaking
into the home?”

(S) “No. Nothing was said about that.”

(I) “Were you threatened in any way today?”

(S) “No. You’ve treated me real good.”

(I) “Jim, is there anything else that you would like to include in this recorded document?”

(S) “Just that I’m sorry I did this and I can guarantee that I will never do that again.”

(I) “Thank you. That concludes this recording. The current time is 3:22 PM.

In conclusion, even though an entire interrogation has been electronically recorded, it is often
beneficial for the investigator to conclude the recording session with a summary account of
the suspect’s confession. In all likelihood, this summary account will be played for the jury
and will represent the strongest single piece of evidence against the defendant. Consequently,
the investigator must make certain that the summary account includes all of the elements of
the crime and addresses issues frequently attacked by the defense such as the validity of the
Miranda waiver, the duration of the interview/interrogation and whether the defendant was
offered any promises of leniency or threatened in any way.

44
The Use of Rationalization During An Interrogation Theme Jan-Feb, 2007

Two conditions must be satisfied before a person decides to commit a crime. The first is that
the individual must believe that he or she will not be punished for the crime. For example, no
sane person would set their neighbor’s house on fire or download pornography on a company
computer if they knew that they would suffer consequences for their actions. However, ninety
percent of society would never sell illegal drugs, steal a car or sexually molest a child even if
they were guaranteed to get away with the crime. Therefore, a second condition must also be
met which is that the person must be able to justify the criminal behavior in some manner.

The difference between people who commit crimes or violate company policies and those
who do not is that the former believe that their dishonest behavior is justified. This is done by
cognitively distorting reality. By doing so, the individual does not experience significant guilt
or anxiety as a result of their criminal behavior. Anna Freud coined the phrase “defense
mechanism” to describe this mental process. In our experience, there are several predominant
defense mechanisms guilty suspects employ to justify their criminal behavior.

Many criminals utilize projection to place blame for their own actions onto someone or
something else, e.g., the victim, an accomplice, low salary, unfair treatment, intoxication. A
criminal may also reduce their feeling of guilt through minimization by convincing
themselves that what they did could have been much worse, e.g., “I only took $50,000 – If I
were dishonest I could have easily embezzled $100,000.” Most criminals form a false belief
that many others share their dishonest attitudes (identification) and may also engage in denial,
where they convince themselves that there is no injury to the victim, e.g., “The company can
afford the loss”; “The child was not physically injured.” Finally, there are individuals who
justify their criminal behavior by psychologically distorting the true intention behind their
crime. e.g., “I didn’t mean to steal the money, I just wanted to borrow it.” This defense
mechanism is called rationalization.

Interrogation techniques rely on the fact that guilty suspects utilize defense mechanisms to
justify their crimes. In an effort to create an environment in which a guilty suspect feels more
comfortable telling the truth, the interrogator will reinforce the defense mechanisms that
already exist in the suspect’s mind. This is done by presenting a persuasive monologue called
an interrogation theme.

Consider that an employee is being interrogated on the issue of stealing a $2,000 deposit from
the manager’s office. During his interrogation the investigator may develop a theme that
blames the employee’s decision to take the deposit on the company’s failure to pay him an
adequate salary or for the manager’s negligence for not securing the deposit (projection). The
employee may experience further moral relief when the investigator explains that if the

45
employee was truly dishonest he would have stolen money the first week he was hired or
stolen other deposits from the company (minimization).

For a guilty suspect to relate to an interrogation theme, the justifications offered by the
investigator must be similar to how the suspect himself justified the crime. Furthermore, the
theme should not provide the suspect with a legal defense for his criminal behavior. For both
of these reasons, the investigator must be cautious in using themes which reinforce the
defense mechanism of rationalization.

An example of an inappropriate rationalization theme in the previous theft case would be for
the investigator to describe a scenario where the employee took the $2,000 believing that it
was a cash advance for an upcoming business trip. Considering the money was clearly in a
deposit bag sitting on top of the manager’s desk and that the employee has never received a
cash advance of more than $100, it is implausible that he would have justified his theft by
distorting reality in this manner. Furthermore, this particular rationalization theme is improper
because it offers the employee a legal defense since it removes the necessary element of
wrongful intent, i.e., taking money that the employee knew belonged to the company.

However, there are many occasions where guilty suspects do use rationalization to
justify their criminal behavior and where the investigator can appropriately use a theme that
incorporates rationalization. The following guidelines are offered to help identify whether a
particular suspect may have used the defense mechanism of rationalization to justify his
crime:

1. Suspects who are essentially caught in the act of committing the crime. A male
nurse at a convalescent center was caught on video tape having sexual contact with
an 18-year-old comatose female patient. After being shown the tape he explained
that he engaged in the activity merely in an effort to stimulate the patient out of her
coma.

2. Suspects who commit spontaneous or opportunistic crimes. A suspect who takes

days or weeks to carefully plan out exactly how to commit a crime is unlikely to
have justified his dishonest behavior through rationalization. However, a suspect
who commits a crime on the spur of the moment may well have rationalized it.
Consider a driver of a vehicle who strikes a pedestrian and leaves the scene
because he was drinking and did not want to be charged with DUI. In his mind, he
may well convince himself that he left the scene in an effort to get help.

3. Suspects who are facing significant personal consequences of embarrassment,

loss of pride or esteem. To restore the suspect’s self-worth this type of offender is
likely to have rationalized his criminal behavior. A classic example is the child
molester who simply does not recognize that he engages in sexual contact with

46
 children to elevate his own self-worth. Very often, pedophiles perceive their sexual
contact with children as showing love and affection.

4. Suspects who offer judgmental denials. Consider the suspect who is asked, “How
do you feel about being interviewed concerning this allegation against you?” and
responds, “I feel fine because I know I didn’t do anything wrong.” This suspect is
not denying committing the crime. Rather he is denying wrongful intent behind his
actions. A similar judgmental denial is a statement where the suspect claims he is
“innocent” of committing the crime. For example, a suspect may explain that he is
“innocent of robbing the victim.” Under this circumstance the investigator should
consider the possibility that the suspect believed the victim owed him the money
that was stolen during the robbery.

The recommendation that an interrogation theme should not present the suspect with a
legal defense is offered to guard against claims that the theme somehow offered the suspect an
implied promise of leniency. This concern is not based on court rulings or empirical findings
in the field. Rather, it is in response to the theoretical argument that if a theme offers a legal
defense for the suspect’s crime, it may then be perceived as removing any consequences if the
suspect chooses to confess to the crime. The following list is offered to help investigators
understand the sometimes subtle distinction between themes that may offer a legal defense
and those that do not.

Examples Of Rationalization Themes That Do Or Do Not

Offer A Possible Legal Defense

Arson

Possible defense: You were smoking in the area and one of your cigarettes accidentally started
the fire

No defense: Your original intention was just to cause smoke damage; you started the fire to
scare your neighbor to see how he would react; you started the fire to prove that the fire
department’s response time is too slow.

Child physical abuse:

Possible defense: You accidentally burned your child with the cigarette; you were playing
catch with your child and you threw the ball too hard and bruised him.

No defense: You just wanted to teach the child a lesson; you wanted to toughen up your son so
he would not be pushed around when he was older.

47
Child sexual abuse:

Possible defense: You were wrestling with your daughter and accidentally put your hand
down her panties

No defense: You touched her there to show her love and affection; you touched her out of
curiosity to see how she would react.

Hit and run:

Possible defense: You thought your car struck a deer so you didn’t stop.

No defense: You left the scene to get help; you thought the pedestrian wasn’t seriously
injured.

Homicide

Possible defense: you thought the victim had a weapon and you killed him in self defense; the
child slipped out of your hands and struck its head on the floor; you were just fooling around
with the gun and didn’t know it was loaded.

No defense: You killed her to put her out of her misery; you only intended to cut her slightly
with the knife; you only intended to wound him in the shoulder but your aim was off; you
only shook the child to get him to stop crying.

Rape

Possible defense: The knife was already near the bed and you held it in your hand while you
were having sex so she wouldn’t get accidentally cut.

No defense: You pointed the knife at her just to scare her initially – you never would have
actually used it to cut her.

In conclusion, individuals who commit crimes often reduce the anxiety and guilt associated
with the crime by utilizing defense mechanisms. A suspect who employs the defense
mechanism of rationalization re-describes the original intention of his behavior. There are
certain characteristics which suggest that a suspect may have justified his criminal behavior
through rationalization. When an investigator incorporates rationalization within an
interrogation theme, he should avoid describing a scenario which could offer the suspect a
legal defense for engaging in the criminal behavior.

48
Guarding Against Claims of False Imprisonment November / December 2006

The concept of "false imprisonment" is usually associated with a criminal act relating
to abduction or kidnapping. However, this web tip relates to false imprisonment as a
civil suit. The definition varies somewhat state by state, but the civil claim of false
imprisonment generally involves creating an environment where a person is
significantly deprived of their freedom to leave an area. A company or agency that is
found guilty of false imprisonment may face huge punitive damages.

It is well established that a person is more likely to tell the truth in a private, controlled
environment. It is desirable, therefore, to conduct an interview or interrogation of an
employee suspected of wrong-doing away from that person's work area, and behind
closed doors. However, if the investigator exerts too much control over the individual,
he or she may invite an allegation of false imprisonment. The best defense against
such a claim is to initially advise an employee that the interview is voluntary and that
he or she is free to leave at any time. Whether the advisement is verbal or in writing,
it must clearly acknowledge the employee's right to terminate the interview. For this
statement to be meaningful, any unambiguous effort by the employee to terminate
the interview must, of course, be honored.

To help further document the voluntariness of an interview the investigator should

generally provide the employee with some notice prior to the interview. This advance
notice will give the employee the opportunity to contact an attorney, family member or
union representative for advice. Ten minutes of prior notice for an interview is
sufficient provided that the employee has access to a phone. In this regard, while it
would be acceptable to ask an employee to turn off their cell phone prior to an
interview, it would be improper to confiscate the person's phone.

There are some circumstances in which an interview may be conducted without

giving the employee any advance notice. In some cases, it may even be necessary
to create a false pretense for the interview in an effort to have the employee appear
at a desirable interviewing location. If an investigator decides to use subterfuge or
surprise in an effort to elicit information from an employee, there should be an
identifiable reason for doing so, e.g., fear that evidence would be destroyed, fear that
the employee will not show up for the interview, etc.

Over the years an informal list of criteria has been developed to assist courts in
evaluating a civil claim of false imprisonment. One of these is the dependency of the
employee on the investigator to leave the area. Consider the situation where the
investigator drives an employee to corporate headquarters ten miles from the
employee's car. Further, that the interview is conducted on the second floor of the
building and a security card is required to open exit doors or operate the elevator.
This employee is clearly dependent on the investigator to leave the building or return
to their car. While these circumstances certainly do not constitute illegal confinement,
they may contribute to the perception that the employee's freedom to leave the area
was significantly deprived. Consequently, the investigator needs to anticipate this
possibility and perhaps offer the subject a pass card to leave the building or clearly
advise the employee that at any time he or she can terminate the interview and they
will be driven back to their car.

49
A similar circumstance may exist when an employee is considered to be "under
control of the investigator". In an actual consultation, an employee was interviewed
for seven hours by internal investigators. When the employee asked to use the
bathroom she was accompanied by a female investigator to the bathroom. During
lunch the employee was escorted by the investigators to the cafeteria where she ate
her sandwich with the investigators. When she requested a break from the
questioning, an investigator accompanied her to the hallway where they both sat until
she was willing to continue answering questions. The employee was under the
investigator's constant control the entire seven hours and was not allowed to be on
her own until after she signed a confession.

The environment of the interview room is another criteria courts consider in deciding
false imprisonment cases. It is a clear invitation to a claim of false imprisonment if the
interview is conducted behind a locked door with only the investigator possessing the
key to the lock. The same psychological effect may be claimed when the investigator
positions his or her chair between the employee's chair and the door. Another
contributing factor to this claim may involve three or four investigators simultaneously,
and aggressively, questioning a suspect.

None of the preceding criteria is generally considered sufficient, in and of itself, to

constitute false imprisonment. These cases are generally decided after considering
the contribution and weight of multiple factors. However, there are statements or
actions by the investigator that much more directly support a claim of false
imprisonment. An action that certainly sends the message that a person is not free to
leave a room is the investigator who physically restrains the employee from leaving
the room. A statement that will have a similar effect is telling the employee that he or
she is not free to leave. In the earlier mentioned consultation the employee, after
seven hours of questioning, finally signed a confession and then asked to leave the
room. She was told, "You're not going anywhere until (supervisor) hears what you
have done." There was no question at this point that the employee perceived that she
was not free to leave the interview room. This statement, coupled with the totality of
other circumstances, resulted in a finding of false imprisonment and the jury awarded
a substantial financial award for damages against the company.

In conclusion, there are many social and business situations in which a person may
feel compelled to remain in an uncomfortable environment, e.g., attending a lengthy
wedding, a boring meeting, a dinner with in-laws. Merely experiencing a strong desire
to leave an area does not constitute false imprisonment. Rather, to support the civil
claim of false imprisonment, a person must be subjected to identifiable
circumstances, actions, or statements that would cause a reasonable person to
believe that he or she would not be free to leave the area if they made an effort to do
so. The following recommendations are offered to guard against claims of false
imprisonment when conducting a non-custodial, voluntary interview or interrogation:

1. Ideally, the subject should be given some notice prior to the interview.
2. At the outset of the interview advise the subject, verbally or in writing, that the
interview is voluntary and that the subject is free to leave at any time.
3. Do not prevent the subject from communicating with others.
4. Do not physically block a subject's exit from a room by positioning the
investigator's chair between the subject and the door.

50
 5. The subject should be allowed to freely use the bathroom, obtain food or drink
or to take a break without being accompanied by an investigator.
6. . Do not physically prevent a subject from leaving an area.
7. Do not tell a subject that he or she is not free to leave the area.

In addition to the above considerations you should certainly check with your
corporate legal counsel to ascertain any guidelines or procedures that they want you
to follow when questioning employees.

Quoting Statements in an Open Account: Truthful or Deceptive?

September- October

During most interviews the investigator should develop an open, or narrative account
from the subject. It is called an open account because the investigator’s question encourages
the subject to relate everything relative to the area of inquiry and once the subject starts
talking, the investigator does not interrupt the account. Examples of questions that elicit an
open account include, “Mary tell me exactly what happened to cause the cut on your hand.”
or, “George, tell me everything you did last Friday from the time you got home from work
until the time you went to bed.”

There are many aspects of an open account that can be analyzed to assess the
credibility of the person making it: Does the account contain an introduction, main event and
an epilogue or does it focus entirely on the main event? Is the account detailed or is it vague?
Are the person’s recollections reasonable or selective? Does the logic of the account follow
normal human behavior or does it describe behaviors that do not make sense? However, there
is one aspect of an open account that has not been specifically researched and yet is very
objective in its identification. This behavior is the inclusion of a quoted statement.

During our training seminars we present the case of a young women who claims to
have been abducted at knife point from a parking lot. The following is a transcript of portions
of her open account:

“He ended up on the right side of me and he said, ‘You’re taking me where I want to
go’ and I said, ‘No I’m not’ and he said ‘Yes you are’ and he got in the car. (Later in
the account) And then he said, ‘You’re not driving fast enough’ and he said, ‘pull over,
I want to drive.’ When he got out of the car I was able to drive away.”

The italicized statements are each quotes of statements the victim decided to include in her
open account. She certainly could have relayed what happened without including the quoted

51
statements. Therefore, the inclusion of the quotes was purposeful on her part. For this reason
the inclusion of quoted statements represents a potential behavior symptom to help detect
truth or deception.

In this particular case the abduction account turned out to be fabricated to gain the
attention of the woman’s boyfriend. However, a review of other video-taped open accounts
reveals instances where verified truthful subjects have also included quoted statements within
their narrative account. Consequently, we cannot offer a dogmatic guideline that the inclusion
of quotes within a narrative account is indicative of deception. But we can develop a
theoretical set of rules to evaluate this potentially valuable behavior symptom.

Before offering these guidelines, it is important that the investigator differentiates

between quotes and summaries within an account. The statement, “He pulled my hair and
called me a bitch” is not a quote. Rather, this subject is merely offering a summary of a
conversation. On the other hand, the statement, “He pulled my hair and said, ‘You are a bitch
and I’m going to kill you’” is a quote. The following guidelines only refer to true quotes that
are included within a narrative account.

1. The inclusion of quoted statements in a narrative account should cause the

investigator to be suspicious of the account. There is a strong tendency of truthful suspects
to restrict their accounts to only information they know, for certain, is truthful. Even when
recalling an incident that occurred six or twelve hours ago, most people would not accurately
recall, word for word, exact statements made during the incident. When thinking back over
the event, particular words or phrases may be accurately recalled but it would be unusual to
recall an entire sentence. Applying this logic, the narrative statement, “He pointed a knife at
me and said that he would kill me if I called the police” is more credible than the following
statement: “He pointed a knife at me and I said, ‘What are you going to do?’ He then said, ‘I
will kill you if you call the police.” (Notice that the first statement does not contain an actual
quotation but rather summarizes the contents of a conversation.)

2. The inclusion of quoted dialogues is more typical of a fabricated account. A subject

who is generating a fabricated account must create a credible story line to convince the
listener that the event really happened. As the subject constructs the fictitious account the
behavioral aspects of the story start to evolve -- What was done, when it was done, where it
was done and what statements were made during the incident. Because the account is being
spontaneously generated, the statements surface as an imagined dialogue. During our review
of video-taped narrative statements, there was no instance of a verified truthful account that
contained a quoted dialogue, e.g., “He said (quote) and then I said (quote)”

52
3. A quote that contains unique or emotional language is more likely truthful. A
legitimate rape victim’s open account concluded with the following statement: “I was sitting
on the ground and looked up at him. He pointed the gun at my head and said, ‘prepare to meet
your maker.’ I just put my head down and cried.” It is reasonable that the victim would
remember, word for word, this very emotional statement and, therefore, have the confidence
to include it within her account as an exact quote. Similarly, if the quoted phrase represents an
unusual or unique phrase, it is more likely that the person would accurately remember it and
be comfortable including it within their response, e.g., “The guy rolled down his window and
yelled, ‘You flat-landers don’t know how to drive’.”

This circumstance is quite different from quotes that are included in an open account
simply to increase the credibility of the account. The following is an example of gratuitous
quotes that are included in an account simply to help sell the subject’s version of events: “I
told him, ‘If you don’t leave right now I’m calling the police,’ but he continued to walk
toward me and I knew what was going to happen. I then said, ‘Please don’t hurt me’.”

4. Qualified quotes should not be interpreted as either truthful or deceptive. The

following is an example of a qualified quote: “The man walked right up to me and said
something like, ‘give me your money’, or, ’I want your money’.” The qualifying phrase
“something like” may indicate that this is a truthful subject who is trying hard to be accurate
in his account.

Conversely, a subject who is generating a fictitious account may experience anxiety after
including a fabricated quote within the account and, in an effort to reduce this anxiety, qualify
the quotation after making it. The following is an example of a deceptive suspect who felt the
need to qualify a fabricated quote: “He asked me for the money and I told him that I could get
it by Saturday. He got angry and said, ‘I want that money now’, or, ‘I need that money now.’ I
can’t remember exactly what he said but that’s when I knew I had to get money somehow.”
Under this circumstance, the qualified phrase, “I can’t remember what he said” almost serves
as a retraction that the words were ever said at all

The Role of Motivation in Detection of Deception Research July-August, 2006

Early reports on the accuracy of the polygraph technique were largely anecdotal. For
example, if ten suspects were administered a polygraph examination on a particular
crime and one of them failed and subsequently confessed, the technique was
reported to be 100% accurate. Once proper research methodology was applied,
where random polygraph charts of verified truthful and deceptive suspects were
blindly scored by a number of trained examiners, the actual accuracy was shown to
be in the 90% range.

In the 1970’s the academic community started researching the polygraph technique
using mock crime paradigms. A typical laboratory study involved instructing half of
the subjects to take money from a location in a room and the other half not to take

53
anything from the room. These subjects were then administered a polygraph
examination to determine how often the examiner could correctly identify "guilty" or
"innocent" subjects. The polygraph technique does not fare well in laboratory studies.
Most of these studies report accuracies slightly above chance levels. In fact, there is
such a discrepancy between laboratory and field research within the polygraph
technique that when conducting meta-analysis or other intra-study comparisons, the
findings are always treated separately, with no effort to generalize laboratory results
to the field.

Differences between laboratory and field research are not restricted to the polygraph
technique. The same pattern emerges when evaluating the behavior symptoms of
actual criminal suspects compared to laboratory subjects who participated in a mock
crime or other contrived situation. For example, when evaluators are asked to view
video-taped interviews of laboratory subjects who have been asked to play the role of
a guilty or innocent person, the evaluators are very poor at identifying which subjects
are lying and which ones are telling the truth. However, when evaluators are asked to
do the same task using video-taped interviews of actual criminal suspects, they
achieve accuracy rates far above chance levels.

What is different between subjects in a laboratory setting and actual criminal

suspects? The primary difference is the level of motivation the subject experiences at
the time of the polygraph examination or interview. In psychology, the construct of
motivation is used to describe the determination or drive exerted to accomplish a
particular goal. Furthermore, motivation is closely associated with how clearly a goal
is defined.

A concept fundamental to all detection of deception techniques is that innocent and

guilty subjects form different goals during a polygraph examination or interview.
Specifically, innocent suspects form a goal of needing to be believed whereas a guilty
suspect’s goal is to not be detected in his lie. Consequently, during an interview or
polygraph examination an investigator is not really detecting "lies", but rather inferring
truth or deception by identifying the subject’s underlying goal through behavioral
observations.

At this point it may be instructive to return to the motivational differences between

subjects in laboratory and field studies. A laboratory subject who is lying about taking
$20 from a desk drawer is not facing significant consequences if the investigator
detects his lie. During the interview the subject is not concerned that if the
investigator detects his lies he will be expelled from college, lose respect or face
possible criminal charges. This lack of perceived consequence will cause poor goal
development and minimal effort to accomplish that goal. Similarly the innocent
laboratory subject who did not take any money is also not concerned that he may be
expelled from college, charged with theft or have his reputation ruined if the
investigator mistakenly believes that he did take the money. Without significantly
different goals, there exist no meaningful difference between the "guilty" and
"innocent" subjects attitudes, perceptions or behaviors.

54
However, consider a group of employees being questioned about the theft of $20
from a co-worker’s purse. Each employee is facing probable termination, certain
public humiliation and a possible criminal record. Under this high-motivation
circumstance, innocent employees are going to form predictable attitudes toward the
interview as well as the issue under investigation, e.g., high confidence in being
exonerated, forming harsh judgments toward the guilty, and being comfortable
speculating about possible suspects and motives for the crime. During an interview
innocent suspects will be actively involved in accomplishing their goal of convincing
the investigator that they did not steal the missing $20.

Conversely, the guilty suspect who is highly motivated to avoid detection will form
quite different attitudes toward the issue under investigation and the interview, e.g.,
exhibit a lack of confidence in being exonerated, attempt to convince the investigator
that no theft occurred, appear uncomfortable and unhelpful in speculating about the
crime and express forgiveness toward the guilty person. During his interview, the
guilty employee will utilize all of his skills and abilities to accomplish his goal of
convincing the investigator that he did not steal the $20.

As this example illustrates, it is not the seriousness of the crime that affects a
subject’s motivation; the level of motivation experienced by a subject is dictated by
the subject’s perception of the consequences that will be suffered if it is determined
(correctly or incorrectly) that he engaged in the crime. A subject’s level of motivation
is not only important when evaluating published research but also when considering
a subject’s behavior in field situations. The following circumstances each involve
situations in which a subject may experience decreased motivation, and therefore
offer misleading behavior symptoms during an interview:

Interviewing Subjects Facing Minimal Consequence

Some juveniles have had so much contact with the criminal justice system that they
know that the worse consequence facing them is a short stay in a juvenile home.
Similarly, a recently hired employee who engages in dishonesty knows that he has
little to lose if the investigator detects his deception. Under both of these
circumstances guilty subjects may not form attitudes typical of a deceptive person.
This is especially true when the subject has a low level of social consciousness and
perceives minor punishments as a mark of honor among peers.

Fortunately, during these investigations factual analysis often points toward the
probable involvement of the guilty person. A detection of deception guideline that has
proven valuable in many investigations is to not allow apparent truthful behavior
symptoms to out-weigh deceptive factual analysis. When investigative information
points toward a particular suspect, in most situations that person should be
interrogated regardless of apparent truthful behavior.

Interviewing Subjects Who Feel Immune From Consequences

There are some subjects who believe, because of their position or social influence,
that they can escape consequences for acts of wrong-doing. Examples include
prominent businessmen, powerful politicians, judges, high-ranking military or law

55
enforcement personnel. Individuals who fit this description often display a feeling of
entitlement as if they are "above the law."

In one-on-one allegations sometimes the accused has much more authority and
credibility than the victim. Examples of this circumstance includes a teacher accused
of sexual conduct with a mentally retarded student or a police office accused of
extorting sexual favors from a prostitute. Under this circumstance the guilty suspect
may be quite confident that others will accept his word over that of the victim’s.

When interviewing a suspect who may fall into this category, it is beneficial to
emphasize the objectivity of the investigation and analysis of evidence. In essence,
the investigator is telling the suspect that neither of them can control the outcome of
the investigation. In addition, it is recommended to start the interview with a
statement similar to the following, "George, if you did solicit sex from that woman our
investigation will clearly indicate that. On the other hand, if you did nothing wrong we
will be able to prove that as well."

Interviewing a Guilty Subject Early During an Investigation

It is not uncommon for a guilty subject to be questioned early during an investigation

and escape detection. Presumably, these subjects approach the questioning as
"routine" and do not experience significant fear of detection during the interview. After
incriminating evidence is developed and the subject is interviewed a second time, the
heightened level of motivation causes the suspect to exhibit attitudes and behavior
symptoms typical of a guilty person.

Just as it is always a good practice to re-interview traumatized victims or witnesses a

couple of days after the initial report, it is often prudent to conduct a second interview
of initial subjects even if there were no apparent behavior symptoms of deception
during the first interview. The mere fact that the subject is being questioned a second
time will heighten the motivation level of both innocent and guilty subjects, causing
their behavior to be more definitive and reliable.

Interviewing Subjects With Low Intelligence

To appreciate the possible consequences associated with success or failure of

accomplishing a goal involves assessment, comprehension, judgment and
knowledge, e.g., intelligence. A suspect with a lower intelligence may understand the
difference between lying and telling the truth, but not fully grasp the concept of going
to jail, losing respect and trust or the financial significance of paying a substantial
forfeiture. Investigators should always be cautious in drawing inferences based on
behavior symptoms exhibited by subjects with low intelligence.

Approaching A Subject As If He Is Innocent

56
An innocent subject will not form predictable attitudes and perceptions if he is not
concerned that the investigator might believe he is involved in the crime. Clearly, it
would be improper for the investigator to start an interview in the following manner,
"Mike, as you probably know there was a fire in your neighbor’s garage over the
weekend. I certainly don’t think that you had anything to do with starting it, but I still
need to ask you a few questions about it. Would that be alright with you?"

The innocent suspect must experience the need to convince the investigator that he
did not commit the crime. Only when the innocent suspect understands that the most
effective way to be exonerated is to help the investigator solve the crime, does he
manifest predictable attitudes and perceptions e.g., offers cooperation, discusses
possible suspects, eliminates possible suspects, makes admissions against self-
interest, forms harsh judgments toward guilty, etc.

A fundamental principal of detection of deception theory is that there should be no

difference between the interview of a suspect who is more likely innocent or guilty of
a crime. Both suspects must form a specific goal during the interview and be
motivated to accomplish that goal. The following introduction satisfies this
requirement: "Mike, as you know there was a fire in your neighbor’s garage over the
weekend and I am interviewing people who were in the area of the fire. Some of the
questions I’ll be asking you I already know the answer to. The most important thing is
that you be completely truthful with me before you leave today. Before we go any
further, let me ask, did you start that fire?"

Interviewing Suspects Who Have Given Up

An interesting phenomenon within the polygraph technique is that if a subject

becomes convinced that the test is infallible, there is a risk that the subject will
become emotionally unresponsive. The entire premise of the control question
polygraph technique is built upon the subject directing psychological attention toward
a particular question type (control question for truthful, relevant question for
deceptive). The focus of the subject’s attention is identified through physiological
changes resulting from the subject’s fear that he will show a "lie response" to that
question. On the other hand, if the subject believes that the polygraph will most
certainly indicate that he is lying the subject will simply answer the test questions and
not experience a significant emotional response; for the polygraph technique to
function as designed, the deceptive subject must have some hope that he can get
through the examination without being detected and the truthful subject must have
some fear that the results may indicate that he was involved in the crime.
Psychologically, both the innocent and guilty subjects must believe they have some
control over the outcome of the examination.

The same is true during an interview. This is one of the reasons an investigator
should not become accusatory during an interview or overwhelm a subject with
incriminating evidence early during an interview. A guilty subject who perceives that
the investigator is already convinced that he committed the crime may simply
withdraw and not form attitudes or perceptions typical of a guilty person. For similar
reasons, a subject who is questioned shortly after committing a crime and is knee-
deep in incriminating evidence may not form attitudes typical of other guilty suspects

57
who, during the interview, perceive a possibility of getting away with their crime if they
are convincing enough.

In conclusion, there is no such thing as a lie detector. When people lie or tell the truth
they do not produce some identifiable pattern on a polygraph chart nor do they
engage in any unique observable behaviors. Rather, detection of deception
techniques have been developed to infer truth or deception based on identifying the
different goals that guilty and innocent people tend to form when questioned about an
act of wrong-doing. However, it is not engaging in the act of wrong-doing that causes
the goals to form. It is the perceived consequence associated with the act that
causes the innocent person to be strongly driven to want people to know that he did
not commit the act or the guilty person to do everything in his power to try to
convince people that he did not commit the act., e.g., motivation. The effects of
motivation are not only important when reviewing research studies but also during
field interviews. Just because an investigator is interviewing an actual criminal
suspect does not necessarily mean that the suspect is operating from a high-
motivation perspective.

Eliciting A Subject’s Willingness to Submit to a Voluntary Interview May/June

2006

In most instances, subjects will agree to answer an investigator’s questions if the

conversation occurs at the subject’s home, place of business or over the phone.
From an investigative perspective, however, it is far more productive to have the
subject agree to come to the investigator’s office for the interview. Once the
investigator is alone with the subject in a controlled environment a structured
interview can be conducted to assess the subject’s probable involvement in the
offense. If the subject’s statements and behavior are indicative of innocence, the
person can be eliminated as a suspect in the case. On the other hand, if the results
of the interview suggest probable involvement in the offense, the investigator can
move directly into an interrogation in an effort to obtain evidence of the subject’s guilt
in the form of a confession.

Legally, an investigator cannot compel a subject to submit to an interview. Therefore,

persuasive tactics are often required to convince a subject to come to the
investigator’s office to be interviewed. This article will identify a number of principles
designed to increase the probability that a subject will agree to submit to a voluntary
interview. The focus here will be on non-custodial interviews where the investigator
has not taken the suspect into custody and, therefore, no Miranda waiver is needed
prior to questioning the suspect.

1. In general, be truthful about the purpose for the interview. For the subject to
make a knowing and voluntary decision to be interviewed, he must know what issue
will be discussed during the interview. There are two exceptions to this guideline. We
believe that it may be proper to establish a false pretense for a non-custodial
interview if (1) there is concern that the subject may destroy evidence or, (2) the
subject represents a flight risk where the investigator would lose authority over the
subject.

58
Consider an investigation where a bookkeeper is suspected of embezzling funds by
altering computer invoices. Further, the bookkeeper has already discussed her
pending retirement. If the bookkeeper is asked to come to the manager’s office to be
questioned about possible theft of company funds certainly she could delete the
computer records of her embezzlement or resign from the company. It, therefore,
may be advisable to arrange a private meeting with her under the false pretense of
discussing how best to train her replacement when she retires. Once the interview
begins the bookkeeper should be told that the true purpose for the interview is to
discuss the results of an internal investigation that indicates diversion of company
funds.

2. The investigator’s description of the issue under investigation should be

vague. For a number of reasons, specific details of a crime should not be revealed to
the suspect. First, the investigator can assess the subject’s possible involvement in
the crime if, during the interview, the subject reveals information that only the guilty
person would know. Second, details of the crime that only the guilty person would
know can be used to corroborate a confession. For example, the following statement
to a subject in a hit and run investigation contains too much information:

"Harry, last Saturday evening at 10:50 a white male named Paul Stone
was struck by a silver Pontiac Grand Am outside the B&B tavern. The
vehicle left the scene going north on Jackson Street. Witnesses
reported that the driver of the vehicle was wearing a yellow windbreaker
like the one you’re wearing."

In addition, the investigator’s description of the crime should avoid legal terminology.
A husband who killed his wife during an argument is unlikely to voluntarily agree to
meet with the investigator to be questioned about the murder of his wife. However, he
may agree to be interviewed to provide further details surrounding her death. The
following list offers non-descriptive terminology for various crimes:

Arson = to determine if the fire may have been intentionally started

Burglary = taking things from a car; entering a home

Fraud = discrepancies in paperwork; questions concerning a document

Murder= circumstances surrounding (victim’s) death

Rape = had sex with; sex was not consensual

Robbery = took money from a clerk (liquor store)

Sexually touch = had contact with the child in a manner that upset her

Stolen deposit = missing deposit

Theft = shortages, mysterious disappearance

59
3. The investigator should establish a non-threatening pretense for asking the
subject to be interviewed. The investigator must appreciate that neither innocent
nor guilty suspects enjoy being interviewed concerning an act of wrong-doing and
that some persuasion will be required to elicit a person’s cooperation. In essence, the
investigator must present the interview in a positive light. On the other hand, if the
investigator approaches the subject as if there is little doubt that he committed the
crime under investigation, the subject is unlikely to voluntarily agree to meet with the
investigator for a session that essentially will be an accusatory interrogation.

A common non-threatening pretense is to bring up the interview as an opportunity to

be cleared in the investigation. For example, when a group of employees each has
access to a deposit that was stolen or a patient who was physically abused, it makes
perfect sense to the employees that they all need to be interviewed in order to
resolve the investigation. In essence, it is in the employee’s best interest to agree to
be interviewed as a means not only to be exonerated, but also to catch the guilty
person.

Sometimes a non-threatening pretense will involve the subject’s desire to obtain a

specific goal. Consider a subject who submitted an insurance claim requesting
$25,000 replacement value for his stolen vehicle. The investigator may explain that
there are a couple of questions about the theft and that the quickest way to settle the
claim would be for the claimant to come in for an interview. Similarly, when a specific
accusation has been made, such as a student who claimed that her teacher sexually
touched her during recess, the investigator can present the interview as a means to
obtain the desired goal of being exonerated.

Under some circumstances establishing a reasonable pretense for the interview is

more difficult. For example, a confidential informant may have named the suspect as
one of several people involved in a recent home invasion or, on a hunch, the
investigator may want to re-interview a previous suspect in a twenty-year-old
homicide. Under these circumstances it may be necessary to establish a false
pretense to persuade the subject to agree to be interviewed. To protect the
informant’s name in the home invasion case, the investigator might tell the subject
that one of the victim’s neighbors saw the suspect outside of the victim’s home on the
night of the crime. In the homicide case the investigator might establish a pretense
for the interview based on "new forensic technology" which places the suspect near
the victim around the time of her death. Another pretense could be that an
acquaintance of the victim recently came forward with a letter the victim wrote shortly
before her death that mentions the suspect’s name.

Establishing a false pretense for the interview will almost always involve reference to
some fabricated or distorted evidence connecting the subject to the victim or crime
scene. This is always a risky procedure in that the subject may either call the
investigator’s bluff and ask to see the evidence or be scared off and refuse to come
in for an interview. For these reasons, the investigator should carefully abide by the
next guideline.

4. Do not overwhelm the suspect with evidence of his guilt. Most criminal
suspects know that the polygraph technique is quite accurate and yet every day
guilty suspects voluntarily agree to take a polygraph examination and subsequently

60
confess after failing the examination. Why would a person risk having their crime
detected by taking a polygraph examination? The primary reason for this is that the
suspect believes he can "beat" the polygraph examination and, if he is successful in
doing so, he will avoid the consequences associated with his crime.

On the other hand, if a guilty suspect believed that the polygraph technique was
99.9% accurate it is highly unlikely that he would agree to take the examination.
Similarly, if the investigator brings up evidence that strongly points to the subject’s
probable guilt, the subject may well decide that his best chance to get away with his
crime is to refuse to be interviewed. Consequently, any evidence used to persuade a
subject to submit to an interview should not directly incriminate the subject. Rather,
the evidence should indirectly connect the subject to the victim or the crime scene..

With this principle in mind, the following would be an improper use of evidence to
persuade a subject to agree to be interviewed, "Jim, your DNA was found during the
autopsy of the victim and we have your fingerprints from the inside of her apartment.
I would like you to come in for an interview to determine whether or not you murdered
her." Conversely, the following statement is much more likely to result in the subject
agreeing to be interviewed, "Jim, I am in the process of talking to people who knew
Mary Smith and I got your name from her address book. I have some of her co-
workers coming in this morning but I’m free at 2:00. Would that be a convenient time
to meet with me?"

The second statement offers a logical, yet non-threatening, connection between the
subject and the crime. Because of this, the subject is more likely to agree to be
interviewed not only because he believes that the investigator has no proof of his
guilt but also because there are other subjects who have apparently agreed to be
interviewed. This leads to the final principle.

5. If credible, relate that other suspects will also be interviewed. Another reason
that guilty suspects agree to take a polygraph examination is that they do not want to
stand out as being different from other suspects by being the only person not willing
to take the examination. By surrounding a suspect with other real or fictitious
suspects, it is much more likely that the person will agree to be interviewed.

If the investigator implies that the subject is one of many possible suspects in the
case to be interviewed it reinforces the hope in the guilty person’s mind that he may
get away with his crime. To maintain the guise of innocence, the guilty suspect does
not want to point the finger at himself by refusing to be interviewed.

In conclusion, it is generally not difficult to persuade innocent subjects to agree to be

interviewed concerning someone else’s crime. Generally innocent subjects agree to
cooperate with an investigation in an effort to be exonerated and to help catch the
guilty person. However, often finesse and even guile is required to persuade a guilty
subject to agree to be interviewed.

A subject who is guilty of a crime must be convinced that it is in his best interest to
submit to an interview at the investigator’s location. Therefore, the investigator should
present the interview in a positive light, perhaps as a means for the subject to be
eliminated from suspicion. The investigator should make it appear that other subjects

61
are being scheduled for interviews and not overwhelm the subject with incriminating
evidence. The guilty subject agrees to be interviewed because he believes by doing
so he will get away with his crime; the investigator should do nothing to dispel that
hope.

The Use of an Interpreter During an Interview March/April 2006

A question that is frequently asked during our seminars concerns the proper use of
an interpreter during an interview. This is particularly true when we train military
personnel who regularly utilize translators in their effort to develop intelligence from a
variety of sources. Our staff has successfully used interpreters both during interviews
and interrogations. However, because interrogation is a more complex process, this
article will focus on the use of an interpreter during an interview.

The goal of an interview is to develop information from a subject and assess the
credibility of that information. To accomplish this, the investigator must ask the right
questions, phrase questions properly, ask appropriate follow-up questions and
evaluate the subject's verbal, nonverbal and paralinguistic communication. Each of
these tasks is dependent upon the investigator's ability to communicate effectively
with the subject and correctly interpret the subject's responses to questions. When
the investigator does not speak the same language as the subject, the success of the
interview becomes dependent on the skill of the interpreter.

Selecting the Interpreter

In a perfect world a suspect who speaks a foreign language would be interviewed by

a trained investigator who speaks the same language. Unfortunately, there are a very
limited number of well trained multi-lingual interviewers; thus the necessity of an
interpreter. When selecting or recruiting individuals to serve as an interpreter during
the interview of a criminal suspect, the following considerations should be kept in
mind:

1. The interpreter should not be familiar with the suspect. The interpreter's role
during the interview is merely to accurately translate language and should be
perceived by the subject as a neutral, uninvolved party of the communication.
Using a member of the subject's family or other person acquainted with the
subject as an interpreter is clearly undesirable. First, the interpreter may be
sympathetic toward the subject's situation and not accurately translate
incriminating information. Second, the subject may perceive a familiar
interpreter as an adversary which may reduce that person's fear of detection,
ultimately making it more difficult to detect deception.
2. The interpreter should be fluent in both languages. It is an added benefit if the
interpreter has an understanding of the subject's cultural background, religious
beliefs and value system.
3. The interpreter should be emotionally mature and confident. This is particularly
important if the issue under investigation involves a sexual issue or a heinous
crime. If the interpreter is uncomfortable discussing sensitive or revolting
topics he may alter language used by the investigator or subject which, in turn,
could affect the integrity of the entire interview.

62
In many investigations, there is no "ideal" interpreter so the investigator will have to
make do with available personnel. There are a number of things an investigator can
do to compensate for an interpreter's shortcomings:

1. If possible, the interview should be electronically recorded. This will not only
memorialize the session but also serve as an incentive for the interpreter to
make accurate translations. If it is not possible to electronically record the
session but there is a concern that the interpreter may attempt to protect the
subject and not accurately convey questions or responses, the interpreter can
nonetheless be told that the entire interview will be audio-taped and later
reviewed by a person fluent in the subject's language.
2. In preparation for the interview emphasize with the interpreter the importance
of exact translations. For example, the investigator could write out a couple of
similar response and comment on the significant differences between the two,
e.g.:

Q: "Before we go any further let me ask, did you steal that deposit?"
A: "I didn't take that deposit." Vs. "I didn't steal that deposit."

Q: "Last Saturday evening were you with Paul Kingston at any time?"
A: "Was I with him? No, not at all." Vs. "No, not at all."

Q: " At 10:00 last night were you inside a blue car outside the Plaza liquor
store?"
A: "I don't own a blue car." Vs. "I wasn't in any blue car."

3. If the interpreter is not fluent in both languages there is a risk that the
interpreter will guess at the meanings of some unfamiliar words or pursue an
independent conversation with the subject to clarify the meaning of words. The
investigator should anticipate this possibility and explain to the interpreter that
if the subject uses unknown words this fact should be included within the
translation. The interpreter should be specifically instructed not to pursue the
meaning of unknown words.

Positioning of the Interpreter

In our discussions with investigators who frequently utilize interpreters, they have
described a number of different room arrangements involving an interpreter. Our
experience indicates that the most desirable room arrangement is for the investigator
to sit approximately 4 - 4.5 feet directly in front of the subject and for the interpreter to
sit 2 - 3 feet off to the investigator's side. The arrangement allows the investigator to
maintain a frontally-aligned posture with the subject which is important to transmit
trust, openness and interest. This positioning also invites the subject to talk to the
investigator rather than the interpreter. Finally, by sitting directly in front of the subject
the investigator is in the best position to observe the subject's nonverbal behavior.

Conversely, it is undesirable to position the interpreter directly in front of the subject.

This arrangement affords the deceptive suspect greater comfort because he is not
psychologically exposed to the investigator in much the same way that a guilty
suspect feels protected if the investigator is seated behind a desk or table.

63
Furthermore, if the investigator is not sitting directly in front of the subject, the
interpretation of various nonverbal behaviors such as posture alignment and eye
movements may be affected.

The one exception to this rule is when interviewing a subject who is deaf or hearing
impaired. Under this circumstance the subject needs a clear view of the signer's hand
movements and mouth and the interpreter should sit directly in front of the subject.
The investigator should be positioned directly to the side of the signer.

In some situations it may be appropriate to position the interpreter out of the subject's
sight, e.g., behind the subject. This arrangement emphasizes the investigator's
control over the subject and tends to increase the adversarial relationship between
the two. Consequently, this arrangement may be considered when the subject is in
custody and is offering little cooperation. Another occasion in which this may be a
desirable position for the interpreter is when the subject is familiar with the interpreter
and the investigator wants to minimize the psychological bond between the two.

Procedures

Prior to the interview the investigator should spend a few minutes briefing the
interpreter about the issue under investigation as well as the general procedures that
will be used during the interview. It may be appropriate to reassure the interpreter
that the suspect does not present a danger and that adequate security measures in
place. If the interpreter is familiar with the subject's cultural background, religious
beliefs or special status within the community the investigator should take advantage
of this information to help formulate interview questions and, in particular, to develop
an interrogation strategy.

During any formal interview it is our recommendation that the investigator prepare for
the interview by writing out, in abbreviated form, key questions that will be asked
during the interview. It will be beneficial for the interpreter to review these scripted
questions to help prepare for the translations and ask questions, if necessary, to
clarify the meaning of certain words.

Once the investigator and interpreter are seated in front of the suspect, the
investigator should introduce himself but not the interpreter. The goal is for the
suspect to perceive the interpreter as a disinterested, uninvolved party to the
conversation. The investigator should look at the subject when asking a question. If
this pattern is established from the outset of the interview, most subjects will also
direct their responses to the investigator rather than to the interpreter. If the subject
directs his response to the interpreter, the investigator should immediately interrupt
the response and instruct the subject to talk to him.

During the first several minutes of the interview the investigator should ask non-
threatening background questions which appear to have the purpose of identifying
the subject and obtaining general background information from him. The following are
examples of introductory questions:

"Please spell your first and last name for me."

"What do most people call you?"

64
"What is your present address?"
"How long have you lived there?"
"Who do you live there with?"
"How much education have you received?"
"Tell me about the school you attended."

In actuality, these questions serve a much more important function than simply
identifying the subject. First, introductory non-threatening questions establish a
communication pattern for the rest of the interview. That is, the investigator asks a
question, the interpreter translates the question, the subject responds to the question
(while facing the investigator), the interpreter translates the response and the
investigator writes down the essence of the subject's response.

Second, the initial asking of non-threatening questions allows the investigator to

develop a rapport with the subject. To conduct an effective interview requires that a
special relationship exist between the investigator and subject. Regardless of the
power or authority the investigator may hold over the subject, ultimately it is the
subject who decides whether to answer the investigator's questions. This rapport
involves a mutual understanding that the subject will not be physically harmed, that
the investigator is sincerely interested in what the subject has to say and that the
investigator has not judged the subject as a bad person.

Finally, starting the interview with non-threatening questions allows the investigator to
establish the subject's normal behaviors. This is especially important when
interviewing a person from a different culture. There are three primary assessments
of normative behaviors an investigator should make at the outset of the interview.
The first is the subject's normal level of eye contact, e.g., does the subject maintain
mutual gaze when answering non-threatening background questions? The second
assessment involves the subject's communication skills. This ranges from a gross
assessment of intelligence by evaluating vocabulary and comprehension to
assessments of unusual paralinguistic anomalies, e.g., talking very fast or slow, long
delays prior to answering a direct question. The final assessment is of the subject's
initial emotional state. During the first several minutes of the interview did the subject
appear composed, confident and interested or did the subject appear aloof,
detached, preoccupied, frightened, or angry? None of these initial demeanors serve
as a behavior symptom of guilt or innocence. However, the dynamics of the subject's
change in demeanor during the course of a 30 or 40 minute interview can be very
revealing in this regard.

In summary, a language barrier between a subject and investigator in a criminal

investigation can be largely overcome through the use of a competent interpreter and
by modifying the interview procedures. Because the accuracy of translations is
critical in the assessment of information during the interview, it is recommended that
these interviews be electronically recorded. It is important for the investigator to work
closely with the interpreter so that the interpreter knows exactly where to sit, what
issues will be covered during the interview and the basic interviewing procedures that
will be used. In this regard, especially during an interview that utilizes an interpreter it
is important for the investigator to begin the interview by asking several minutes of
non-threatening background questions.

65
The Significance of Identifying Precipitators during a Criminal Investigation
Jan/Feb 2006

The first step of any criminal investigation is factual analysis. This describes the
process of collecting and analyzing information and evidence surrounding a crime.
One of the goals of factual analysis is to develop a list of possible suspects based on
opportunity, access, motive or propensity. In many investigations factual analysis and
interrogation are enhanced by identifying precipitators that led up to the crime.

Thankfully for investigators, crimes are not a random event. Before a person decides
to commit a crime he goes through a specific thought process designed to
accomplish particular goals. There are many possible goals to consider when
committing a crime. Examples include: how can the offender gain access to the
victim or property; how can the offender avoid being caught; how can the offender
reap the most financial reward or psychological gain from the crime; will the
assistance of others be required to commit this crime and, what will be a plausible
cover-story to explain away possible evidence.

Even the simplest of criminal behaviors involve underlying decisions by the offender.
Consider a 14-year-old girl who shoplifts a $15.00 CD from a music store. This girl
made the conscious decision to steal that particular CD from that particular store at
that particular time and on that particular date. Events or circumstances that
contribute to these underlying decisions are referred to as precipitators of the crime.
To help identify precipitators an investigator should attempt to answer these three
questions about the crime under investigation:

(1) Why was this person or property selected to be the victim of this crime?

(2) Why was the crime committed on this date, time and location?

(3) Why was the crime committed in this manner?

In the shoplifting example, the girl met two friends at a shopping mall and they went
to a music store. While inside the store the girl was looking at a particular CD with the
intention of buying it because she liked the artist. She noticed that the store was very
busy and that there were only two clerks present. The girl knew that she had only
$20 in her purse which would not leave her with enough money to buy the CD and
purchase lunch with her friends. This information answers the first two questions. As
for the final question, the girl took the easiest route to accomplish her goal of
obtaining the CD without paying for it. Robbing the store or burglarizing the store to
obtain the CD were eliminated as being far too risky options. Each of these
circumstances and events represent precipitators to her crime. As this case
illustrates, identifying precipitators of a crime is a key aspect of factual analysis. This
is especially true when multiple possible suspects are developed during the course of
an investigation. By objectively listing the presence or absence of known
precipitators, suspects can often be ranked from least to most likely involved in a
criminal offense.

Identifying precipitators of a crime is also beneficial during the interrogation of the

guilty suspect. In the previous shoplifting case, consider that the desired CD was not

66
available in the store, that the girl had $50 in her wallet, and that the store had an
obvious security system. If any of these conditions existed the girl probably would not
have shoplifted the CD. This concept can be incorporated within an interrogation
theme and used to deflect blame away from the suspect. For example, the
investigator could explain to the shoplifter, "If your mom would have given you more
money that day, and if that store had a proper security system in place you never
would have been tempted to do this and I wouldn’t even be talking to you right now."

In an effort to organize this material, precipitators will be presented by addressing the

earlier mentioned three investigative questions. The suggested precipitators are
merely examples of possible circumstances or events and are hardly exhaustive. An
investigator should rely on experience and imagination to develop possible
precipitators for a given crime or suspect. A very useful source of information in this
regard is to specifically question suspects who have confessed to committing a
crime. By asking the suspect, "Why did you decide to steal that particular car at that
time and on that date?" the investigator will gain tremendous insight to the criminal
mind.

Why this victim?

At the outset of an investigation, one of the first questions an investigator should ask
himself is why was this person or property selected by the criminal. After all, the
criminal could have burglarized any of a hundred other homes, stolen any of
hundreds of other cars or robbed any of a hundred other people but did not. It is
extremely rare to encounter a random victim. Almost always there is something
unique that caused a particular person or property to be targeted for a crime, i.e., the
thief consciously selected a particular deposit to steal, the pedophile consciously
selected a particular child to molest, a particular man was selected to be shot. The
following are possible precipitators to consider:

Deposit - unusually large amount; deposit left unattended;

safe left open; person with immediate access to deposit
has pressing financial need

Burglary - home unlocked; no security system; occupants

obviously not home; located in a remote area.

Robbery - victim displaying money or wealth; victim being

vulnerable (alone, intoxicated, elderly, physically disabled)

Auto theft - keys left in the car; no security system; car

parked in an unsecured area; valuable car in bad
neighborhood

Rape - victim wearing provocative clothing; engaging in

friendly or intimate contact with suspect; allowing the
suspect some intimate contact; being vulnerable (alone,
lost)

67
 Child molestation - child seeks attention; being alone with
child; child instigates questions about sex; innocent
exposure or contact that led to fondling (stepping out of a
shower)

Why this date, time and location?

Consider that a fire is set in a warehouse at 10:00 PM on November 2nd. Because

this arson was an intentional act the location, time and date were all consciously
selected by the arsonist. The warehouse may have been selected so that the owner
could file an insurance claim on merchandise that he claimed was burned, but was
actually moved to another location. The time of 10:00 PM may have been selected to
make certain that noone was injured and to avoid any witnesses. Finally, November
2nd may have been selected because the last of the merchandise was moved out of
the warehouse that afternoon.

When answering this question a broad distinction can be made between

premeditated crimes (such as the previously mentioned arson) and spontaneous
crimes (the suspect striking his girlfriend during an argument). As a general guideline,
in a premeditated crime the offender gives much more conscious thought about
where and when to commit his crime. In a spontaneous crime, the events
immediately preceding the time in which the crime was committed become the most
important consideration.

Precipitators for premeditated crimes

arson - failing business; new regulations that would

require expensive updates; threats of unionization

homicide - discovery that spouse was having an affair;

wife not granting a desired divorce; financial need
(recently increasing death benefit on life insurance policy)

Embezzlement - gambling addiction; unusual medical

expenses; pay tuition for son or daughter’s education

Robbery - loss of a job; support drug addiction; unusual financial expense

Precipitators for Spontaneous Crimes

Emotional Precipitators

homicide/Assault - anger, humiliation, embarrassment

Theft/ burglary - greed, excitement

Arson (vandalism) - thrill, excitement

68
 Sexual arousal - seeing the victim partially
clothed; inadvertent physical contact with
the victim

Unusual opportunity caused by negligence -

leaving a safe unlocked, writing the
combination to the safe down in plain view;
not turning on a security system; leaving
keys in car

Stress: Loss of income; recently diagnosed

medical illness; divorce, death or illness of
loved one; legal proceedings (up-coming
trial)

Judgement Precipitators

Alcohol

Illegal drug use

Medications

Peer pressure

Financial Precipitators

Legal actions - threat of eviction, re-

possession of car, mortgage foreclosure;
bankruptcy proceedings; divorce papers

Unusual expenses - car repair; bail a friend out of jail; pay tuition; medical bill

Threats - threats of harm if gambling debt is

not paid; threat of garnished wages; threat
of public exposure

Date Factors

One of my first investigations involved the theft of an even million dollars from a
bank. The money was purposefully stolen on the Friday before Columbus day
because the thieves knew that the bank would be closed on Monday and the
discovery of theft would be delayed by an extra day. In many cases the significance
of the date of a crime only becomes apparent after the guilty suspect confesses.
Nonetheless, it is important to look for precipitators in the suspect’s life that may have
caused the crime to be committed on that particular date. Some precipitators to
consider in this area are:

Last day of work

69
Birthday or other celebration (alcohol consumption; peer pressure)

Change in job assignment, hours, position

Loss of access (no longer having high security clearance, alarm code)

Loss of opportunity (explosives being moved next week to a more secure area)

Wife leaving town (providing time alone with victim)

Time Factors

Statistics that track criminal behavior demonstrate various date and time correlations.
Most of these follow common sense. More outdoor rapes occur during warm months
(when people are outdoors), retail theft increases in November and December
(holiday shopping) and alcohol related crimes are more common on nights and
weekends when people are more likely to drink. The following are examples of
possible precipitators centered around the time in which a crime was committed:

Unusually busy or slow (retail theft, drug use during work hours)

Change in shift (confusion to open range of possible suspects)

Public transportation schedules (as a means to get to or from the crime scene)

Lack of supervision (temptation, opportunity)

Late at night - affected judgment from fatigue, alcohol or drug use

Victim’s schedule (going to bank with cash deposit at 6:00 each Friday)

Why was the crime committed in this manner?

With respect to the method selected to commit a crime, an initial distinction can be
made between crimes that are readily detected ($5000 deposit missing from a
manager’s safe) and crimes that involve an effort to prevent discovery
(embezzlement, medicare fraud, dumping a homicide victim’s body in a lake). When
a person not only commits a crime but also takes the time and effort to make the
detection of the crime difficult, that behavior alone strongly points to the individual
with the best opportunity and motive to commit the crime. Consequently, when a
crime is discovered inadvertently (hunters discovering a body in a shallow grave, a
surprise audit revealing a shortage in a teller’s drawer) or there is an effort to make
the crime appear accidental or an act of nature, the obvious suspect is usually the
person guilty of the crime.

Many crimes are readily detected and are committed in such a way as to conceal the
identity of the offender. For example, robbers usually make an effort to conceal their
identity and select a store where they are not well known; burglaries are committed

70
when the home is vacant and an arsonist is careful not to be seen lighting his fire.
When there is no effort to disguise the crime or make the crime difficult to discover,
the following precipitators may help answer the question, "Why was the crime
committed in this manner?":

Unusual access (discovering safe unlocked, keys left out,

security system turned off, security guard sleeping)

Unusual opportunity (returning to work to pick up a check

and discovering a deposit in manager’s office, coming
home from work early and discovering wife with lover).

Previous success using that particular MO: entering

unlocked windows of a home, pretending to have a gun in
a coat pocket during a robbery, distraction techniques
(calling in false fire reports on other side of town)

Because of their value during an investigation, precipitators should always be sought

during the course of an investigation. This starts with focused observation of the
crime scene where the investigator actively looks for answers to the questions: Why
was this victim selected?; Why was the crime committed on this date, time and
location? and, Why was the crime committed in this manner? Answers to these
questions should also be pursued by thoroughly questioning a victim or witness.
Precipitators should always be pursued during the interviews of possible suspects.
Innocent suspects will be comfortably speculating and theorizing about such things
as why a particular child was selected to be molested or why a home was burglarized
at 10:00 in the morning or how the thief was able to get product out of the warehouse
without getting caught. After all, the suspect is talking about someone else’s crime.
Guilty suspects are not comfortable talking about the crime they committed and
certainly do not want to reveal the precipitators that led up to their crime.
Consequently, during the interview of any person suspected of an act of wrong-doing,
the investigator should ask questions addressing precipitators. For example:

"Why do you think that store was selected to be robbed?

"Why do you think the fire was started at night?

"Why do you think no knife was found at the scene of the killing?

During an interview speculative questions are perceived significantly differently from

a guilty or innocent suspect, which results in completely different behavior symptoms.
An innocent suspect who is asked the question, "Why do you think this particular car
was stolen?" perceives the question as a hypothetical one and will predictably ponder
the question before answering it. Their response is often reflective and qualified, e.g.,
"Gosh I don’t know. Maybe because it was not in a garage or maybe because it was
expensive, I’m not sure." A guilty suspect, of course, knows exactly why he selected
that particular car to steal. To him, the question is not hypothetical, but rather quite
threatening. Typically guilty suspects respond to speculative questions during an
interview too quickly and exhibit a reluctance to offer an expansive answer, e.g.,
"How would I know?"

71
Occasionally guilty suspects will offer very detailed answers to speculative questions
because of a psychological phenomenon called introspection. Under this
circumstance the guilty suspect is revealing truthful information about their crime but
does not consider the information incriminating because it is merely "speculation.",
e.g., "Why do you think the driver of that car left the scene of the accident?" "Well, I
think the guy was drinking and already had a couple dui arrests and left because he
was afraid that he might go to jail."

In conclusion, identifying precipitators that led to the commission of a crime serves

several important purposes. First, it will assist during factual analysis to help identify
possible suspects and also rank order the suspects to help focus on the one most
likely guilty of the crime. Second, pursuing precipitators during an interview may
reveal behavior symptoms of a suspect’s guilt or innocence. Because precipitators
are so closely linked to the commission of the crime itself, they become valuable
persuasive material to use during an interrogation. Finally, once a suspect has
confessed to committing a particular crime, the investigator should actively elicit
precipitors that led to the commission of the crime. This information will not only help
corroborate the confession, but will also provide insight to criminal behavior which will
be helpful in future investigations.

Common Errors in Evaluating a Suspect’s Truthfulness December 2005

Over the years we have been consulted on cases in which an investigator was
absolutely convinced that a particular suspect was lying when, in fact, the person
was telling the truth. In other instances guilty suspects were able to get through an
interview without having their lies detected. Behavior symptom analysis is certainly
not 100% accurate. However, if proper techniques are employed in eliciting and
evaluating a person’s behavior, an investigator’s accuracy at detecting deception can
far exceed chance levels. On the other hand, if no specific procedures or protocols
are followed, studies have consistently reported low accuracies in detecting
deception based on observing another person’s behaviors.

For those who have attended our seminars this web tip will be a reminder of the
importance of being aware of variables that may affect a suspect’s behavior. For
investigators who have not received training in behavior symptom analysis, it should
serve as a warning of how easily a person’s behavior can be misinterpreted. To
increase the accuracy of detecting deception through behavior symptom analysis an
investigator should:

(1) Establish the subject’s baseline behaviors at the beginning of an interview

On several occasions investigators have reported that the reason they believed a
suspect was lying was because of poor eye contact. When these suspects were
subsequently interviewed in our office we found that many of them failed to exhibit
normal eye contact even when asked non-threatening background questions. In
some instances the suspect’s poor eye contact could be attributed to cultural
differences. In most cases, however, the cause for the suspect’s poor eye contact
was not readily apparent. It could have been the result of a shy or submissive
personality or perhaps an underlying neurological problem. Perhaps the suspect was
frightened by the fact that they were dealing with authority figures. Regardless, when

72
a suspect does not establish normal eye contact when spelling their last name or
giving their address, the investigator should not use the suspect’s poor eye contact
as an indication of guilt when the suspect is later asked about the crime under
investigation.

It only takes a few minutes at the outset of an interview to establish a suspect’s

normative behaviors by asking non-threatening background questions. Examples of
questions that can be asked include:

"Please spell your last name for me."

"What is your first name?"

"What do most people call you?"

"What is your current address?"

"How long have you lived there?"

"Who do you live there with?"

When the suspect is answering these introductory questions the investigator should
carefully observe the suspect’s eye contact (normal, poor, forced), communication
style (articulate, difficulty comprehending or speaking English, slow or rapid response
delivery) and emotional state (composed, unconcerned, frightened, angry,
withdrawn). Once these baseline behaviors are established the investigator will be in
a much better position to evaluate specific behavior symptoms that occur later during
the interview when the suspect answers questions about the issue under
investigation.

(2) Clearly define the purpose for the interview

A common cause for misleading deceptive behavior symptoms occurs because an

innocent suspect experiences anxiety as a result of some transgression unrelated to
the issue under investigation. Consider a situation where a police officer approaches
a man in an airport and pulls the man aside for questioning. The officer is interested
in determining whether the man is a terrorist but never explains the purpose for
questioning him. The man is not a terrorist but does have a number of unpaid parking
tickets as well as a pending court appearance for failure to make support payments.
If the officer asks general questions without clearly identifying the purpose for the
interview, it would be perfectly natural for the man to exhibit apparent deceptive
behavior symptoms.

In the airport example, it would be appropriate to explain that the man had been
randomly selected for additional screening to verify his identity. During the formal
interviews our staff conducts on individuals suspected of possible criminal conduct,
after the initial background questions are asked, the purpose for the interview is
clearly identified and the subject is then asked to state a position on that issue. One
possible statement would be as follows: "John, this afternoon I’ll be asking questions
about (issue under investigation). Some of the questions I’ll be asking I already know

73
the answer to. The most important thing is that you be completely truthful with me
before you leave today. Before we go any further, let me ask you, did you (commit
issue?)

(3) Question a suspect in a non-accusatory and non-threatening manner

Many behavior symptoms associated with deception represent the suspect’s efforts
to reduce anxiety or occur from the fear of being caught lying. However, an innocent
person may exhibit these same behaviors if he experiences anxiety as a result of
intimidation or fear of not being believed. If an investigator appears aggressive in his
posture (sitting three feet from the suspect with a forward lean) asks questions in an
accusatory tone ("You’re the pervert who did this, aren’t you!") or asks questions in a
rapid-fire approach, forcing the suspect to answer quickly, the innocent suspect is
bound to become protective nonverbally (put up barriers, break frontal alignment,
exhibit little or forced eye contact), be verbally guarded or defensive and may
become confused and offer inconsistent answers.

It is critical that a suspect’s behavior be interpreted in the context of the interaction

with the investigator. For example, there are a number of behavior symptoms which,
if they occur during a non-accusatory interview, are associated with deception.
However, these exact same behaviors may be an indication of truthfulness if they
occur during an accusatory interrogation. To achieve the greatest accuracy in
assessing whether or not a suspect is telling the truth the investigator should
evaluate that person’s behavior during a non-accusatory interview. An accusatory
interrogation should be reserved for suspects whose guilt has been reasonably
established.

(4) Elicit a sufficient sample of the subject’s behavior

It is amazing how people will listen to a 30 or 60 second segment of an interview on a

television news broadcast and form hard and fast judgments about the subject’s
truthfulness. In most circumstances it is not possible to accurately detect deception
based on analyzing a minute or two of a person’s behavior. No professional detection
of deception examiner would ever render an opinion of a person’s truthfulness based
on analyzing an interview that lasted only a few minutes.

The interviews our staff conduct last approximately 30 minutes in length and involve
dozens of questions relating to the issue under investigation. Many guilty suspects
are able to lie convincingly if they are only asked two or three questions about the
crime they committed. However, it becomes increasingly more difficult to lie
successfully if 15 or 20 questions are asked relating to a crime the suspect
committed. An innocent suspect, of course, has no difficulty answering an unlimited
number of questions about a crime he did not commit.

An interview designed to assess a person’s credibility should incorporate both

investigative questions as well as behavior provoking questions. Investigative
questions cover such things as the suspect’s opportunity and access to commit the
crime along with their motivation and propensity to commit the crime. Behavior
provoking questions, on the other hand, are designed to elicit different responses
from innocent or guilty suspects. For example, when innocent suspects are asked

74
how the investigation will come out on them they tend to express much more
confidence than when guilty suspects are asked that same question.

(5) Do not over-evaluate a suspect’s nonverbal behavior

It has been said that nonverbal behavior accounts for more than half of the
information communicated between two people. This finding does not mean that
nonverbal behavior is more representative of a person’s truthfulness than verbal or
paralinguistic behavior. It merely indicates that there is a tendency to place an
inordinate amount of weight on a person’s nonverbal behavior.

Of the three channels of communication, the nonverbal channel is the most subject to
internal and external influences that have nothing whatsoever to do with a person’s
truthfulness. During an interview conducted in a controlled environment, the
suspect’s posture provides perhaps the best insight to that person’s level of
confidence and emotional involvement. Research indicates that a subject’s
confidence and emotional involvement are statistically good predictors of truth or
deception. The presence or absence of illustrators (the hands moving away from the
body) as well as leg and foot behaviors can also provide meaningful information for
detecting deception.

Adaptor behaviors (the hands coming in contact with the body, e.g., touching the
nose, scratching an arm, wringing the hands)) have the most complex origins and are
often erroneously associated with lying. Especially when evaluating adaptor behavior,
the investigator needs to establish behavioral consistency before considering a
particular movement or gesture as an indication of deception. In other words, if a
suspect scratches his neck one time when answering a question about committing a
crime the behavior is probably meaningless. However, if a suspect establishes a
pattern where he frequently scratches his body when denying involvement in a crime,
the consistency of that behavior indicates that it is significant.

In conclusion, detecting whether or not a person is lying based on observing that

person’s behavior is not a simple manner of identifying certain telltale symptoms of
deception. Indeed, there are no unique behaviors that reliably indicate if a person is
telling the truth or lying. However, if the preceding guidelines are followed when
conducting an interview and interpreting the subject’s behavioral responses to
interview questions, an investigator can achieve accuracies far above chance levels.

Responding to A Suspect’s Request to See Evidence During an Interrogation

November 2005

It is rare to conduct an interrogation under circumstances where the investigator has

absolute proof of the suspect’s guilt. At the outset of most interrogations there is
merely circumstantial or testimonial evidence which points to a suspect’s probable
involvement in the crime. The purpose for the interrogation is two fold: First, it is an
attempt to learn the truth from the suspect, i.e., did this person really commit the
crime? Second, If the suspect does confess, the investigator must then develop
details about the suspect’s crime to corroborate the confession and to be used as
evidence in a court of law.

75
Most guilty suspects will certainly not tell the truth if the investigator openly
acknowledges that a confession is needed to develop evidence to prove the
suspect’s guilt. Consequently, an interrogation relies extensively on pretense and
innuendo. For an interrogation to be successful, the suspect must be convinced that
the investigator already knows that he committed the crime.

There are a number of tactics an investigator uses to convince the suspect that his
guilt is already known. At the outset of the interrogation the investigator tells the
suspect that the evidence clearly indicates that he is the person who committed the
crime. The investigator then makes a transition from the focus of the interview, which
was whether or not the suspect committed the crime, to a new unanswered question,
which is to learn the circumstances that led to the suspect’s decision to commit the
crime. Throughout this procedure the investigator attempts to dominate the
conversation and makes no reference to specific evidence against the suspect (since
there is usually no definitive evidence to present).

As the guilty suspect listens to the investigator’s confrontation statement and the
stated reason for the interrogation (to find out the circumstances that led up to the
crime) his mind is focused on one question: "Does the investigator really know that I
committed this crime?" The suspect’s first tactic will be to deny involvement in the
crime. The investigator will counter this by confidently restating his certainty that the
suspect did commit the crime. This volley may go back and forth a few times before
the suspect realizes that the investigator is not presenting any proof of his guilt. This
realization invariably leads the suspect to make a statement such as, "What evidence
do you have?" or, "Why do you think I’m the one who did this?"

When a suspect specifically asks about incriminating evidence during an

interrogation the investigator must recognize that the suspect is actively looking for
something tangible to attack. Consequently, this is generally not a good time to bring
up specific evidence. The following dialogue illustrates the dangers of doing so:

S: "What evidence do you have that I did this?"

I: "You don’t have an alibi for last Friday; you’ve got a prior record plus you failed the
polygraph!

S: "Listen, there are probably 10,000 people in this city who were alone last Friday
night and I’m sure that hundreds of them have a prior record. As far as the polygraph
goes, that machine is not 100% accurate which is why it is not accepted as evidence
in court. You don’t have a thing on me!

Obviously, this interrogation is unlikely to result in a confession. The following

responses have been used effectively by our staff to respond to the suspect’s request
for evidence during an interrogation:

Arguing Against Self Interest

"I would love to sit down with you and show you, piece by piece, all of
the evidence we have collected in this case, but it is against
department policy for me to do that. Eventually, you will be able to see

76
 all of the evidence but by that time my report will be turned in. That’s
why I’m talking to you now."

The above response is our standard response for most suspects who request to see
evidence during an interrogation. It starts off with the persuasive tactic of arguing
against self interest, e.g., "I wish I could show you all of the evidence. That would
make my job really easy." It then offers a plausible explanation for not revealing
evidence while, at the same time, making reference to the evidence (you will be able
to see the evidence eventually). The response concludes by emphasizing the
importance for the suspect to tell the truth at this time, which is also desirable.

Attitude Assessment

"The whole reason I’m talking to you is to find out what your attitude is
about this thing. If I have to lay out all the evidence before you tell the
truth that tells me you’re a common criminal who doesn’t even deserve
an opportunity to explain your side of the story. I had a guy in here on
Monday who had stolen a purse from a lady and then grabbed the
wallet from the purse and left the purse on the street. I was talking to
him just like I’m talking to you and he says, ‘Why do you think I’m the
one who took that lady’s wallet?’ I didn’t tell him that we lifted his
fingerprints from the purse and that the lady identified him in a photo
lineup. If I reveal the evidence that we have against a person then I
can’t evaluate their attitude about what they did."

This response is appropriate for suspects who are emotional offenders and exhibit
persistent but weak denials. The implication of the investigator’s response is that
somehow the suspect’s attitude will be important for people to know. This concept is
nicely reinforced with a third person theme. Hopefully, The suspect will not want to be
like the other suspect who left without telling the truth.

Appealing to Logic

"I’m sure there are people you know well enough that when they didn’t
tell you the truth you knew. Maybe they were friends or family members
but when they didn’t tell you the truth you could tell, right? Well, that’s
what I’m trained in. That’s what I do for a living. I’m not a goodcook. I
can’t build a house or fix a car. But I am very good at what I do which is
telling when someone is telling the truth."

This response is effective for educated suspects with higher levels of social
responsibility. These suspects rely on their ability to read people in their jobs and
relationships and the logic of the investigator’s statement makes perfect sense to
them. The elicited agreement that the suspect can tell when others lie is an important
part of selling this argument. In essence, the investigator is saying that because the
suspect can tell when others are lying through observing behavior, that the
investigator also has that ability.

In summary, because at the outset of interrogation an investigator often lacks

substantial evidence to prove a suspect’s guilt, contemporary interrogation

77
techniques minimize reference to evidence against a suspect. As a result, suspects
frequently request to know what the evidence is that proves their guilt. In most
instances the investigator will lose credibility, and therefore the ability to obtain a
confession, if the available evidence is revealed. Consequently, during an
interrogation the investigator must credibly sidestep the suspect’s request to see the
evidence against them.

The Significance of Specific Denials During Interviews and Interrogations

October 2005

Recently, I reviewed a videotaped interview of an 17-year-old suspect who was being

questioned about starting a fire that burned down his parent’s home. During the
interview the investigator asked the punishment question: "What do you think should
happen to the person who started the fire inside your home?" The suspect’s
response was, "A person who starts a house on fire should be sent to jail." My initial
interpretation of this response was that it represented a concerned attitude (harsh
judgement against the guilty) and was, therefore, more indicative of an innocent
suspect.

However, the preponderance of this suspect’s behavior throughout the interview

clearly supported deception. He had a static and rigid posture, expressed unhelpful
and unrealistic attitudes, engaged in erasure behavior after denying starting the fire
and offered an early denial when asked if he did anything that may have caused the
fire. The suspect was therefore interrogated and eventually confessed that the
morning of the fire he was flicking lit matches toward a sofa (out of boredom) which
caused the sofa to start on fire. Being unable to extinguish the fire, the suspect
panicked and ran to school without reporting the fire to anyone.

After hearing the actual circumstances of the fire, the suspect’s earlier response to
the "punishment" question made perfect sense. The suspect’s response only
addressed a narrow aspect of the investigator’s original question, e.g., a person who
starts a house on fire should be sent to jail. The suspect, of course, did not start the
house on fire, only a sofa. When a suspect denies a narrow aspect of the
investigator’s question it is called a specific denial.

An investigator must remember that the guilty suspect knows exactly what he did or
did not do during the commission of a crime. To avoid an outright lie, a guilty suspect
may offer a specific denial both during an interview or interrogation. These
responses, if interpreted literally, are truthful statements so the suspect may not
reveal any deceptive nonverbal behavior symptoms. Consequently, the investigator
must rely on careful listening skills to identify specific denials.

Recognizing when a suspect has offered a specific denial assists the investigator in
two ways. First, when a specific denial is offered during an interview it alerts the
investigator that the suspect is withholding information to the interview question.
Under this circumstance, the investigator needs to ask follow-up questions that
address what the suspect has not denied. As an example, consider that an employee
is asked, "Have you use any illegal drugs during work hours?" and the employee’s
response is, "I never smoked any dope in the building during work hours." This
specific denial should stimulate the following interview questions:

78
"Have you used any illegal drugs outside of the building during work hours?"

"Have you used any illegal drugs prior to coming to work?"

"Have you used any illegal drugs during lunch hour at work?"

"Have you used any cocaine during work hours?"

The second benefit of recognizing a specific denial is that the statement often
provides insight to the suspect’s crime. Under this circumstance, the investigator may
have to adjust statements made during an interrogation. During our training seminars
I present a case where the owner of a parking garage discovered that one of his six
managers was embezzling money by destroying backup tickets issued to customers.
We started the investigation by interviewing the manager with the longest tenure,
believing that he was probably not involved in the theft. However, this manager’s
behavior clearly indicated deception so the investigator returned to the room and
began an interrogation. After several minutes of listening to the investigator’s theme
the suspect leaned forward and emphatically stated the following: "Listen, I have
never stolen any money by destroying backup tickets. That is stupid. They check
records. You’re committing suicide by destroying backup tickets!"

The investigator recognized that the suspect was not denying stealing money, but
rather, denying stealing money by destroying backup tickets. The investigator
responded to this specific denial in the following manner, "I’m not saying you
destroyed backup tickets. In fact, I’m sure you would never do that. All I’m saying is
that you ended up with some of the company’s money and we just have to figure out
how much it would be." Once the interrogation addressed what the suspect actually
did, the suspect’s denials stopped and in ten minutes he was adding up the total
amount of money he stole by not turning in customer payments (a theft the employer
was not even aware was occurring).

The following are other examples of specific denials that provide possible insight to
the suspect’s crime. The portion of the response that makes it a specific denial is
underlined. In brackets, following each response, are possible interpretations of the
response.

"No one ever gave me the combination to the safe." [the suspect found
the safe open or discovered the combination written down somewhere.]

"I did not sell three nickel bags of marijuana!" [The suspect sold four
nickel bags or two dime bags.]

"I did not hot wire that car." [The keys were in the car or someone else
hot wired the car.]

"I did not hit her with anything!" [The suspect punched, choked or
kicked the victim with his arms or legs.]

"My wife was in a great mood at dinner." [After dinner they had a fight]

79
 "When I was transferred to this department I was not given the security
code." [The suspect obtained the security code at some point after
being transferred.]

In conclusion, to avoid telling an outright lie, suspects may deny some narrow aspect
a question or allegation. This behavior is referred to as a specific denial. When a
suspect offers a specific denial to an interview question, the investigator should ask
follow-up questions that address what the suspect is not denying. If specific denials
are heard during an interrogation they often provide insight to the suspect’s crime.
Under this circumstance, the investigator may need to modify statements made
during the interrogation to accommodate the specific denial.

If a Lie is Repeated Often Enough, Can The Person Come to Believe That The
Lie Is True? September 2005

During our seminars participants ask many interesting questions about the
psychology of lying and factors that affect lie detection. A common question relates to
the effects of repeating a false statement. Specifically, if a person tells the same lie
over and over could the individual eventually come to believe the lie? We all have
observed suspects who, based on analysis of the evidence, are obviously guilty of
the crime yet display minimal deceptive behavior symptoms when they deny
involvement in the crime. Has the suspect convinced himself that he did not commit
the crime?

To answer this question it is important first to define exactly what is meant by a lie.
Within the science of detection of deception, a lie is a statement that the person
knows is false and is designed to benefit the person making the statement.
Consequently, not all untrue statements represent a lie. For example, I recently
talked to my brother about an incident that occurred during a spring break we took
more than 20 years ago. He was convinced the incident occurred during a trip to
Albuquerque. I was equally certain that the event occurred twelve months later when
we traveled to Tennessee. Obviously, one of our recollections is not factual, but that
person cannot be considered as lying because neither of us is knowingly making a
false statement nor are we receiving any personal benefit by making the statement.
The reason this is important in answering our question is that, by detection of
deception standards, if a person actually believes as true a statement which in fact is
false, it is no longer a lie. With this in mind, the answer to the question posed above
really relates to the effect repetition has on the integrity and clarity of a person's
memory.

There is no question that repetition increases recall. We probably all memorized

multiplication and addition tables through repetitive use of flash cards. It is also well
documented that repetition is a significant factor in altering beliefs or attitudes, e.g.,
advertisements, propaganda, social values, etc. However, neither of these repetitive
efforts describe the context of generating a knowingly false statement for personal
benefit. To put this in proper context, consider that a boy was playing with matches
and burned down his parents’ home. The boy repeatedly lies to his parents, friends
and the police about playing with matches or being responsible for the fire. Over
time, could the boy’s repeated lies cause him to believe that he did not start the fire?

80
The answer is closely tied to the emotional state experienced at the time of an event.
I have used the following class exercise very effectively to illustrate this relationship. I
request that students write down five memories from their first 10 years of life. This
usually takes a while as the students reflect back over many years. I then have the
students write down the emotion they experienced at the time of each event. This is
very easy for them to do and they readily write down an emotional state associated
with their memory. It is curious that most of the reported emotions are negative such
as fear, embarrassment, shame, sorrow and guilt. Evidently, the joy a ten-year-old girl
experiences during a birthday party is not burned nearly as deep in her memory as
the fear she experienced when, that same year, she got lost in the woods on a
camping trip.

Most casual memories do erode over time and may be susceptible to alteration
through suggestion, repetition or false association. But when a memory is directly
connected to an intense emotional state, it tends to be much more rigid and
psychologically indelible. This describes the circumstances of most criminal acts.
When the previously mention boy burned down his parents’ home, in all likelihood, he
experienced tremendous fear and guilt as a result of his actions. This intense
emotional state will cement the negative memory in his brain. Regardless of the
number of times he denies being responsible for starting the fire, if he experienced a
significant emotional state when he started it, it is highly unlikely that he would come
to believe that he did not start the fire.

This explanation introduces a new question. What if a person who commits a crime
does not experience a significant emotional state at the time of the crime? One
circumstance that may lead to this condition is a person who is so intoxicated or
under the influence of drugs as to greatly inhibit their emotional arousal at the time of
the crime. The most common cause for this, however, is that the nature of an incident
or event was non-emotional. Consider a wife who states that her husband arrived
home from work at 6:30 PM last Friday. Because there was no strong emotional state
associated with the time he arrived home, her memory in this area is malleable and,
therefore, could erode with time and repetition. Each time she tells someone that her
husband arrived home at 6:30 PM, she is more and more convinced that he did
arrive home at 6:30. The same cause can be cited for the earlier mentioned
difference between the recollections my brother and I had about the spring break we
took together. The disputed incident was not associated with any intense emotions.

What then accounts for the apparent lack of deceptive behavior symptoms exhibited
from some suspects who have repeatedly lied about committing a crime? The
behavior symptoms investigators associate with lying have little to do with a suspect’s
feeling of guilt or remorse. Rather, they relate to the fear of being caught lying and
subsequently suffering the consequences of their crime. Each time a guilty suspect
lies successfully and escapes the consequences of his act he is fortified in his belief
that he will not be punished. In essence, he becomes more confident telling the lie
and his fear of being detected lying decreases. The more confident a suspect is in his
ability to evade detection, the fewer deceptive behavior symptoms he will exhibit
when he lies.

The question posed at the outset of this article was whether or not a suspect who
repeatedly lied about committing the crime could come to believe that he did not

81
commit the crime. If the crime in question resulted in a significant emotional state the
answer to this question is, in all probability, no. Repeating a statement that the
person knows is not true does not change the liar’s perception of reality, e.g., the
person still knows that he is lying. What probably does occur is that the person
becomes more convincing in telling the lie because of repeated success at not being
caught lying.

Evaluating the Suspect Who Accepts Some Responsibility for the Crime August
2005

During the course of interviewing a suspect who is guilty of committing a crime it is

not uncommon for the suspect to acknowledge some level of responsibility for
committing the crime. While the suspect’s statement falls short of an admission of
guilt, in many situations it becomes a behavior symptom supporting the suspect’s
probable guilt. Examples of these circumstances include the following cases:

1. A teller who stole $1000 from his cash drawer openly acknowledged leaving
his cash drawer unlocked and unattended thus creating the opportunity for the
theft to occur. The teller went so far as to suggest that he should resign his
position because of his negligence.
2. An employee who stole $200 in money from an evidence room at a police
department accounted for the shortage by claiming not only that the money
was accidentally thrown away, but that she would have been the person who
threw it away.
3. A grandfather accused of fondling his granddaughter’s vagina openly
acknowledged that he did accidentally put his hand down her panties when
the two were wrestling on the floor.
4. An employee who started a fire inside a warehouse admitted that, because he
had smoked in the vicinity where the fire started, there was a strong possibility
that one of his cigarettes may have started the fire.

Accepting responsibility for a crime seems contradictory to the attitudes most guilty
persons display during an interview. Typically, a guilty suspect tries to distance
himself from the crime he committed. The suspect often attempts to minimize his
motive or access to commit the crime and may place himself far away from the crime
scene. Why then do some guilty suspects closely associate themselves with the
crime they committed to the extent of accepting some level of responsibility for the
commission of the crime?

One possible reason is that it represents an attempt to offer an innocent explanation

for the reported crime (inadvertent contact with the granddaughter’s vaginal area,
careless use of smoking material, accidentally throwing money away.) By offering this
innocent excuse, the guilty suspect hopes that the investigator will conclude that no
crime was committed and the investigation will be terminated. Especially when a
guilty suspect is caught in a web of circumstantial evidence there is often an attempt
to offer an innocent explanation to excuse away evidence, e.g., "Yes, I did sleep with
boys but there was no sexual touching. The boys may have consumed alcohol but
the alcohol was not intended to reduce their sexual inhibitions."

82
In many of these cases, however, there may be another underlying motive. After all,
the arsonist could have said that the fire was accidentally started by "someone’s"
cigarette, or the theft from the evidence room could have been accounted for by
"someone" accidentally throwing the money away. Why would the guilty suspect go
so far as to accept personal responsibility for the crime? By accepting some level of
personal responsibility for the crime, the suspect relieves guilt associated with
committing the crime which, in turn, will reduce the suspect’s fear of detection.

To illustrate this effect, consider that my son was driving his girlfriend home from
school in our new car. To show off his driving skills my son speeds around a corner
and side-swipes a parked car. In a frightened state of mind he drives away from the
accident. Our new car has a three foot crease down its side and my son has to make
a decision. He quickly eliminates telling the truth because that would result in
negative consequences (probably losing his driving privileges). He could claim
complete ignorance and wait for me to discover the damage but that option would
involve significant lying accompanied with the greatest level of guilt. He could tell me
that the car was somehow damaged while parked at school but that would result in
very thorough questioning by me, which he is anxious to avoid.

Psychologically, the best strategy for my son to take would be to tell me that he
exercised poor judgment by parking too close to the exit lanes in the school parking
lot, which caused another car to side-wipe our car. Because of his admission against
self interest I would accept this explanation at face value. As icing on the cake, my
son might accept further responsibility by offering to pay for some of the damage. At
that point, swelling with pride because I had raised such an honest and forthright son,
I would reassure him that our insurance will cover the cost of the damage and give
him the keys to our other car.

Does this mean that anytime a person accepts some responsibility for an act of
wrong-doing that it is an indication of that person’s guilt? Of course not. During our
training seminars I present a case where a night manager at a hotel claimed to have
inadvertently left a ring of keys out on a desk. Her explanation for the theft is that
someone discovered the keys and used one of them to steal money from a safe
deposit box. Who is our #1 suspect in this case? Obviously the night manager.
However, during her interview she never attempted to use her negligence as an
excuse for the theft. In fact, she acknowledged routinely leaving the keys out and that
the night the theft occurred was no different than many others. The night manager’s
innocence was verified when another employee confessed to finding the keys and
using one of them to steal the money.

The primary difference between this innocent suspect and the previously mentioned
guilty ones is not that the night manager’s actions may have contributed to the
commission of the crime, but rather, that she did not use her negligence as an
excuse for the crime occurring. Another telling difference is the manner in which she
brought up her negligence. While she did not lie about failing to secure the ring of
keys, she was reluctant to reveal this violation of policy. The previously mentioned
guilty suspects almost appeared anxious to accept personal responsibility for the
crime and, in each instance, volunteered the information before being specifically
asked about possible negligent behavior.

83
A behavior related to accepting personal responsibility for the commission of a crime
is the suspect who expresses regrets during the interview. Examples we have
encountered include a husband who blamed himself for his wife’s murder because he
did not install a security system, as well as a number of parents who stated that they
felt responsibility for their child being sexually molested because they naively trusted
the molester. Similarly, many suspects have expressed regret at not intervening with
a loved-one’s chemical dependence, gang affiliation or choice of friends. In these
cases, the suspects have been innocent of involvement in the crime under
investigation. Consequently, expressions of such regrets should not be considered a
behavior symptom of guilt. Especially when a crime involves great personal loss, it is
human nature for an innocent person to go through a stage of self-incrimination
where the person says to himself, "If only I did such and such, (the crime) never
would have happened."

In conclusion, when a suspect makes a statement that accepts some responsibility

for the commission of a crime, it can be a behavior symptom indicating that person’s
possible involvement in the offense. This is particularly true if the statement offers an
innocent explanation for the circumstance that brought about the investigation. It
should also be considered suspicious when a suspect acknowledges that a crime
was committed but appears almost anxious to accept some level of responsibility for
its commission. Conversely, it is not unusual for innocent suspects to express regrets
concerning some aspect of their behavior relative to the commission of someone
else’s crime. Clearly, a distinction must be made between accepting personal
responsibility for a crime, e.g., "When I was cleaning my gun it accidentally went off
and shot my wife" and the suspect who expresses regrets, e.g., "If I would have kept
my gun locked up this never would have happened!"

The Use of Follow-Up Questions During an Interview July 2005

The primary goal of an interview is to develop meaningful information from a subject.

The first step in this process is to ask the right questions. However, merely asking the
right questions will not guarantee that a subject will tell the truth. To learn the truth or
to elicit behavior symptoms indicating probable deception it is often necessary to ask
follow-up questions. While there are occasions when a particular response calls for a
unique follow-up question, over the years we have observed that many responses to
interview questions fit a particular category and, furthermore, that certain categories
of answers suggest a particular follow-up question. Using the following rules, the
investigator will walk out of an interview room with much more meaningful
information.

Rule #1 When the subject’s response to the initial question is evasive, find something
within the response to agree with, and re-ask the original question.

Q: "Did you drive the company truck at all yesterday?"

R: "I didn’t have any deliveries to make."

FO: "I understand that you weren’t assigned any deliveries yesterday,
but did you drive the company truck yesterday."

84
Principle: When a suspect evades a direct response to the investigator’s question,
this is an indication that the question caused anxiety within the subject. Because of
this, the investigator certainly does not want to leave that area of the interview and
pursue other topics, e.g., "Do you know who drove the truck?"; "Did you see any
damage to the truck yesterday?" Rather, the investigator should re-ask the initial
question in an effort to elicit a definitive response. To do this in a tactful manner, it is
often helpful to introduce the follow-up question with a statement that agrees with
some aspect of the subject’s original response.

Rule #2 When the subject’s response includes an inappropriate memory qualifier

ask, "Is it possible..."

Q: "Have you handled a gun in the last two weeks?"

R: "I don’t believe so."

FO: "Is it possible you handled a gun in the last two weeks?"

Principle: There are a number of common phrases referred to as memory qualifiers.

Examples include, "To the best of my knowledge," "As far as I remember," "I believe,"
and, "If my memory serves me correctly." If the investigator’s question addresses a
common occurrence that happened in the distant past, the subject’s use of a memory
qualifier may be very appropriate. However, when the subject should reasonably
know the answer to the investigator’s question but, nonetheless, incorporates a
memory qualifier within their response, this is an indication that the subject is either
not a bold liar or is concerned that evidence may surface that will contradict his
response. In either situation, it is often productive to ask the hypothetical follow-up
question "Is it possible." In many instances, this follow-up question has resulted in the
subject acknowledging that possibility.

Rule #3 When the subject offers a specific denial, ask follow-up questions that
address what the subject is not denying.

Q: "Did you cause the injuries to your wife?"

A: "I didn’t strike her with anything!"

FO: "Did you hit her with your hand or fist?"

FO: "Did you push her down?"

FO: "Did you kick her?"

Principle: A guilty suspect knows exactly what he did or did not do during the
commission of his crime. To avoid lying to the investigator’s questions, the suspect
may deny some narrow aspect of the question. This is called a specific denial. In the
above example, the husband is probably telling the truth when he specifically denies
striking his wife with anything, e.g., an object. However, this does not mean that he is
not responsible for causing his wife’s injuries. The investigator needs to ask follow-up

85
questions that address other possible ways that the husband may have caused the
injuries.

Rule # 4 When a suspect asks the investigator to clarify an interview question, in

most cases the original question should be repeated word for word. The one
exception to this may be if the investigator’s original question was confusing or
ambiguous.

Q: "Were you involved in an accident last Friday on Madison Street?"

R: "What exactly do you mean?"

FO: "What I’m asking is whether or not you were involved in an

accident last Friday on Madison Street."

Principle: The most common reason for a subject to ask an investigator to clarify a
question during an interview is to buy time to formulate a non-incriminating response.
In other words, when a subject requests that a straight-forward question be clarified
this is typical of the guilty person. In addition, a subject may request that an interview
question be clarified in the hope that the clarified question will be an easier question
to lie to. Consequently, unless the original question was confusing or ambiguous, the
"clarified" question should be identical to the original one.

Rule #5 When a subject’s response includes a time-gap phrase such as "The next
thing I recall," or, "Before I knew it." the investigator should pursue details
surrounding the time period just before the use of the time-gap phrase.

Q: "Explain how you received your injuries."

A: "I was minding my own business and this cop came over and hassled me. The
next thing I knew I was on the ground and he was kicking me in the stomach."

Q: "Tell me more about what happened just prior to you being on the ground."

Principle: Time gap phrases are red flags within a response which indicate that the
subject is consciously leaving something out of the response. This edited information
may be sensitive, embarrassing or incriminating. To evaluate the significance of the
edited information, the investigator needs to draw out more detailed information
concerning that portion of the subject’s response.

Rule #6 When a suspect makes any admission to the investigator’s question, the
automatic follow-up question should be, "Other than (admission) ..."

Q: "Have you ever been asked to leave a job?"

R: "When I was sixteen I worked in a sandwich shop that was about seven miles from
my home and I had a hard time getting to work on time. After being late on a number
of occasions they let me go."

FO: "Other than the sandwich shop, have you been asked to leave any other job."

86
R: "Actually I was. For a short period of time I worked as a messenger and there was
some confusion about what happened to some money I was supposed to deliver."

FO: "Other than those two jobs have you been asked to leave any other jobs?"

R: "Come to think of it there was a misunderstanding with my last job..."

Principle: Omission (failure to volunteer the entire truth) is such a common

occurrence in our society that it is not even legally considered a lie. To be guilty of
perjury or obstruction of justice, it must be proven that the defendant knowingly
offered false information. The subtle distinction between lies of omission and
commission is not lost on subjects during an investigative interview. Without
question, the easiest way to keep an investigator from learning the whole truth is by
offering a small part of the truth through a non-incriminating statement. To learn the
whole truth, the investigator must stick with the present line of questioning until the
suspect offers a definitive denial.

Electronic Recording of Interviews and Interrogations June 1, 2005

It has long been recognized that a confession is the strongest piece of evidence a
prosecutor can produce against a defendant in a court of law. Consequently, any
competent defense attorney will attempt to have a confession suppressed by
attacking his client’s Miranda waiver or the police interrogation tactics. Historically,
these efforts have not proven to be very successful. However, over the last fifteen
years there have been a number of well publicized cases in which verified innocent
suspects did confess during a police interrogation. The legal tide of credibility has
clearly shifted in that a police officer’s testimony is no longer accepted at face value.
In an effort to verify what actually occurred during a police interrogation, a number of
states have required that, under certain circumstances, police interviews and
interrogations must be electronically recorded. As an example, this year the state of
Illinois required that all custodial homicide interviews and interrogations be
electronically recorded.

While the law enforcement community was initially skeptical about electronic
recording, over time procedures were developed to accommodate this new practice.
A 2004 survey of investigators from the states of Alaska and Minnesota, which
require that all custodial interviews and interrogations be electronically recorded,
found that most investigators had favorable experiences with electronic recording.
Recognizing these benefits, many law enforcement agencies have taken the initiative
to create their own internal policies requiring electronic recording of interviews and
interrogations. A recent survey found that 238 of departments in the United States
electronically record interviews and interrogations.

Despite the impressive numbers cited in the Sullivan survey, the fact remains that
most law enforcement agencies do not electronically record interviews or
interrogations. Recent trends across the United States suggest that an increasing
number of states will require electronic recording of interviews and interrogations.
Would your department be prepared to enact a policy that required all future custodial

87
interviews and interrogations be electronically recorded? Even if your investigators
are conducting text-book perfect interviews and interrogations, there are a multitude
of other issues a department has to consider with respect to electronic recording.
Examples of these issues include:

What is the best camera angle for recording?

Where should the microphone be located?

What recording medium (VHS, DVD) should be used?

What recording equipment is needed?

How should back-up tapes be made and stored?

Should the suspect be notified that a recording is being made?

What procedural changes need to be made to accommodate recording?

How should the investigator describe various interrogation techniques in court?

Over the past several years, two of our staff (Dave Buckley and Brian Jayne) have
researched electronic recording practices among police agencies. In addition to
reviewing literature, prosecutors were interviewed to gain insight on their experience
with electronically recorded interrogations, inter-department policies and budgets
relating to electronic recording were reviewed and experts who installed recording
equipment for police departments were interviewed. All of this information is compiled
in a book titled Electronic Recording of Interrogations.

We believe that if done properly, electronic recording of interviews and interrogations

can serve to maintain the integrity of confession evidence in a court of law. However,
the same video tape that refutes the defendant’s claim that he was never advised of
his Miranda rights and that the investigator punched him in the stomach can also be
used to argue that the investigator offered an implied promise of leniency or
threatened the suspect with inevitable consequences. In other words, the electronic
recording is a double edged sword that requires investigators to not only know which
interrogation practices and techniques are considered proper or improper, but also to
be able to educate a court during testimony to explain why a particular statement was
made and why the statement would not be apt to cause an innocent person to
confess.

2005 Use Caution When Expressing The Urgency For A Suspect To Confess
May, 2005

It is human nature to put off unpleasant decisions. Being in my 50's, I know that I
need to eventually get long-term care insurance. Even though I fully intend to do this,
I can come up with all sorts of reasons why I do not have to do it today. Many guilty
suspects experience the same thought process during an interrogation. The suspect
accepts the fact that the investigator knows that he committed the crime and the
suspect is fully aware that the right thing to do is to tell the truth. However, because

88
telling the truth will result in adverse consequences, the suspect decides to put off the
unpleasant task of confessing. To counter this tendency of human nature, it is a
common interrogation tactic for the investigator to express an urgency for the suspect
to tell the truth now.

Stressing the urgency of making a decision is hardly unique to criminal interrogation.

One of the cornerstones of successful sales is to persuade the consumer to make a
buying decision at the present time. Some of these tactics reward immediacy in
making a decision. For example, temporary price reductions for a product or making
the product unavailable after a particular time period, e,g, "These will never be sold at
this price again, and there are only 25 left!". If compliance is the objective, a very
effective persuasive tactic is to punish delayed behaviors. For example, if a utility bill
is not paid on time the consumer must pay a higher rate. Similarly, for each day a
student is late turning in an assignment, the grade is decreased by one letter. These
common-place examples illustrate that the persuasive tactic of urgency can shape
behaviors either through rewards or punishments.

During an interrogation, the investigator is restricted from engaging in certain types of

rewards or punishments, but certainly there is no blanket prohibition banning any
type of reward or punishment. While it is not permissible is to reward a suspect with a
promise of leniency in exchange for a confession, but it is certainly permissible to
reward a suspect who confesses by expressing understanding toward their decision
to commit the crime and even complementing them on their decision to tell the truth.
Also, it is not permissible to punish the suspect who maintains his innocence by
slamming his head against a wall but it is permissible to punish continued denials by
looking away from the suspect and remaining silent until the suspect stops talking.

In a similar manner, there are certain interrogation statements relating to expressing

the urgency to confess that are not permissible and others which are permissible. An
example of an improper application of this technique occurred during the
interrogation of a suspect who was accused of murdering his girlfriend’s two-year-old
child. In this case the investigator told the suspect that the interrogation represented
his only chance to let the jury and court know the circumstances surrounding the
death of the child. The court ruled the suspect’s subsequent confession involuntary
because the ‘Now or Never’ interrogation technique represented an impermissible
extrinsic falsehood (existing outside the realm of the police investigation) in that the
suspect certainly could have later presented a defense in court explaining the
circumstances of the child’s death to a judge or jury.

There are other occasions where an investigator’s expressed urgency for the suspect
to confess may lead to a suppressed confession. For example, the investigator who
tells the suspect that if he does not confess right now he will face an additional
charge of obstruction of justice, or telling the suspect that if he confesses now he will
be given a reduced sentence. There is nothing revolutionary in these examples, as
threats and promises have always been prohibited during an interrogation. This is
true whether the threat or promise is introduced in the interrogation by expressing the
urgency to confess or through another tactic.

On the other hand, there is nothing inherently illegal about expressing an urgency for
the suspect to tell the truth during an interrogation. However, the tactic cannot be tied

89
to a promise of leniency or threat of physical harm or more severe consequences. In
our opinion, the following statements are all legal ways to express an urgency for a
suspect to tell the truth during an interrogation:

"Jim, I’m turning my report in at 5:00 this afternoon with or without your explanation. If
you want your explanation included in my report this is your last chance to do it."

"Dan, it is human nature to believe whoever talks first. You know that eventually Bill is
going to tell us what happened. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he tries to make this
whole thing look like it was your idea and that he was an innocent bystander. It’s your
choice. Do you want people to believe your version of events or what Bill says?"

"Mary, you know as well as I do that eventually you’re going to tell the truth about
this. You may tell a parent or friend or someone else. The point is that eventually I’m
going to learn the truth about this. I can learn it from someone else or I can hear it
from you today. The choice is yours."

"Julie, don’t kid yourself and think that if you say nothing this whole thing will
somehow magically disappear and go away. If you leave here without getting this
thing clarified you’re going to allow people to think that you do this sort of thing all the
time and that you can never be trusted again. If you want people to ever trust you
again, you’ve got to tell the truth now."

"Mike, I don’t want to get a call from you next week where you tell me that you’ve
decided to tell me what happened. Next week I’ll be working on another case. If you
want to tell me the truth, you have to make that decision now."

In conclusion, guilty suspects are strongly motivated to put off the decision of telling
the truth during an interrogation. To counter this tendency, it is a common
interrogation tactic to stress the urgency to tell the truth now. When using this tactic
(or any other interrogation tactic) the investigator cannot make false statements
relating to legal issues such as possible charges, the length of sentence, what a
judge or jury is likely to do or comment on possible legal defenses. Legally
permissible statements that address the urgency of telling the truth can relate to
logic, human nature or intrinsic facts about the investigation (turning in a report, being
assigned another case.)

Do You Invite People to Lie to You? April 2005

No one wants people to lie to them. Yet, I have encountered numerous parents,
teachers and investigators who regularly invite deceptive answers from people they
question. I am certain they do not do this intentionally. Rather, these individuals have
little understanding of the psychology of deception. This web tip is written for
individuals who are not dealing with rapists and murderers everyday. Rather, it is
written for those of us who face everyday issues about a person’s credibility.

The Importance of Privacy

Many years ago when my oldest son was in middle school he witnessed an incident
of sexual harassment in the hallway near his locker (reaching under the blouse of a

90
student to touch her breast). The victim had filed a complaint and asked my son to
come forward as a witness, which he agreed to do. The vice principal conducted the
investigation. He asked all parties involved (two suspects, the victim and my son) to
sit together in a room and relate their accounts in the presence of each other. This
arrangement produced the predicted results. The two suspects stuck with their story
of non-involvement, the victim related her account of the incident which my son
corroborated. The vice principal ruled that since neither of the two accused offenders
acknowledged putting their hand under the victim’s blouse, there was insufficient
evidence to act on the complaint!

It is expecting a great deal to ask anyone to make admissions against self-interest.

Asking them to make these admissions in the presence of others is clearly inviting
deception.

Judgmental Attitudes

The city I live in has a recycling center which I occasionally visit. The person who
oversees the center is a crabby old man who believes it is a Federal offense if you
mix colored and clear glass and that failure to remove a ballast from a florescent
fixture is a capital crime. He has all of the regulations memorized and I learned long
ago not to ask him what was proper procedure because he would spend three
minutes citing regulations and make me feel stupid for not knowing them. While I am
a very law-abiding citizen, this man is such a jerk I would lie in a heartbeat to him and
not feel any guilt whatsoever.

While it is true that some timid individuals will change their answers when they feel
threatened or intimidated, there is no guarantee that information learned through
coercion is truthful. The "tough-guy" approach during an interview certainly does not
encourage truthfulness. Rather, the more authoritative or judgmental the questioner
becomes, the more motivated a person is to lie to that person. Part of the reason for
this is that a judgmental attitude serves to remind the person of the consequences he
faces if he tells the truth. The other reality is that it goes against human nature to
cooperate with somewhat whom we do not respect. To reveal the truth to another
person often requires a significant level of trust and understanding toward the
confidant with whom we decided to share our "secret".

Question Formulation

If an individual is interested in learning the truth from another person, it is

unreasonable to expect the other person to volunteer the truth. The truth must be
elicited by asking the right questions. If my son comes home from a party and I ask
him how the party was is he likely to answer, "Well dad it was a pretty good party. I
smoked some marijuana and got really high." Absolutely not. He’s much more likely
to say, "The party was fine dad." It would be totally unreasonable for me to be upset
with my son for not volunteering this incriminating information. If I want to learn if he
used illegal drugs at the party I need to ask him that question.

91
Many people, including criminal investigators, are uncomfortable asking questions
that may elicit an incriminating response, so they soften the impact of the question.
This, of course, makes the question easier to lie to. One way to soften the impact of a
question is to include qualifying language. Consider the following examples:

"Ryan, did you happen to see any illegal drugs at the party?"

"Do you recall using any illegal drugs at the party?"

Ryan knows whether or not he used illegal drugs at the party. The use of qualifying
language makes the question easier to lie to. The question should be simply phrased,
"Ryan did you see any illegal drugs at the party?" and, "Did you use any illegal drugs
at the party?"

The easiest question to lie to, however, is one that expects agreement to an
assumption within the question. This is called a negative question. Examples of
negative questions include:

"You were good for the baby sitter, weren’t you?"

"There weren’t any drugs at the party, were there?"

"You don’t know anything about the fire in your neighbor’s garage, do you?"

As these examples illustrate, it is highly improbable for a person to correct the

implication within a negative question, and tell the truth, e.g., "No mommy you’re
wrong. I was a holy terror with the baby sitter."

Patience

An interesting paradox exists within most human beings when it comes to deception.
The average person who is properly socialized does not enjoy lying. This is
especially true when the person they are lying to is someone they respect.
Counteracting this influence is that fact that no one wants to suffer the consequences
of telling the truth. Thus, almost every person who has done something wrong or who
is ashamed of something they did is caught in a conflict between these two drives.
Most people resolve this conflict by telling the truth a little bit at a time. It is a very
naïve parent, teacher or investigator who expects a person to all of a sudden decide
to tell the full and complete truth.

In most instances, the truth is learned in small steps and only after a reasonable
period of time. In the previous example of illegal drug use at a party, the questions
asked to develop this information should be designed to gradually commit the person
to more incriminating information. For example:

Elicit an admission that drugs were present at the party

Elicit an admission that people were using drugs at the party

Elicit an admission of being offered drugs at the party

92
Elicit an admission of experimenting with drugs at the party.

Frequently investigators fail to appreciate how difficult it is for a suspect who is facing
significant consequences to tell the truth. After failing to elicit a full confession when
initially asking the suspect if he committing the crime, the investigator breeze over
the rest of the interview questions and quickly jumps to the interrogation. Similarly,
the parent or teacher offers the child one chance to tell the truth and if the child does
not completely come clean, the parent goes into the punishment mode and forgets
about learning the truth.

This article is not intended to imply that if an investigator uses proper techniques that
most criminal suspects will offer a full confession through the interviewing process.
Because of the significant consequences facing most criminal offenders, under that
circumstance, interrogation is often the only means to learn the truth. However, there
are many issues that can be resolved through the interviewing process.

Developing an Interview Strategy March 2005

Some interviews are free-flowing and spontaneous. Often, these interviews are
conducted in an uncontrolled environment such as a street corner, an employee’s
office or over the telephone. Because the person being interviewed in these
situations is generally telling the truth, the investigator does not have to carefully
structure an interview strategy. However, when interviewing a person who is
motivated to lie to the investigator, the interview should not be haphazard or
spontaneous. It should be carefully planned out and structured to achieve the desired
goals.

While some suspects make incriminating admissions or even confess during an

interview, obtaining a confession should not be the primary goal of an interview.
Rather, an interview is conducted to elicit information. This information can be divided
into two broad areas. The first could be termed investigative information such as the
person’s opportunity, access, motives and propensity to commit the crime. Second,
the investigator should ask questions specifically designed to elicit the suspect’s guilt
or innocence. Some of the characteristics of a formal interview include:

1. The investigator’s demeanor is non-accusatory and non-judgmental

2. The interview is conducted in a controlled environment

3. The primary interview questions are prepared ahead of time

The principal benefit of preparing an interview strategy is to make certain that all of
the necessary questions are asked during the interview. During a formal interview
often the investigator only has one opportunity to ask the suspect questions, and
careful thought should go into covering all the important areas. Second, by preparing
an interview strategy, the investigator does not have to spend time thinking about
what question to ask next. Rather, he can focus his efforts on asking necessary
follow-up questions and observing the suspect’s verbal and nonverbal behavior.
Finally, the structure of the interview allows the investigator to come across as well
prepared, proficient and a difficult person to lie to.

93
While the questions asked during any interview will be unique to the particular
suspect and issue under investigation, the following guidelines can be used to help
organize those questions and also provide a logical flow to the interview. As will be
presented shortly, we suggest an opening and closing strategy with six specific
blocks of questions occurring between them. The specific order of these blocks of
questions is not critical. However, we do recommend that all similar questions (e.g.,
opportunity/access questions) be covered in their entirety during a particular block of
the interview. This will allow the suspect to focus attention on one particular area at a
time and not become confused or give inconsistent answers because of major shifts
in questions from one topical area to another.

Starting the Interview

At the outset of the interview the investigator should provide the suspect with an
overview of the interview coupled with a statement emphasizing the importance of
being completely truthful. The following is a possible opening statement in an
employee theft investigation:

"Mark, let me explain the interview process. I’m going to start off this
afternoon by getting some background information from you and then
we will talk in detail about the deposit shortages. It is important for you
to understand my role in this whole investigation. I don’t get paid to
judge people as being good or bad and I don’t have any authority over
what happens to the people I talk to. My job is to simply collect and
analyze evidence and a big part of that involves talking to people.
During our interview this afternoon I want to make certain you
understand each of my questions so if there is anything you do not
understand, please ask me to clarify it. It is also important for you to be
completely truthful with me before you leave today. Does that all sound
agreeable? Alright. I’m going to start off by having you spell your last
name for me."

This introduction establishes the non-accusatory tone of the interview, and also the
non-judgmental position of the investigator. The emphasis on being truthful, as
opposed to a threatening statement (such as, "If you lie to me today I will prove that
and you will be sorry!") will work to the investigator’s advantage later if it becomes
necessary to interrogate the suspect.

The first couple minutes of the interview should consist of non-threatening

background questions such as the spelling of the suspect’s name, his address,
marital status, job duties, etc. These questions allow the investigator to establish the
suspect’s behavioral norms within the areas of eye contact, communication style and
general nervous tension. In addition, these initial questions allow the investigator to
establish a rapport with the suspect.

The issue under investigation may be introduced by asking the suspect, "Tell me
everything you know about (the issue under investigation)." Regardless of the
suspect’s answer to that question, it is very important for the investigator to first
precisely define the issue under investigation and then ask the suspect whether or
not he committed the crime. The following is an example of this in a date rape case:

94
 "Jerry, Linda Jones has reported that last Saturday evening you
undressed her and forced her to have sexual intercourse with you by
striking her with your hand. If you did do that our investigation will
clearly indicate that. On the other hand, if this did not happen it will
show that as well. Before we go any further, let me ask, did you force
Linda to have sex with you last Saturday evening?"

The reason it is important to precisely identify the issue under investigation is so that
the suspect knows whether or not he is innocent or guilty of that issue which, in turn,
will affect the validity of his behavior during the interview. Consider that Linda Jones
had consensual intercourse with the suspect but that the two of them used cocaine
that night. If the investigator is vague in his questions such as, "Jerry, did you do
something wrong with Linda last Saturday?" the suspect may exhibit very misleading
behavior during the interview.

One reason it is important to ask a suspect, early during an interview, if he committed

the crime is because innocent suspects are anxious to let the investigator know that
they did not commit the crime. However, if the investigator does not allow the
innocent suspect to tell the truth, this may result in increased anxiety which could be
interpreted as deceptive behavior. The second reason to directly ask a suspect if he
or she is guilty of the crime, is to heighten the suspect’s level of motivation during the
interview. On the other hand, if the investigator skirts around the issue and avoids
sensitive areas, the innocent suspect is not motivated to convince the investigator
that he did not commit the crime. Similarly, a guilty suspect may not be motivated to
conceal the fact that he is lying. When a suspect’s level of motivation is low, behavior
symptom analysis can be very unreliable.

Developing Information Concerning investigative leads, Opportunity and

Access

After asking the suspect if he committing the crime it is often appropriate to ask some
preliminary questions to address guilty knowledge, complicity or general theories of
the crime:

"Do you know for sure who did (commit the crime)?"

"Who do you suspect may have (committed the crime)?"

"Is there anyone you can eliminate as a suspect?"

At this point during the interview the investigator may want to elicit specific
investigative information. Examples of possible investigative questions include:

"Tell me everything you did last Saturday night between 8:00 and the time you fell
asleep."

"Describe your relationship with Linda Jones."

"What was Linda’s mood when she left your apartment on Saturday?"

95
"Tell me everything about preparing the deposit last Friday afternoon?"

"Did anything unusual happen while you were making up the deposit?"

"Do you have the combination to the safe?"

Developing
Attitudinal
Information

Truthful and deceptive suspects form very different and predictable attitudes toward
the interview as well as the issue under investigation. At some point the investigator
will want to ask specific questions to draw out these attitudes. Examples of questions
designed to do this include:

"How do you feel being interviewed concerning (issue)?"

"Who would have had the best opportunity to (commit crime) if they wanted to?"

"Do you really think (the crime was committed)?"

"What do you think should happen to the person who (committed issue)?"

Developing Information Concerning Motives and Propensity

One block of interview questions should explore the suspect’s motives and
propensity. If the crime is financially motivated it would be appropriate to discuss the
suspect’s current financial status. If the circumstances of the crime appeared to be
linked to substance abuse, it would be appropriate to ask the suspect about his use
of alcohol and illegal drugs. To evaluation propensity to commit the crime, the
following questions may provide insight:

"What is the closest thing to (issue under investigation) that you’ve ever done?"

"Have you every thought about (committing the crime)?"

"Tell me why you wouldn’t (commit crime)?"

"Have you ever been approached by anyone asking you to (commit crime)?"

"Have you ever been questioned before about (issue under investigation)?"

Developing the Suspect’s Explanation for any Evidence

If there is physical or testimonial evidence pointing to the suspect’s possible

involvement in the crime, the investigator may want to bring this up during the
interview. On the other hand, if the investigator knows that the suspect will be

96
eventually interrogated, often it is beneficial to wait until the interrogation to bring up
actual evidence of the suspect’s guilt.

Developing Information About the Suspect’s Confidence

During a non-accusatory interview innocent suspects are confident they will be

believed whereas guilty suspects are worried about getting away with their crime.
The following questions are designed to assess the suspect’s confidence during the
interview:

"When Linda says you slapped her is she lying?"

"Can you think of any reason why someone would name you as the person they
suspect?"

"Once we complete our investigation how will it come out on you?"

"Can you think of any reason why the surveillance video would show
you inside the vault last Friday afternoon?"

Concluding the Interview

Once all of the relevant information from the suspect has been elicited, the
investigator should step out of the interview room, review his interview notes and
other evidence collected in the case and make one of three decisions. The first is that
the suspect is telling the truth an can be eliminated from further suspicion. Under this
circumstance, the investigator should return to the interview room and say something
like the following, "Tom I’ve covered everything I need to cover with you. Thank you
for coming in. If I need to talk to you further I’ll let you know." A second possibility is
that the investigator decides, based on the suspect’s behavior and the evidence, that
the suspect is probably guilty of the crime. Under this circumstance, the investigator
would return to the interview room and start the interrogation.

In some situations, following the initial interview the investigator may not be able to
make a determination of the suspect’s probable guilt or innocence. In other cases,
even though the investigator is quite certain of the suspect’s guilt, he may not want to
interrogate the suspect at that time. Under these circumstances the investigator
would return to the interview room and tell the suspect something similar to the
following, "Bill, thank you for coming in today. We are in the process of talking to
other people and waiting to get results back on some forensic evidence and it may be
necessary for me to talk to you again. You’d be willing to come back and talk to me,
wouldn’t you?"

In conclusion, an investigator often has only one opportunity to conduct a formal

interview of a suspect. To maximize the amount and quality of information learned
during the interview, a specific structure should be used. The issue under
investigation should be clearly defined and a series of prepared questions should be
asked to develop investigative information and behavior symptoms of truth or
deception.

97
A Review of Legal Issues Concerning Trickery and Deceit During an
Interrogation February 2005

A number of recent cases involving an investigator’s use of trickery and deceit during
an interrogation have caused problems in the subsequent trial. In some of these
cases the confession was suppressed. These cases have not involved a novel legal
argument or radical interpretations of current law. Rather, existing laws have been
applied in a predictable manner in situations in which investigators attempted to push
the envelope to test the court’s tolerance. This web tip offers a review of some of the
legal aspects regulating an investigator’s use of trickery and deceit. An appropriate
starting point is to define trickery and deceit from a legal perspective.

Interrogation relies extensively on implication and innuendo. Consequently, almost

every interrogation involves some level of at least implied deceit. When the
investigator starts out an interrogation by telling the suspect that there is no doubt
that he committed the crime, this is oftentimes not a true statement. The investigator
may then sit down and explain that the reason he wants to talk to the suspect further
is to find out why he committed the crime. Again this is not an accurate description of
the purpose of the interrogation. In an effort to establish rapport, the investigator may
then state that he believes the suspect is basically a decent and honorable person
who acted out of character, which may, in fact, be a false statement.

From a legal perspective, however, the previous false statements merely represent
the investigator’s beliefs and, therefore, generally do not fall within the category of
behaviors that have been traditionally considered as "trickery and deceit." In this
regard, there has been a clear distinction between an investigator stating a false
belief (which is generally acceptable) and making a false statement which, if carried
too far, could jeopardize the admissibility of a confession. Examples of false
statements which the courts may encounter include lying to a suspect by telling him
that his partner has already confessed; falsely telling the suspect that if he confesses
he will be able to sleep in his own bed that evening; or, showing the suspect a
fabricated report indicating that his DNA was recovered from the victim.

When asking the question as to whether or not a particular statement or action may
cause a confession to be suppressed, there are a few key cases to keep in mind. The
landmark decision concerning trickery and deceit is a U. S. Supreme Court case in
which a suspect confessed after being falsely told that his partner had already
incriminated the suspect in the commission of the crime(1) . Utilizing the "totality of
circumstances rule", the defendant’s confession was upheld. Within the totality of
circumstances guideline, the trickery or deceit employed must not shock the
conscience of the court or community . An example of behavior that shock s the
conscience would be for the investigator to impersonate a defense attorney or
clergyman in an effort to elicit a confession.

In the evolution of trickery and deceit laws, the next significant case is Cayward (2).
In this case the police typed up a fabricated crime laboratory report which stated that
Cayward’s DNA was found during the victim’s autopsy. After reading this report
Cayward confessed. The confession was suppressed, not because of either concern
listed above, but because of a new rationale. In this instance the investigator crossed
the line from making a false statement to manufacturing false evidence. The court

98
was concerned that such manufactured evidence may find its way into court and
jeopardize the integrity of the evidentiary system as a whole. The legal guideline
stemming from Cayward can be summarized as follows:

• A distinction must be made between false assertions (which may be

acceptable) to fabricating evidence (which is impermissible.)

In addition to Cayward, other examples of fabricated evidence that have resulted in

confessions being suppressed include making an audiotape of an investigator
pretending to be an eye-witness (3) to the suspect’s crime and a fabricated crime lab
report indicating that the suspect’s DNA was found on a rubber glove recovered from
the crime scene (4).

• Deliberate falsehoods unrelated to the facts of the crime should be

avoided.

While false statements relating to investigative information may be permissible, an

investigator should not lie about legal, procedural or administrative issues. Examples
of impermissible extrinsic deception include falsely telling a suspect that if he
confesses he will be able to sleep in his own bed that evening, or falsely telling the
suspect that if he confesses he will be placed into a witness protection program and
not be prosecuted. In a recent case a confession was suppressed when the suspect
was told during the interrogation, "If you don’t give us a reason (for the crime) the
jury’s never going to hear a reason." (5) This statement, of course was not true and
addressed the suspect’s legal defense. As the court pointed out, "The officers in this
case might have properly (and truthfully) told Novo, ‘this is your only chance to talk to
us.’"

It is the nature of a good criminal investigator to strive to solve a case, ideally with a
confession. Furthermore, good investigators are creative not only in their approach to
developing investigative leads and evidence, but also in their efforts to elicit the truth
during an interrogation. It is at this stage that the investigator must resist the
temptation to elicit a confession at any cost. If an investigator tries too hard to elicit a
confession and bends the legal guidelines too far, the result is a suppressed
confession. The following guidelines are offered to assist an investigator in deciding
whether or not a particular false statement offered during an interrogation may
jeopardize a subsequent confession:

1. It is generally acceptable for the investigator to express false opinions during

an interrogation.

The exception to this statement is a false belief or opinion regarding legal

issues, e.g., "I think since this is your first offense you will probably receive
probation," or, "If you did not intend on burning down the whole restaurant,
you’re probably just looking at a charge of damaging property." Unless the
person conducting the interrogation is a prosecutor with the authority to make
charging decisions, legal advice or opinions should not be given during an
interrogation.

99
 2. It is generally acceptable for the investigator to use visual props during an
interrogation such as a video or audio tape, a fingerprint card or an evidence
bag containing carpet fibers, hair follicles or other evidence.

In preparing these props it is absolutely imperative that the prop would never
be mistaken for actual evidence against the suspect. An example of an
improper prop would be to take the suspect’s actual latent fingerprint, and
adhere it to an evidence card indicating the fingerprint was lifted from the
crime scene. This is clearly manufacturing evidence, which is impermissible.

3. It is generally acceptable for the investigator to make false statements

concerning physical or testimonial evidence that implicates the suspect in the
crime.

As a precautionary measure investigators must exercise a great deal of

caution when making false statements to suspects with diminished mental or
intellectual capacities in view of the fact that some of those individuals may be
susceptible to pleasing the investigator and may place more credibility on the
investigator’s statements than with their own recollections. Similarly, false
statements that directly link the suspect to the crime should not be made to a
suspect who claims to have no recollections at the time the crime was
committed as a result of alcohol or drug intoxication, head trauma, or
repression.

4. The guideline we teach at our seminars is that lying to a suspect should

generally be considered as a last resort effort to overcome persistent but weak
denials.

If an interrogator is caught in his lie by the suspect he will lose his credibility, and it
may cause a custodial suspect to invoke his right to remain silent or ask for an
attorney. Furthermore, with electronically recorded interrogations the investigator
must be able to articulate his reason at trial for engaging in deception with the
suspect.

The Importance of Accurate Corroboration within a Confession December 2004

Of all possible evidence presented against a defendant at trial, a confession is

afforded the most weight. Because of this, we have maintained that a confession
must satisfy two requirements. A confession is a statement that (1) accepts personal
responsibility for committing a crime along with (2) the circumstances and details of
the crime. There are two types of details of the crime that serve to corroborate the
confession. Dependent corroboration is information about the crime that is
purposefully withheld from the suspect and the media. Independent corroboration
describes information volunteered by the suspect about the crime that was not known
by the investigator and is independently verified after the confession is obtained. If a
suspect makes a statement that accepts responsibility for committing a crime but
refuses to offer details or offers inaccurate details about the crime, this statement,
regardless of its spontaneity or detail, fails to satisfy the definition of a confession.

100
A recent Massachusetts Supreme court decision brings to light the issue of what
should legally constitute a confession. In this case the court overturned an arson
conviction in which the defendant’s confession, admitted as evidence during the initial
trial, contained substantial faulty corroboration (Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista,
2004.) Not only did the Supreme Court rule that the confession should have been
suppressed, but also that in future criminal trials if an interrogation and confession is
not electronically recorded the judge must instruct the jury to view the confession with
great caution. This ruling has tremendous potential implications for all investigators.

The case facts relating to the confession for the DiGiambattista case are as follows:
forensic evidence from the crime scene provided a number of facts about the fire that
could be used as dependent corroboration. This included that the fire was started
with gasoline and that the primary source of ignition was a closet on the first floor of
the building. In addition, it was also established that a small paper fire was started in
the kitchen sink.

The defendant’s confession indicated that on the night of the fire he had entered the
building through the front door using his key, and poured gasoline throughout the
building which he lit with both matches and a lighter. While the defendant volunteered
the fact that he started the fire with gasoline (possible dependent corroboration), he
indicated four definite locations where he had started fires on both floors of the
building. None of these locations corresponded with the first floor closet. The
investigator had DiGiambattista draw sketches of the crime scene and asked that the
sketch include the location of the kitchen sink. This effort to stimulate the suspect’s
memory of starting the fire in the sink appears to have been insufficient, since the
defendant’s confession never mentions starting a fire in the kitchen sink, or anywhere
else inside the kitchen.

The defendant’s confession provided abundant information that could serve as

independent corroboration. His confession indicated that he had brought gasoline to
the crime scene in a 2 ½ gallon container purchased at a particular hardware store.
He further identified the gasoline station where he bought $1.00 worth of gasoline.
The defendant offered a number of different explanations about where he disposed of
the gasoline can, ultimately stating that he threw it away at a nearby picnic area.

Subsequent investigation demonstrated that the defendant could not have bought the
gas container at the hardware store he indicated. Eventually, the gas can was found.
However, it was a six-gallon container and it was found in a back room of the building
that was burned. Furthermore, the station where he claimed to have purchased the
gasoline had no record of selling $1.00 worth of gas the night of the fire.

In its appeal, the prosecutor argued that the defendant’s confession should be
admitted because it contained four pieces of evidence that supported the defendant’s
guilt. Specifically, it was argued that the defendant had a motive to commit the crime
(anger toward the landlord), there was an eye witness (a person described a man
resembling the defendant outside the building near the time the fire was set), access
(the defendant was one of three people with a key to the front door) and propensity
(the defendant lied about having a key to the building and leaving his home the night
of the fire).

101
The evidence presented by the prosecutor in no way reflects on the trustworthiness
of the confession itself. A number of people associated with the landlord may have
had a motive to start the fire; the suspect’s body type probably resembles thousands
of others; two other people had keys to the building (or the arsonist picked the lock or
entered the building via another opening). Finally, even though the defendant was
caught lying about possessing a key to the building, there are a number of reasons
suspects lie to police during an investigation, not all of which are motivated to cover
involvement in the offense.

A valid confession should contain information about the crime that could only be
known by the guilty person and can also be verified as true. It is not sufficient that a
suspect’s statement contains spontaneous detail, represents an admission against
self-interest or provides logical answers to questions posed by the investigator.
Because of the evidential weight placed on a confession, it must meet a higher level
of proof.

We are aware of numerous cases where legitimate true confessions have been found
to contain minor factual inconsistencies – a perfect fit should not be required by the
court. However, when the confession misses the mark in that essentially every detail
is inconsistent with the facts, it should be viewed with extreme caution. From our
assessment of available information, we believe there are four ways this suspect
could be so far off base in his corroborative statements:

1. The suspect is guilty of the arson but clever enough to offer inaccurate
corroboration, hoping that this may cause his confession to be suppressed.

2. The suspect participated in the commission of the arson with a

second individual whom he is now covering for and is simply guessing
at some of the actions of his accomplice.

3. The suspect does not know if he is guilty of starting the fire because of an
underlying psychiatric or medical condition that affects his memory or
perception of reality. In an effort to please the investigators, receive
punishment he believes he deserves, or for other unknown reasons, the
suspect offered details about the crime based on common sense, intuition or
some other source in no way derived from his own recollections.

4. The suspect is innocent of the arson but was coerced into

confessing. Under this circumstance certainly an innocent suspect may
accept responsibility for starting the fire and then, during the oral phase
of the confession, offer his best estimate as to what the actual arsonist
did.

102
A judge or jury should not be faced with having to select the most probable cause for
faulty corroboration within a confession. The initial responsibility rests on the
investigator who obtained the confession to make certain that the details contained
within the confession can be verified as accurate. If the details of a confession cannot
be essentially verified, the suspect’s unsupported statement "I committed this crime"
should not be offered as evidence of his guilt

From the information available to us, it is not known at what point the factual
inconsistencies in DiGiambattista’s confession became known and it may never be
established whether or not this confession was true or false. Even if there was
substantial evidence indicating that the defendant did start the fire, his statement to
the police accepting personal responsibility for starting the fire should not be
admissible as evidence of a full confession unless the statement is coupled with
details of the crime that are verified as substantially accurate.

Issues to Consider Regarding Possible Suicidal Suspects November 2004

It was about 4:00 in the afternoon when one of our regular clients called and
requested an "emergency" polygraph examination for a 19-year-old female employee
they suspected was stealing jewelry from a kiosk in their store. In pursuing the urgent
nature for the polygraph examination, it was learned that the suspected employee
had been unsuccessfully "mildly" interrogated over the last two hours and was now
threatening to resign. I had prior dealings with this particular investigator and knew
that a "mild" interrogation only meant that the employee was not bleeding. The client
was politely reminded of our long-standing practice of not administering a polygraph
examination immediately following an interrogation and the employee was scheduled
for an appointment the next morning. The young woman was never given a
polygraph examination because that night she committed suicide.

Psychologists talk about the multiple victims of suicide. Any investigator who has had
the unfortunate experience of having a suspect commit suicide during the course of
an investigation understands the impact of this statement. When a suspect commits
suicide it is natural for the investigator to harbor some feelings of responsibility for
that death. In some cases the overwhelming guilt has led investigators and
psychologists to resign their position following a suicide that occurred under their
watch. Family members of the deceased will also experience guilt and shame over
their loved one's loss and look for accountability and relief. When suicide occurs
during the course of an investigation, often this relief will be in the form of a law suit.
As can be seen, on many levels, it is in the investigator's best interest to assess a
suspect's risk for suicide and take preventative measures when the risk presents
itself.

As a behavioral choice, suicide represents a total withdrawal from the person's

environment. Most people develop a series of coping mechanisms to deal with
stress. These may range from the use of defense mechanisms, where reality is
altered by distorting thoughts, to behavioral changes including alcohol and drug
abuse. Suicide is the most extreme behavior on that list. But this does not mean that
all victims of suicide will have a psychological history of progressively more
aggressive efforts of withdrawal. In fact, there are individuals who appear to have a
predisposition to move directly to the end of the coping mechanism menu. In other

103
words, some suicides appear to be relatively unpredictable -- not all victims exhibit a
series of red flag behaviors before deciding to take their life.

With that said, however, I am not aware of a single instance where a happy,
successful, well-adjusted person committed suicide. The individual who commits
suicide has a psychological propensity for choosing death over more conventional
forms of stress release. Second, in most suicides, there is a precipitator or motivating
event that leads to the decision to take one's life. A lawsuit that is filed as a result of a
suspect who committed suicide during an investigation generally cites the stress of
the interrogation as at least one of the precipitators for the death. This article offers
some suggestions to minimize a company or department's exposure to civil liability
associated with a suspect who commits suicide.

Recognize the high risk suspect. The profile of a suspect who may commit
suicide during a criminal investigation includes (but is not limited to) a suspect
who:

o Has a high level of social responsibility (successful in

business, school or other endeavor, is emotionally close
to friends and family members and is concerned about
their reputation and image);
o Is facing significant personal consequences such as
disappointing family members or experiencing
embarrassment;
o Has committed crimes of embezzlement, fraud, sexual
misconduct or hit and run;
o Has previously attempted suicide; and,
o Exhibits present symptoms of, or past treatment for
depression.

As this list illustrates, some of these assessments can only be made by

asking the suspect specific questions. In our office we have each
suspect complete a "Subject Data Sheet" that includes a question about
present psychiatric treatment and one about prior suicide attempts.

Eliminate the suspect's opportunity to commit suicide. If a suspect is

determined to be at risk for possible suicide, a protocol should be followed to
reduce this risk. Example procedures include:

o Remove possible suicide implements (belt, shoelaces,

razors, medications, sheets)
o Maintain a suicide watch over the suspect where the
suspect is monitored either in person or electronically until
such time that a mental health professional can evaluate
the suspect and offer a professional recommendation for
future monitoring.

Following the confession of a suspect who has been determined to be at risk

for suicide, the investigator might consider openly addressing emotional

104
 issues in an effort to reduce the likelihood that the suspect may later decide to
commit suicide. The following are some suggested statements to make:

o Let the suspect know that he is not the only person ever
to have committed this crime, and that what he did is not
that uncommon, even with people who have a similar
background or social status.
o Tell the suspect that right now he is probably judging
himself more harshly than anyone else - his friends, co-
workers or family members.
o Express the importance of talking openly to loved ones
about the suspect's feelings and emphasize that it is
human nature to forgive if a person first acknowledges a
problem and then promises to change.

The very nature of an investigator's job involves engaging in behaviors that can
cause people stress, and sometimes end up depriving a person of their livelihood,
freedom or reputation. The vast majority of individuals are able to cope with this
adversity at some level without resorting to taking their own life. A small percent of
suspects, however, will attempt or succeed at committing suicide during the course of
an investigation. While there are general factors that increase the risk for suicide,
even trained mental health professionals cannot accurately identify whether or not a
particular patient will commit suicide. Nonetheless, when a suspect commits suicide
often the investigator will experience feelings of guilt and responsibility and the
company or agency may be named in a lawsuit. This article offers some common
sense suggestions to keep an investigator or his employer from becoming an
additional victim of a suspect's suicide.

Testifying on a Suspect's Behavior Symptoms October, 2004

Recently, the Washington Supreme Court reversed a rape conviction partially

because the trial court admitted an investigator’s testimony that the defendant’s
verbal and nonverbal behavior symptoms were indicative of guilt. While there were
other grounds for overturning the lower court’s conviction, relevant to this article is
the finding that the investigator’s testimony constituted a manifest constitutional error
that was not harmless. 1 Even though the police witness did attend a training seminar
offered by John E. Reid and Associates, the prosecution did not lay any foundation to
establish the scientific validity of behavior symptom analysis nor was there a judicial
ruling that the investigator should be considered an expert witness in the detection of
deception.

Before a witness can offer opinion testimony based on scientific evidence, the court
must first acknowledge that the proffered evidence is generally accepted by the
scientific community. Second, the witness must demonstrate, through education,
published research or experience, that he or she is an expert in the particular field.

The staff interviewers who work for John E. Reid and Associates have completed 882
hours of post-graduate classroom and internship instruction in the detection of
deception. They are licensed detection of deception examiners and most have
published and participated in scientific studies relating to the detection of deception.

105
Many of the staff hold a Masters of Science degree in the detection of deception.
Even with this background, only on rare occasions has a court permitted our staff to
offer opinion testimony based on behavior symptom analysis. While there is no
question that our seminars greatly improve an investigator’s ability to detect
deception, the training received during the seminar is insufficient, by itself, to
establish an investigator as an expert witness in the detection of deception.

Without expert witness status, the testimony of an investigator is generally restricted

to reporting factual occurrences, e.g., what was seen, heard, smelled or felt. With
respect to a suspect’s behavior during an interview, the investigator should always
testify about lies the defendant told during the course of the investigation. Consider
that a defendant in a homicide case initially told the police that he did not see the
victim on the day of her death but later, when presented with contradictory eye-
witness evidence, admitted visiting the victim the day that she was killed. In this case
a jury may give marginal weight to the fact that the defendant saw the victim on the
day of her death. However, the fact that the defendant initially lied about being with
the victim takes on huge significance.

Similarly, because behavior symptoms represent objective observations, an

investigator may be able to offer this testimony during direct examination. However, it
is important that the witness restrict his or her testimony to observations, and not
draw an opinion or conclusion as to the defendant’s guilt or innocence. As an
example, the prosecutor could initially ask the witness to describe the defendant’s
demeanor or behavior during questioning. Depending on the actual behavior
observed, the investigator’s testimony could be as follows:

"The defendant evaded answers to specifically worded questions."

"The defendant appeared unconcerned during the interview and laughed about the
allegations."

"The defendant exhibited little eye contact when questioned about (issue), yet
displayed normal eye contact when answering background questions."

"The defendant was very guarded and volunteered little information."

"The defendant turned the lower part of his body away from me and crossed his arms
and legs when we discussed (issue)."

Once the defendant’s behavior symptoms have been entered into the court record,
the prosecutor could rely on the jury’s common sense to interpret the meaning of
those behavior symptoms. On the other hand, the prosecutor may consider further
developing the behavior symptom testimony. In doing so, the prosecutor and
investigator must walk a fine line between the witness offering an opinion of the
defendant’s guilt or innocence (which is generally impermissible) and the witness

106
relating prior experiences, which are generally admissible. A theoretical dialogue
could be as follows:

Attorney: "Mr. Jayne, as an investigator have you encountered other

subjects who displayed similar behavior to the defendant’s when you
questioned them about a crime?"

Witness: "Yes I have."

Attorney: "In those situations, after evaluating all of the evidence and
the final court decision, has the person who displayed those behaviors
turned out to be more likely telling the truth or lying?"

Witness: "More likely lying."

By approaching the interpretation of the defendant’s behavior symptoms from a

perspective of the investigator’s past experiences, the jury is able to place their own
weight on the defendant’s behavior or demeanor during questioning.

The previously mentioned court ruling, in no way, alters our recommendation that an
investigator should actively document, in writing, important behavior symptoms
exhibited by a suspect during a formal interview. If the defense attorney chooses to
"open the door" during cross examination by asking questions about the documented
behavior symptoms, the witness can explain to the court that making behavioral
observations is considered a standard and acceptable interviewing practice and that
the information is beneficial in assessing a person’s credibility. However, the
investigator’s field notes should not reflect a specific opinion relating to the suspect’s
guilt or innocence based on behavior symptoms. Similarly, a written report should not
offer a conclusion that the investigator formed an opinion of the subject’s guilt based
on behavior symptom analysis. It is often preferable to indicate that based on all
available evidence, a particular individual could not be eliminated as a suspect.

Courts require that scientific evidence must reach a standard of general acceptance
before it is admitted in a criminal trial. Detecting deception through behavior symptom
analysis has not achieved that level of general acceptance. However, an investigator
can testify as to factual observations that occurred during an interview. This would
not only include the defendant’s admissions to such things as having opportunity or
motive to commit the crime, but also the fact that the defendant initially made false
statements to the police. Furthermore, investigators may be able to testify with
respect to a defendant’s behavior symptoms during questioning if the testimony is
limited to factual observations. It is important that testimony regarding a defendant’s
behavior be presented in such a way so as not to unduly influence a jury’s ability to
make their own determination of the defendant’s guilt or innocence.

Selecting The Proper Alternative Question September 2004

The Reid Technique of interrogation relies on two important underlying psychological

principles. The first is that it is much easier for a person to tell the truth if that person
is allowed to couple his admission with some moral justification. Consequently, we
teach that an investigator should suggest possible moral justifications which allow the

107
suspect to save-face when telling the truth. Second, it is psychologically wrong to
expect a suspect to suddenly break down and tell the complete truth about his crime.
It is often necessary to allow the suspect to initially make a first admission of guilt and
then attempt to develop the full confession. In the Reid Technique the first admission
of guilt is elicited by asking an alternative question.

An alternative question offers the suspect two choices concerning some aspect of his
crime, accepting either choice results in the first admission of guilt. Examples of an
alternative question include, "Did you plan this thing out for months in advance, or did
it just happen on the spur of the moment?" or, "Did you steal that money to buy drugs
and booze, or was it used to help out your family?" As these examples illustrate, the
choices presented in an alternative question generally contrast an undesirable
characteristic of the crime to one that is desirable. Because the incriminating
implication of either choice is very transparent it would be appropriate to ask, "Why
doesn’t the suspect simply reject both choices and deny involvement in the crime?"
Indeed, some guilty suspects do. But for many guilty suspects an alternative question
offers an impetus or incentive to tell the truth.

The psychology of the alternative question relies on the importance human beings
place on their self-concept and esteem. No guilty suspect wants the investigator or
other people to believe things about his crime that are not true. To preserve his self-
image, the suspect feels a strong need to correct erroneous assumptions by the
investigator. Actual examples of this include an interview of an ex-con where I made
the comment, "I see you have served four years at (state penitentiary)." The suspect
immediately corrected me and said, "It was only 3 years 9 months!" During another
interview the suspect indicated that her husband was no longer living with her. I
asked, "Are you divorced?" She angrily corrected me and stated, "No. We’re merely
separated." These examples illustrate the strong inner drive within each of us to
protect our self-image.

It is, therefore, not surprising when a child abuse suspect is asked, "Did you have
contact with those children to psychologically and emotionally scar them for life, or
was it simply to display love and affection toward them?" that the suspect anxiously
explains to the investigator that his sexual contact with the children was intended to
show love and affection. Even though the suspect knows full well that he is admitting
guilt when he makes this statement, he does so to reject the implication that his
intention was to cause psychological harm to his victims. To summarize, we believe
that the impetus for a guilty suspect to accept the positive alternative question is to
reject the implications of the negative choice. If our understanding of the alternative
question is correct, it suggests a number of guidelines to consider when selecting an
alternative question.

1. The negative choice should not be true. If the impetus behind an alternative
question is to refute the implications of the negative choice, there is no psychological
advantage realized if the undesirable (negative) choice reflects the truth. In an actual
instance a single mother was interrogated concerning the theft of money from her
employer. Factual information suggested that she needed this money to help support
and care for her son so the alternative question presented during her interrogation

108
was, "Did you blow this money on drugs or did you take it for your son?" Repeated
efforts to encourage the suspect to agree that the money was needed for her son
were unsuccessful. Finally, the investigator switched to a different alternative
question. He asked, "Have you stolen money from every job you’ve ever worked, or
was this the first job you’ve taken money from?" At this point she readily agreed that
this was the first job in which she had stolen money. Once this initial admission was
made, the full truth surfaced. As it turned out the money she stole did not go to her
son at all. Rather, it went to buy heroine!

Why did the initial alternative question fail to elicit an admission? We believe that the
original choice did not emotionally motivate the suspect to refute the implications that
the money was stolen to buy drugs (something she knew was true). Once the
alternative question addressed something the suspect knew was not true (stealing
from every job she has worked) there was an immediate incentive for her to let the
investigator know that this was the first job she had stolen money from.

2. The negative choice must appear credible to the suspect. If a suspect is not at
all concerned that people may believe the negative alternative, he is certainly unlikely
to incriminate himself by accepting the positive choice. As an example, consider a
suspect who is being interrogated on the issue of leaving the scene of a fatal
accident. During this interrogation a possible alternative questions might be, "Were
you paid by someone to strike that woman where you did this out of greed, or did you
just leave the scene because you were scared?" Depending on the suspect’s
background and the circumstances of the crime, the suspect may not be at all
concerned about people believing that he was some sort of paid assassin. If a
suspect is not concerned that others may believe the negative choice, there is no
incentive for him to refute it. Under this circumstance, the suspect is likely to reject
both alternative questions and maintain his innocence.

A more productive alternative question to ask in the hit and run case might be, "Were
you aiming your car at that lady because you were upset with her, or were you just
unable to stop in time because of the dark clothes she was wearing?" The credibility
of the negative side of the alternative question could be reinforced by taking about
the prevalence of road rage or the effects of alcohol on a person’s emotions. If the
suspect accents the possibility that others might believe the accident may have been
an intentional act of road rage (when in fact it wasn’t), he may then be motivated to
reject the implications of the negative side of the alternative question, i.e., let the
investigator know that he simply was unable to stop his car in time.

3. Accepting either alternative choice must result in an admission of guilt.

While the positive side of an alternative question should be attractive to the suspect,
the attraction should not be based on absolving the suspect of criminal responsibility
for the crime he committed. It is not difficult to get a suspect to accept the positive
side of an alternative question if there are no adverse consequences associated with
that choice. The following are examples of improper alternative questions because
accepting the positive choice does not represent an admission of guilt. (Notice, also,
that the negative choice represents the truth):

"Did you rob that man or do you just know who did?"

109
"Did you intend to remove that document or did it accidentally end up in your brief
case?"

"Did you kill your girl friend, or do you just feel responsible for her death?"

A suspect who acknowledges the positive side of any of the preceding alternative
questions has not provided the investigator with any evidence of his guilt.
Furthermore, once a suspect accepts a positive alternative question that holds no
admission of guilt, the attraction of avoiding consequences for his crime may be so
strong that, absent further evidence, it may not be possible to persuade the suspect
to tell the complete truth about his crime.

In conclusion, selecting the proper alternative question is an important consideration

in developing an interrogation strategy. The impetus for selecting the positive choice
comes from the suspect’s desire to refute the implications of the negative choice.
Because of this, the negative choice should not be the truth, but must be credible in
the suspect’s mind. Finally, both choices must represent an admission of guilt. An
experienced interrogator goes into an interrogation with several possible alternative
questions in mind. If the suspect does not relate to the first one presented, the
interrogator is mentally prepared to develop and present another alternative question
in the effort to learn the truth.

The Use of Evidence During an Interrogation: Part I August 2004

Types of Evidence

Evidence represents information used to help establish a fact. It may be inculpatory

(supporting guilt) or exculpatory (supporting innocence). There are four broad categories of
criminal evidence, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.

Circumstantial evidence involves such things as the suspect's opportunity to commit a crime
(alibi), his access to commit a crime (special means or knowledge) and motive (financial or
psychological). Even if a particular suspect has opportunity, access and motive to commit a
crime, in all likelihood, so too do other suspects. Consequently, circumstantial evidence is the
weakest proof of a suspect's guilt.

Testimonial evidence involves human inferences or interpretation. For example, an eye

witness who relies on memory to pick out a suspect from a line-up is offering testimonial
evidence. Other examples include behavior symptom analysis, polygraph, handwriting
analysis, medical and psychiatric opinions and information provided by an informant. While
testimonial evidence tends to directly link the suspect to a crime, its accuracy can range from
chance levels to within the 90thpercentile.

Forensic evidence describes scientific testing that matches an unknown sample to its source.
Examples of forensic evidence include fingerprints, tool marks, DNA, hair and fiber analysis,
toxicology reports as well as ballistics. While forensic evidence is extremely accurate, it
rarely proves a suspect's guilt. Rather, the evidence may indicate that the suspect was at the
crime scene, had sex with the victim or that a bullet was fired from a gun owned by the
suspect.

110
Direct evidence describes evidence that directly links the suspect to a crime. An example is
finding property stolen during a burglary in the back seat of the suspect's car that was pulled
over two blocks from the home that was burglarized. Other examples include a surveillance
video clearly showing the suspect robbing a clerk or an employee caught smoking marijuana
in the company washroom. Direct evidence represents the strongest proof of a suspect's guilt,
but rarely exists.

The Psychology of Evidence

The suspect who is caught "red-handed" committing a crime (faced with direct evidence) will
almost always readily admit their crime. It is important for investigators to understand why
suspects who are caught under this circumstance confess. One possibility is that they are
caught so soon after the crime that they have not had time to think of ways to excuse away the
incriminating evidence. Another possibility is that a suspect experiences the most guilt
immediately after committing a crime. Based on more than 50 years of empirical
observations, we can state that neither of these explanations are likely. Rather, the primary
reason a suspect who is essentially caught committing a crime readily confesses is because he
is absolutely convinced that the investigator knows he is guilty. The suspect recognizes that
no amount of rationalization or justification can possibly offer a credible excuse for the
obvious evidence of his guilt, so he tells the truth. This concept is worth repeating in a
different way. A suspect is unlikely to tell the truth during an interview or interrogation unless
he is absolutely convinced that the investigator knows he is guilty.

Portraying high confidence in a suspect's guilt starts with the investigator's demeanor and
statements. If an investigator casually enters the room and says, "Larry, after talking to you
and looking over everything I don't think you're telling the complete truth" the suspect will
immediately recognize that the investigator does not have clear evidence (or confidence) of
his guilt. It is not human nature for a suspect to increase the investigator's confidence of his
guilt by confessing.

Assuming there is no direct evidence linking the suspect to the crime, an investigator must
rely on other forms of evidence to persuade the suspect that there is no doubt of his guilt. Of
course, circumstantial, testimonial or forensic evidence are never positive proof of a suspect's
guilt so the investigator must use whatever evidence is available and present it in such a way
as to maximize its persuasive impact. In this regard, investigators must appreciate that
interrogation relies extensively on implication and innuendo -- It is not so much the hand you
are dealt, but how you play the cards that counts.

The Decision to Introduce Evidence

The first question an investigator must address with respect to presenting evidence to a
suspect is whether to present it at all. The danger of presenting evidence is that by doing so
often reveals the weakness of the investigator's case and also gives the suspect something
tangible to attack. Many of the interrogations we conduct only involve circumstantial and
testimonial evidence against the suspect (opportunity, access, motive, propensity, behavior
symptom analysis). Under this circumstance we rarely comment on specific evidence during
an interrogation. Rather, we start the interrogation with a statement such as, "Jim, I have in
this folder the results of our entire investigation and all of the evidence clearly indicates that
you did (issue)." From that point on, often there is no further reference to evidence.

111
If evidence is presented during an interrogation, it should be used only to overcome barriers
such as persistent but weak denials or when the suspect is reluctant to accept the alternative
question. Under this circumstance the investigator should not tell the suspect, "Bill, here is all
of the evidence we have against you." To do so will often fortify the guilty suspect's belief
that he can explain away the evidence and escape consequences. Rather, the investigator
should select the most incriminating piece of evidence and present it as if it was the tip of the
ice burg. For example, "Bill, I'm not going to sit down with you and go over piece by piece all
of the evidence we have collected on this case but let me just show you this one piece.
Remember earlier you said you left work that night at 6:30. Here is an affidavit from your
supervisor who clearly remembers you leaving work that night at 5:15. That means you had
plenty of time to do this."

Using Weak Evidence to Imply Further Evidence

From the outset of an interrogation, the guilty suspect is asking himself the question, "Does
the investigator really know that I did this?", e.g., "Is there really evidence of my guilt." One
way to imply the existence of strong evidence against a suspect is for the investigator to attack
the evidence that does exists. Consider a homicide where it is known that the suspect
acknowledged being with the victim shortly before her death and recently breaking off that
relationship. Under this circumstance it may be very persuasive to tell the suspect the
following:

"Mike, I've talked to a lot of people who have done the same thing that you did. I know you're
sitting in that chair and asking yourself, ‘What proof do they have?" We talked earlier about
the fact that you saw her the day this happened and have no alibi. You know what. There are
probably 100,000 people in this city who have no alibi at the time she died. You told me about
your breakup with her. During our investigation we identified a number of people who were
upset with her and also had a motive to do this. The evidence we have has nothing to do with
your opportunity or motive. I wish I could lay everything we have out on the table so you
could see where I am coming from but at this stage of the investigation I can't do that. The
only reason I'm talking to you is to find out the circumstances that led up to your decision to
do this... [continue with theme].

Using Evidence to Attack the Suspect's Credibility

Consider a hit and run case where there is circumstantial evidence indicating that the suspect's
vehicle (which matched the description of the vehicle involved in the accident) had front end
repair work done the day after the accident. During the interview the investigator could show
the suspect the work order from the body shop and ask for an explanation. The deceptive
suspect is likely to offer an explanation such as saying that his car was damaged in a parking
lot the day of the hit and run so he took it in for repairs. The innocent suspect, of course could
tell the same story. An axiom of interviewing is to never reveal evidence to a suspect until
first giving the suspect a chance to volunteer the information.

In the case of the hit and run, the investigator should first ask whether the suspect's car had
sustained any recent front end damage and whether the vehicle had any recent repairs. An
innocent suspect will truthfully acknowledge this information. On the other hand, the

112
deceptive suspect, who has not been told about the work order, may lie and deny having any
repair done to his vehicle. During an interview the investigator should allow the suspect to tell
this lie and accept it. Later, during the interrogation, if the investigator needs to introduce
evidence the work order can be brought up and used to attack the suspect's credibility. The
dialogue may be as follows:

"Tom, I wouldn't be talking to you this way unless I knew for sure that you did this. A lot of
the questions I asked you earlier I already knew the answer to. For example, you said that
your car had no front end damage and had not been repaired. Look at this work order dated
the day after the accident. I'm sure you recognize it. The biggest problem you've got right now
is your credibility. At some point there may be a concern that this wasn't an accident at all and
that maybe you purposely aimed your car at that man because maybe you thought he was
having an affair with your wife. Or maybe someone might claim that you were paid money to
hit that man. Now, I don't think either of those things happened but if you don't start telling
the truth no one is going to believe anything you say!"

Establishing the Credibility of Testimonial Evidence

When the primary evidence against a suspect is testimonial, the investigator may need to
bolster the strength of that evidence in the suspect's mind. This is best accomplished through
the use of statements that appeal to the suspect's logic and common sense. For example, if a
victim or witness identified the suspect as the perpetrator of the crime the investigator may
comment that the victim or witness has no motive to lie. In the case where the witness or
victim knows the suspect personally, the investigator may state that this is clearly not a case of
mistaken identity. Similarly, the details of an informant's statements could be revealed to
bolster that evidence.

For legal reasons an investigator must be cautious about overstating the accuracy of detection
of deception procedures such as the polygraph technique, CVSA or behavior symptom
analysis. Some courts have ruled that, for example, attempting to convince a suspect that the
CVSA was infallible constitutes a deceptive statement that shocks the conscience of the court
or community. Rather, the investigator should rely on logical arguments in supporting the
strength of testimonial evidence as the following dialogue illustrates:

I: "Linda, I'm sure that over the last 25 years you've had friends or relatives lie to you and you
could usually tell when they were lying right?"

S: "Yeah."

I: "Would you agree that when you were younger it was harder to tell when people lied to you
than when you got older and had more life experiences?"

S: "Sure."

113
I: "Well, I've had specific training in evaluating behavior symptoms. That's what I do in my
job. I interview people and evaluate their behavior. And I've been doing this for almost 15
years. I wouldn't be talking to you this way if I wasn't convinced that you did this."

Interviewing Elderly Subjects July 2004

Interviewing techniques presented in textbooks or during seminars generally assume

that the person being interviewed is an emotionally healthy and mature individual
with a normal IQ. Twenty-five years ago, when the epidemic of unreported child
sexual abuse attracted national attention, specific interviewing techniques were
developed to address the special circumstances of eliciting information from a child.
Contemporary investigators are now dealing with a new special interest group. As our
population ages, investigators are faced with the task of frequently interviewing
elderly witnesses, victims and suspects.

Unlike children, who reach psychological and physiological benchmarks within a year
or two of established norms, the deteriorating effects of aging have a wide range.
There are 80-year-old subjects with remarkable cognitive and physical abilities and,
conversely, 65-year-old subjects with noticeably impaired memory and affected
physiological functions. Consequently, the first goal when interviewing an elderly
subject is to make an initial assessment of the person’s age-related functions. In
particular, the investigator needs to assess the subject’s senses and memory
function.

Evaluating the subject’s senses

Assessing a subject’s eyesight and hearing is obviously important with respect to

credibility if that individual claims to be a witness or victim of a crime. Furthermore,
failure to recognize vision or hearing problems within a subject may cause misleading
behavior symptoms during an interview.

An investigator should not approach an elderly subject with any expectation of

physical or mental impairment. In other words, it would be improper for the
investigator to initially talk loudly, to use simple words, or to over-explain the situation.
Rather, when interviewing an elderly subject the investigator should have a
heightened awareness of the individual’s possible sensory limitations and be
prepared to adjust interviewing techniques accordingly.

Simple observation may reveal that a subject wears strong eyeglasses or hearing
aids. Observing the subject during conversation may indicate a tendency for the
subject to turn a "good ear" toward the investigator when a question is asked or to
offer an inappropriate response to a question that was asked when the subject was
not facing the investigator. When sight or hearing is important to the subject’s
testimony, it is important to establish whether or not the subject was wearing glasses
or hearing aids at the time an event occurred.

As one ages, often more light is required for the eyes to focus and discern particular
features. When an elderly subject is offering eye witness evidence, the investigator
should carefully document the amount of light present at the time of the initial event.
For the same reason, if an elderly subject is asked to identify a photograph or the

114
signature on a canceled check, for example, the document or object should be well
lighted.

When interviewing an elderly person with affected hearing there is a tendency to

make two errors. The first is for the investigator to significantly increase his volume
when asking a question, and second, to treat the subject as if a hearing impairment
also decreases the subject’s IQ. If a subject has impaired hearing, the investigator
should maintain a normal volume when asking questions but slow down the rate of
speaking words -- under this circumstance carefully enunciating each word is often
sufficient to allow the subject to understand the investigator. It is also important for
the investigator to maintain direct eye contact when asking questions as many
hearing impaired individuals will rely on visual cues to interpret verbal
communication. Finally, the investigator’s vocabulary or sentence structure should
not be affected merely because a subject has impaired hearing.

While sight and hearing may be diminished with an elderly subject, the person’s
olfactory senses may be heightened. In this regard, it is especially important for the
investigator to make certain that his or her breath is fresh and also be aware of
possibly offensive odors on clothing such as tobacco or strong cooking odors. Finally,
an investigator should not be shy in asking an elderly subject about failing sight,
hearing or other relevant medical issues. It is not at all unprofessional or insulting for
an investigator to sincerely ask an elderly subject, "Andy are you able to understand
me all right?" or, "Julie is there enough light for you to see these pictures?"

Affected Memory

All memories eventually decay to the point of being irretrievable, or perhaps, even
erased. A person at age ten who is asked to recall memories of their first day of
kindergarten will be able to provide many more specific recollections than when given
the same task at age 30. This gradual inability to recall long-term events occurs,
more or less, on an even continuum throughout our lives, provided the individual is
not suffering from a disease that abnormally impairs memory, e.g., Alzheimer’s
disease. Similarly, as a person ages short-term memory also decreases. Since most
daily tasks require short-term memory ("Where did I park the car?" "Did I buy milk
yesterday?"), this type of memory loss is most apparent and bothersome. Because
distortions or omissions in long-term memory are typically unverifiable and have no
immediate consequence, the perception is that long-term memory remains intact in
the elderly, when in fact, it may also be affected. 1

During an interview, both a subject’s long and short-term memory can significantly affect the
quantity and accuracy of information learned. The accuracy of long-term memory would
certainly be important for an investigator who is working a "cold case" and wants to interview
a 70-year-old man who witnessed a bank robbery 25 years ago. With respect to short-term
memory, consider a 70-year-old woman who was the victim of a strong armed robbery that
occurred 30 minutes ago. In both scenarios the subject’s age will almost certainly affect the
person’s memory, at least to some extent. To address affected memories, there are two
procedures an investigator should use when interviewing an elderly subject. The first is to

115
gauge the subject’s accuracy for long-term recall and second is to use techniques to enhance
the subject’s memory.

When an interview involves long-term memory, the investigator should ask corroborative
questions to help assess the trustworthiness of the subject’s memory. Corroborative questions
request information that can be independently verified. For example, when discussing a
robbery that occurred 25 years ago, the subject may be asked what his home address was, who
his immediate supervisor was or what the weather conditions were on the day of the robbery.
It is not significant if the subject is unable to recall these details. However, if the subject
claims to recall this type of information and subsequent checking indicates that their recall
was faulty, this finding suggests possible other errors in the subject’s recollections. Including
corroborative questions during an interview of an elderly subject may also be beneficial
during court testimony in that the investigator will be able to describe to the court why he
found the subject’s memory trustworthy.

In addition to aging neuro-pathways and diminished blood supply to parts of the brain, other
factors contribute to an elderly person’s inability to immediately recall information. Some of
these include intense emotional states such as anxiety, distrust or fear. Environmental
distractions (sounds, movement) can also inhibit the ability to recall information. While some
memory loss is unavoidable, an investigator can increase the amount of information recalled
by an elderly subject during an interview by following these guidelines:

1. Most people can relate to the high school experience of sitting down for a
final examination and initially being unable to recall anything that was studied.
Anxiety, apprehension and fear all greatly reduce a person’s ability to recall
information. Thus, at the outset of the interview the investigator should take
time to establish rapport. Especially with an elderly subject it is important to
establish a level of trust and emotional comfort before discussing the issue
under investigation. To do this the investigator could exhibit a sincere interest
in some aspect of the subject’s life. The conversation may center around the
subject’s career, family, neighborhood, house or yard.

2. Diminish outside distractions. Any subject’s cognitive functioning will be

higher in an environment that is quiet and free from visual stimulation such as
moving people or multiple investigators asking questions. This guideline
operates ten-fold for the elderly.

3. Just as it takes elderly subjects longer to move from one place to another or
to finish a meal, it also takes them longer to retrieve memories. Investigators
must literally allow elderly subjects more time to recall information asked
during an interview. If an investigator asks questions rapidly or exhibits
nonverbal symptoms of being inpatient, this will enhance the subject’s level of
anxiety, and consequently, decrease his or her ability to recall information. A
slow, methodical questioning technique is much more appropriate for an
elderly subject.

4. Do not suggest possible answers. A cooperative subject often wants to please

the investigator by providing requested information. However, if the subject
cannot recall the requested information, he or she may be very willing to agree

116
 with an answer suggested by the investigator. When a cooperative subject
states that he or she cannot recall specific information, consider these options:

a. Skip over the incident and return to it later. The topic may be
too sensitive for the subject to discuss at the present time or
simply be too trivial for the subject to recall. Frequently, by
returning to the topic later during the interview, the subject will
provide the requested information.

b. If appropriate, explore prior memory connections to stimulate

recall. Examples of this would be: "Did the person remind you
of anyone you know?" "Did the person talk like anyone you
know?" "Were you aware of any familiar smells that reminded
you of someone or somewhere else?" If the subject answers
"yes" to this type of question, obviously the investigator would
first pursue the prior memory and then tie it in to the current
event, e.g., "Why did this man remind you of your nephew in
California?"

c. At the conclusion of the interview ask the subject to think

about the requested information and to call the investigator if
anything else comes to mind. This procedure is also beneficial
when the subject is reluctant to reveal information in front of
another person present during the interview, e.g., a spouse or
relative.

In summary, there are unique issues relating to the interview of elderly subjects investigators
need to be aware of and, if possible, compensate for. When showing an elderly person a
photograph or other document, make certain there is sufficient light in the room. When
speaking to a subject with impaired hearing, the investigator should slow down the rate of
speaking and maintain eye contact. The investigator should not talk to the subject as though
the person is mentally deficient.

Diminished memory function is a natural part of the aging process. The investigator should
test the elderly subject’s memory by asking corroborative questions during an interview. In
addition, certain interview procedures should be followed to increase the subject’s ability to
recall information. In this regard, the investigator should make an effort to reduce anxiety by
establishing a rapport with the subject, allow sufficient time for the subject to remember and
not force or suggest answers when the subject initially claims not to be able to remember
something.

Lying to a Suspect: How Far Can an Investigator Go? June 2004

During the course of an investigation an investigator often must rely on duplicity and
pretense in an effort to develop evidence against the guilty suspect. Common
examples include the use of undercover operatives, hidden surveillance video or
"baiting" a cash drawer with extra money. Provided these procedures do not entice a
person to commit a crime (entrapment), they are generally acceptable practices.

117
However, courts give greater scrutiny to situations when an investigator knowingly
lies to a suspect in an effort to obtain evidence. The courts recognized that deception
by law enforcement is often required to solve crimes but also prohibits the police from
making false statements to a suspect under certain circumstances.

Shocking the conscience of the court or community

The landmark decision regulating false statements made to a suspect is the U.S.
Supreme Court case of Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 1969. The case involved the
interrogation of a homicide suspect who was falsely told that an accomplice had
already implicated the suspect in the killing. This lie persuaded the suspect to
confess to the homicide. The Supreme Court ruled that such use of trickery and
deceit can be permissible (depending on the totality of circumstances) provided that it
does not shock the conscience of the court or community.

Furthermore, the court offered examples of police conduct that would shock the
conscience of the court or community. Such impermissible conduct includes an
investigator lying about his identity and introducing himself as the suspect’s court
appointed attorney. Similarly, an investigator who poses as a clergyman in an effort to
obtain a confession under that guise would constitute behavior that shocks the
conscience of the court or community. Over the last 35 years courts have upheld
countless confessions even though the investigator lied to the suspect during an
interview or interrogation. In most of these cases the investigator made false
statements about being in possession of evidence that implicated the suspect in the
crime e.g., eye-witness, fingerprint, DNA, etc.

On the other hand, courts have consistently prohibited investigators from lying to
suspects about the possible consequences the suspect faces if he is guilty of
committing a crime. An example of this would be if an investigator falsely tells a
suspect that recent legislation allows the suspect to receive probation if he expresses
remorse for his crime. Other instances of impermissible false statements include
telling a suspect that if he confesses he can sleep in his own bed that night (when
such is not the case), or that if the suspect does not confess her children will be
taken from her and placed in a foster home.

A 1993 case draws a clear distinction between intrinsic lies (dealing with the current
investigation) and extrinsic lies (relating to legal issues or the court system).1 That
case holds that telling extrinsic lies to a suspect constitutes inherent coercion and,
consequently, renders a confession inadmissible, per se. Other states have adopted
a similar position. For example, a recent decision from Minnesota involved a case
where the investigator told the suspect that if he acknowledged having sexual contact
with the victim many years ago, that the suspect would not be charged with a more
serious offense. The court suppressed the subsequent confession relying, in part, on
the rationale that an investigator is prohibited from telling extrinsic lies during an
interrogation.

An interesting application of Kalekolio is the permissibility of lying to a suspect about

the purpose for an interview. As an example, consider that Frank is suspected of
engaging in illegal gambling activity and investigators wish to talk to him about that.
For fear that Frank will destroy evidence if told the true purpose for the interview,

118
investigators lie and tell him that they would like to question him about a recent hit
and run accident. Once Frank voluntarily presents himself to the interview room he is
told the true purpose for the interview and subsequently confesses to illegal gambling
activity. Lying to a non-custodial suspect about the purpose for an interview may be
considered permissible if the investigator can establish a reasonable purpose for the
deception and that the interview was voluntary. However, if Frank was arrested and
taken into custody, it would be clearly improper and illegal to elicit a Miranda waiver
under the false pretest of wanting to talk to him about a hit and run accident.
Obtaining a valid waiver of constitutional rights is clearly extrinsic to the investigation
and an investigator can not engage in trickery or deceit to obtain that goal.

False assertions vs. manufactured evidence

A Florida case offers further guidance with respect to making false statements to a
suspect.2 In the Cayward case police created a fictitious crime lab report which
indicated that Cayward’s DNA was found on the victim. After reading the report,
Cayward confessed. At trial his confession was suppressed because of the court’s
concern that such manufactured evidence may find its way into a court room and
undermine the integrity of the evidential system. The significant language from
Cayward is that a distinction must be made between, "Making false assertions and
manufacturing evidence". The implication is that Cayward’s confession would have
been upheld had the investigator only made the false statement, "We have a crime
lab report and your DNA was found on the victim."

This same logic was applied in a recent New Jersey case to suppress a homicide
confession.3 In preparation for the interrogation, investigators staged an audio-taped
interview where a fellow investigator pretended to be an informant who witnessed the
killing. Upon hearing the manufactured tape the suspect confessed. It should be
made clear that the Cayward case does not prohibit an investigator from using visual
props during an interrogation provided that the props would not reasonably be
perceived as actual evidence against the suspect.

Conclusion

Many of the interrogations conducted at John E. Reid and Associates involve

deception through duplicity and pretense to one degree or another. When we start
out the interrogation by telling the suspect that all of the evidence indicates that he
committed the crime, this is often an exaggeration. We may then compliment the
suspect by saying that he appears to be a conscientious and caring individual. This,
too, is often a lie. We continue on by expressing understanding and compassion
toward the suspect’s criminal behavior and express sympathy toward the unfortunate
situation that led to the decision to commit the crime. These false emotions of
sympathy and expressions of confidence are often necessary to create an
environment where the suspect feels comfortable telling the truth.

Only rarely do we lie about having evidence that implicates the suspect in the crime.
In our experience, an investigator who lies about having such evidence risks the
suspect either calling the investigator’s bluff, e.g., "Let me see that crime lab report!"
or frightening the suspect into asking for an attorney. Procedurally, making false

119
statements to a suspect during an interrogation is a risky proposition and should be
reserved as a last ditch effort to overcome weak, but persistent denials.

When the decision is made to lie to a suspect, the investigator must be aware of case
law and avoid any lies that relate to legal issues or the criminal justice system, e.g.
leniency, lesser charges, reduced sentence. Further, lies made to a suspect should
be limited to false verbal assertions. This does not preclude the investigator from
using visual props such as a thick evidence folder or a blank VHS tape. However, it is
unacceptable for an investigator to manufacture fictitious evidence against a suspect.

Investigating Possible Fabricated Claims May 2004

A recent case involving a University of Wisconsin student who falsely claimed that
she was abducted highlights some important characteristics of these investigations.
This particular case quickly achieved national attention and was followed on a daily
basis by morning talk shows. The reason for this attention was probably because the
media were able to build suspense by showing surveillance video of the victim
leaving her apartment the night of her alleged abduction. It certainly was not because
of the scarcity of missing person cases nor was it the rarity of claims of alleged
abductions. Indeed, while this drama was unfolding in Madison, Wisconsin, police
150 miles to the northeast were investigating another mysterious disappearance of a
school teacher that also turned out to be faked. Because these cases tend to be high
profile, an agency must be sensitive, but also diligent, in their investigation.

Initial Response

When a law enforcement agency initially receives a report of a possible abduction, or

when a person comes forward and claims to have been sexually assaulted or
robbed, the initial response must be to accept the facts at face value and conduct an
appropriate investigation based on available information. However, the investigation
should be two-pronged. One effort should be to develop investigative information
which may lead to possible suspects. At the same time, a second effort should focus
on verifying the credibility of the report. For example, when questioning the victim’s
acquaintances the investigator not only must ask questions about who might have a
motive to harm the victim but also ask questions to learn whether or not the victim
may have a motive or propensity to fabricate such a claim.

Whether these cases are real or fabricated, the investigator must appreciate that the
best source of information will be the alleged victim. Too often, victims are initially
interviewed in an effort to gain basic information about the crime and then dismissed
until needed for an identification or trial testimony. Our strong recommendation is to
always re-interview victims perhaps 24 or 48 hours after the initial report (depending
on the person’s psychological/ physical health). The follow-up interview should be in-
depth and should incorporate behavior-provoking questions to assess the person’s
credibility.

When an actual victim is initially interviewed, often that person is emotionally

distressed and focuses on the emotional components of the attack. They strongly
remember how they felt, what words were said and the humiliation they feared when
others found out about what happened to them. However, the information an

120
investigator most needs such as the physical description of the rapists, whether the
rapist had a tattoo or unusual marks, or the description of the car the rapist was
driving are foggy and uncertain. Often when a legitimate crime victim is re-
interviewed more detailed information about the perpetrator is learned and the victim
has more certainty about peripheral details of the crime which may help the
investigator. On the other hand, when a person who has fabricated a crime is re-
interviewed, the results may be quite telling. Poor eye contact, a frozen posture and a
sketchy memory during the initial interview may be forgiven as a result of trauma.
However, when these same symptoms are still apparent two days after the alleged
crime, the investigator should consider the possibility of a fabricated claim. Similarly,
when relating a fabricated claim a second time the account may contain obvious
inconsistencies. In particular, the investigator should listen for a change of sequence
of events between the first and second accounts, since this strongly suggests a
fabricated claim.

The decision as to whether or not the media should be contacted during an

investigation is, at best, a judgment call. If public exposure is likely to develop further
investigative information, such exposure is probably desirable. But public exposure is
a double-edged sword. In the Madison case, media exposure resulted in phone calls
from people who saw the victim the day after the alleged abduction but also greatly
increased the personal consequences the victim faced if she wanted to tell the truth.
It may have been a relatively easy task to persuade her to tell the truth if the only
people affected were her family and friends. However, once the entire country
became aware of her predicament, the consequences of telling the truth must have
been almost insurmountable.

Interrogation

When an investigation or second interview of a reported victim develops information

that reasonably suggests a fabricated claim, it is entirely appropriate to interrogate
the alleged victim in an effort to learn the truth. To develop an interrogation strategy, it
is important to establish the probable motive for the false claim. The following can be
used as a guideline for most false claims:

Robbery To cover their own theft

To cover complicity in the theft

To cover negligence

Abduction / Assault where no person is named Attention

To explain absence or tardiness

To cover pregnancy

To cover sexually transmitted disease

To cover injuries caused by a person being protected

121
Sexual assault where person is named Revenge

Caught in embarrassing situation

For financial gain (paternity, settlement)

The confrontation of the interrogation should avoid descriptive language, e.g., "Mary,
our investigation indicates that you did not tell the truth about being taken from your
apartment." It would be incorrect to put Mary on the defensive by accusing her of
"lying" and it would also be non-productive to confront her ambiguously, e.g., "Mary
after reviewing your statement, things are not quite adding up." If an investigator
does not come out with a direct and unambiguous confrontation statement often the
suspect will offer a revised version of his story which satisfies the investigator’s
"things are not quite adding up" accusation, but still does not represent the truth.

Following a direct positive confrontation of guilt, the investigator should offer an

interrogation theme which will reinforce the suspect’s own motives for committing the
crime. The theme is delivered as a sympathetic monologue and serves to create an
environment where the suspect feels comfortable discussing his or her crime. In the
previously referred to case from Wisconsin, the college student confessed that she
made up the abduction story to gain attention and sympathy from her boyfriend.
Consequently, this concept would have been an appropriate theme for her
interrogation.

When the suspect appears to be ready to make the first admission of guilt the
investigator should ask an alternative question. This is a question that offers the
suspect two choices concerning some aspect of the crime. Accepting either choice
results in the first admission of guilt. Some possible alternative questions to consider
in cases involving a fabricated claim include:

"Did you do this for attention or because you are vindictive and wanted
to get even with someone?"

"Did you plan this out for months in advance or did the idea just come
to you on the spur of the moment?"

"Did you start out with a full story in mind, or did it just kind of grow as
people asked you more and more questions?"

"Have you made up stories about other people your whole life, or was
this pretty much the first time?"

Once the "victim" has started to tell the truth by accepting an alternative question, the
investigator must learn the whole truth and develop a legally admissible confession.
This confession must not only be obtained without the use of threats or promises, but

122
must also be trustworthy. The best evidence supporting the trustworthiness of a
retracted claim of robbery, abduction or rape is independent corroboration. This
describes information not known until the confession that can be independently
verified. In the Madison case, the police were able to independently establish that the
student herself purchased the knife, duct tape, and other articles allegedly used
during her abduction. Other examples of possible independent corroboration in
claims of false robbery, abduction or assault include recovery of stolen funds,
recovery of object used to create an injury, bloodied material showing that injuries
occurred other than where originally stated and a diary or conversation with a friend
indicating the intention to fabricate a story.

Conclusion

The national attention recently given to a false claim of abduction suggests that this
is a very rare occurrence. In truth, it is not and law enforcement agencies must
always consider the possibility that an alleged robbery, abduction, rape or physical
assault is fabricated. An important aspect of the investigation is to re-interview the
victim. When a false claim is suspected the interrogation theme will center around the
probable motive for the claim. Once a person acknowledges that he or she made up
the story, the investigator should elicit information about the fabrication that can be
independently corroborated.

False Confession Cases – The Issues April 2004

In the past several years a number of false confession cases have received
extensive publicity. In several of these cases the convicted individual has been
exonerated by DNA testing and the actual perpetrator, in turn, has been identified. In
these cases it is important to examine in detail exactly what happened; what went
wrong; what are the lessons to be learned, and what are potential safeguards that
can be put into place to prevent future mistakes.

To be sure, in the experience of most professional interrogators the frequency of

false confessions is rare. When we do learn of them, however, the interrogation
tactics and techniques should be scrupulously examined, as well as the
circumstances surrounding the interrogation. When this has been done, there are
four factors that appear with some regularity in false confession cases:

• The suspect is a juvenile; and/or

• The suspect suffers some mental or psychological impairment; and/or
• The interrogation took place over an inordinate amount of time; and/or
• The interrogators engaged in illegal tactics and techniques

Juveniles/Mental Impairment

Every interrogator must exercise extreme caution and care when interviewing or
interrogating a juvenile or a person who is mentally or psychologically impaired.
Certainly these individuals can and do commit very serious crimes. But when a
juvenile or person who is mentally or psychologically impaired confesses, the

123
investigator should exercise extreme diligence in establishing the accuracy of such a
statement through subsequent corroboration. In these situations it is imperative that
interrogators do not reveal details of the crime so that they can use the disclosure of
such information by the suspect as verification of the confession’s authenticity.

When a juvenile younger than 15, who has not had any prior experience with the
police, is advised of his Miranda rights, the investigator should carefully discuss and
talk about those rights with the subject (not just recite them) to make sure that he
understands them. If it is apparent that the suspect does not understand his rights,
no interrogation should be conducted at that time. The same is true for a person who
is mentally or psychologically impaired.

Threats/Promises

A review of the available information in false confession cases has revealed that in
many of the interrogations the investigators engaged in the use of impermissible
threats and promises. Interrogators in these cases have made such statements as:

"You’re not leaving this room until you confess."

"If you tell me you did this you can go home and sleep in your own bed tonight (when
such is not the case)."

"You will be sentenced to the maximum term unless you confess."

"With the evidence that we have, there’s no doubt that you will be convicted of this.
The only question is how long you are going to sit in jail."

"If you don’t tell the truth I will get your children turned over to protective services and
you’ll never see them again."

"The other guys want to charge you with 1st degree murder but if you tell me it was
just manslaughter nothing bad will happen to you."

It goes without saying that in the questioning of a criminal suspect no professional

interrogator should engage in any illegal interrogation practices, including any
threats, promises of leniency or the exercise of any physically abusive tactics.
Furthermore, the rights of the suspect should be scrupulously respected.

Theme Development

It has been suggested by some that the interrogator’s effort to develop a theme
during the interrogation is not just offering the suspect a moral excuse for his criminal
behavior, but is actually offering the suspect a promise of reduced punishment. Here
are several quotes from our books that clarify this issue:

Excerpts from Criminal Interrogation and Confessions (4th edition, 2001 Inbau, Reid,
Buckley and Jayne)

124
 • "During the presentation of any theme based upon the morality factor, caution
must be taken to avoid any indication that the minimization of the moral blame
will relieve the suspect of criminal responsibility." (p.93)

• "As earlier stated, the interrogator must avoid any expressed or intentionally
implied statement to the effect that because of the minimized seriousness of
the offense, the suspect is to receive a lighter punishment." (p.100)

• "In applying this technique of condemning the accomplice, the interrogator

must proceed cautiously and must refrain from making any comments to the
effect that the blame cast on an accomplice thereby relieves the suspect of
legal responsibility for his part in the commission of the offense." (p. 114)

Excerpt from The Investigator Anthology 2000 Jayne and Buckley

• "During theme development, caution must be exercised, however, not to tell

the suspect that if the crime was committed for a morally acceptable reason
that the suspect will be accorded leniency." (p. 414)

Alternative Questions

In The Reid Technique the alternative question should never threaten consequences
or offer promises of leniency. The following are improper alternative question
examples:

"Do you want to cooperate with me and tell me what happened, or spend the next
five to seven years behind bars?" (improper)

"Do you want to be charged with first degree murder, which will mean life in prison, or
was this just manslaughter?" (improper)

"Are you going to get this straightened out today, or do you want to spend a few days
in jail to think about it?" (improper)

There has been the suggestion by some critics of police interrogation techniques that
the alternative question – "Was this your idea or did your buddies talk you into it?" is
potentially dangerous because it only offers a suspect (including an innocent one)
only two choices, both of which amount to an admission of guilt. Obviously the third
choice is for the suspect to deny any participation in the commission of the crime that
is under investigation.

125
However, there is an additional issue raised by some critics about the alternative
question – namely, that saying "Was this your idea or did your buddies talk you into it"
is essentially the same as saying "If this was your idea you are going to spend time in
jail, but if your buddies came up with the idea you won’t have any problems." This
theory is called "pragmatic implication" and was developed from a research study in
which college students read various transcripts of interrogations and then speculated
on the type of punishment the suspects would receive based on the interrogation
process used. Specifically, the students theorized that when the interrogator
suggested in a murder case interrogation that the victim may have done or said
something to have provoked the suspect, that he would receive the same
punishment as in those interrogations in which the suspect was directly offered a
promise of leniency that if he confessed he would receive less punishment.

The courts have rejected the idea that a confession is inadmissible if a suspect
confesses because he harbors some internal hope that his confession may lead to a
lesser sentence.

State v. Nunn - "…even if a suspect …influenced perhaps by wishful thinking …

assumed that he would get more lenient treatment…[this] would not, as a matter of
law, make the confession inadmissible."

R. v. Rennie - "Very few confessions are inspired solely by remorse. Often the
motives of the accused are mixed and include a hope that an early admission may
lead to an early release or a lighter sentence."

R v Oickle - The Supreme Court of Canada indicated that the type of alternative
question we suggest does not create an inadmissible confession, and offered a clear
test of whether or not an implied threat or promise crosses the legal line: "The most
important decision in all cases is to look for a quid pro quo offer by interrogators,
regardless of whether it comes in the form of a threat or a promise."

Confession Corroboration

As we have stated earlier, it is imperative that interrogators do not reveal details of

the crime so that they can use the disclosure of such information by the suspect as
verification of the confession’s authenticity. In each case there should be documented
"hold back" information about the details of how the crime was committed; details
from the crime scene; details about specific activities perpetrated by the offender; etc.
The goal is match the suspect’s confession against these details to establish the
veracity of the statement. It should be remembered, however, that suspects do not
always tell us everything that they did and they do not always remember all of the
details themselves.

Excerpt from Criminal Interrogation and Confessions (4th edition, 2001 Inbau, Reid,
Buckley and Jayne)

• "… it is also a fact that most confessors to crimes of a serious nature will lie
about some aspect of the occurrence, even though they may have disclosed
the full truth regarding the main event. They will lie about some detail of the

126
 crime for which they have a greater feeling of shame than that which they
experienced with respect to the main event itself." (p. 106)

Excerpts from The Investigator Anthology 2000 Jayne and Buckley

• "Lies of justification and omission are commonplace in written confessions.

Many of these lies represent the suspect’s attempt to present his crime in the
most favorable light, others have a more direct bearing, such as protecting the
name of an accomplice or concealing involvement in another crime." (p. 472)

• "Some confessions contain misinformation because of the suspect’s

perceptual distortions. During a kidnapping and murder of a child, the suspect
may have vivid recollections of committing the crime, but have no specific
recollections of the clothes the child was wearing." Many crimes are
committed when the suspect is experiencing intense emotions (fear, anger,
frustration). Just as victims tend to focus on the robber’s weapon during a
robbery, the emotions a guilty suspect experiences can bias attention and
memory retrieval of specific details. As cognitive psychologist Daniel Schacter
writes, "When a person has actually experienced trauma, the central core of
the experience is almost always well remembered; if distortion does occur, it is
most likely to involve specific details." Searching for Memory: The Brain, The
Mind and the Past 1996 (p.473)

Nevertheless, when significant and substantial contradictions exist between the

known facts about the crime and what the suspect describes in his confession,
extreme care must be exercised in the assessment of the confession’s validity.

Factors to Consider

With the above discussion in mind, the following represents some factors to consider
in the assessment of the credibility of a suspect’s confession. These issues are
certainly not all inclusive, and each case must be evaluated on the "totality of
circumstances" surrounding the interrogation and confession, but nevertheless, these
are elements that should be given careful consideration:

1. The suspect’s condition at the time of the interrogation

a. Physical condition (including drug and/or alcohol intoxication)
b. Mental capacity
c. Psychological condition
2. The suspects age
3. The suspect’s prior experience with law enforcement
4. The suspect’s understanding of the language
5. The length of the interrogation
6. The degree of detail provided by the suspect in his confession
7. The extent of corroboration between the confession and the crime
8. The presence of witnesses to the interrogation and confession
9. The suspect’s behavior during the interrogation
10. The effort to address the suspect’s physical needs

127
 11. The presence of any improper interrogation techniques

TESTIMONY DATA SHEET

Name: DOB:

Language:

People involved in the interrogation:

1. Was Miranda given? Y N time ________ place _______________ Witness

_________

2. Behavior Analysis Interview start _________ end _________

How do you feel about being interviewed today?

Why have you agreed to talk to me about this matter?

How would you describe your physical health right now?

How much sleep did you get in the last 24 hours?

When was your last full meal?

Have you had any alcohol or drugs in the last 24 hours?

3. Interrogation start ___________ end ___________

Primary Theme:

Alternative Question:

First admission of guilt time __________

Suspect left interrogation room time __________

Did the suspect request an attorney ? Y N

Did the suspect say he no longer wanted to answer questions? Y N

Did the suspect attempt to leave the room ? Y N

4. Document any washroom breaks; beverages; food; cigarette breaks, etc:

________________

___________________________________________________________________
______

5. Confession Witnessed by ____________________________

128
Why did you decide to tell the truth about this?

Do you have any complaints about the way you were treated today?

Completed by:

The Presence of a Third Person in the Interview Room

Ideally, an interview of a suspect, victim or witness should be conducted in a private

setting. The most important element of privacy is communicating one on one with the
person being interviewed. Common sense and experience clearly indicate that the
presence of a third party during an interview or interrogation inhibits the truth-telling
process, i.e., it is easier to relate sensitive information to one person than two people.

However, out of necessity or sometimes practicality, a third person may be present

during the interview or interrogation. In some instances, the third person may be a
fellow investigator who wants to be present during an interview or interrogation.
When interviewing a minor, the third person may be a parent or juvenile advocate. In
some situations, to guard against unwarranted claims of sexual misconduct, it may
be advisable to have a female witness present when a male interviews a female
suspect. In private industry cases an employee may request that a union
representative or another employee be present during an interview. For the sake of
simplicity, this third person will be referred to as an "observer."

Whoever the observer may be, the investigator needs to minimize the loss of privacy
created by having a third person in the room. The first consideration in accomplishing
this goal is to have the observer sit out of the subject‚s sight. The furniture within the
interview room should, therefore, be arranged in such a way that the observer‚s chair
is preferably behind, and to the side of, the subject‚s chair. If it is not possible to
position the observer behind the subject, at the very least the observer‚s chair should
be positioned off to the side of the subject‚s chair.

In addition to placing the observer out of the subject‚s sight, it is imperative that the
observer be instructed to remain silent. In other words, the flow of communication
should only be between the investigator and the subject. When the observer is a
parent or union representative it is often beneficial for the investigator to sit down with
the observer and carefully define what that person‚s role will be during the interview.
A discussion similar to the following may me appropriate:

"I have no problems with you being present during my interview of

(subject). However, I am going to ask that you sit in the chair on the
other side of the desk. In addition, I must insist that you remain silent
throughout my interview. For me to do my job I need to be able to
speak with (subject) without any interruptions from you. If you have any
problems with the questions I ask (subject) you are free to express your

129
 objections following the interview. However, if you do interrupt the
interview by asking questions or making statements I may have to
terminate the entire process and indicate in my report that I was unable
to complete the interview because of your interruptions. Will you agree
to allow me to do my job by withholding comment during my
conversation with (subject)?"

In actuality, the investigator has no legal authority to require that a third party remain
silent during the course of an interview or interrogation. However, it is clearly to the
investigator‚s advantage to spend some time with the observer in an effort to
persuade that person not to interfere with the interview or interrogation process.

If the observer is another investigator a decision should be made as to who will

conduct the interview or interrogation. A situation that should be avoided is one in
which two or more investigators are simultaneously questioning the subject. Under
this circumstance the subject is likely to feel overwhelmed and threatened. A natural
response to those feelings is for the suspect to become guarded and offer little
information or perhaps totally retreat by either terminating the interview.

One possible advantage of having a second investigator in the room during an

interview or interrogation is that the observer may be more attentive to observe
behavior symptoms from the subject. These observations may suggest additional
questions to ask during an interview or alternative tactics to use during an
interrogation. The key is to maintain the principle that one person communicate with
the subject at a time. Therefore, a procedure needs to be developed where a smooth
transition can be made that allows the two investigators to switch roles.

During an interview, when the initial investigator asks his last question it would be
appropriate to ask the observer (the other investigator) whether or not he or she has
any questions to ask the suspect. If the observer responds affirmatively, the two
investigators should then switch places within the room. That is, the initial investigator
should now sit in the observer‚s chair and the initial observer sit in the investigator‚s
chair. Once the new seating arrangement has been established, the second
investigator is in a proper psychological position to develop further information from
the subject. On the other hand, it would be inappropriate for the observer to ask
questions from behind a desk or table.

The same principle applies during an interrogation; however the transition between
the observer and initial interrogator may not be so obvious. When the observer
recognizes that the initial investigator is not making progress during the interrogation
it would be appropriate for the observer to get out of his seat and make a statement
such as the following: "Jim, I‚ve been sitting back here and listening to what you‚re
saying. Something you‚ve got to understand is that we would not be talking to you
this way unless we knew, without a doubt, that you did this." This statement is a
signal to the original investigator to get out of his chair and allow the other
investigator to take over the interrogation.

130
The importance of privacy during an interview or interrogation in eliciting the truth has
long been recognized. However, there are circumstances where privacy within the
interview room must be compromised. When a third person is present during an
interview or interrogation the investigator should attempt to minimize the
psychological impact of that third person by positioning the third person out of the
subject‚s sight and also instructing the third person to remain silent. When the
observer is a second investigator, it is important that only one investigator at a time
communicate with the suspect.

Willingness to Repay Stolen Funds Not Always An Indication of Guilt February

2004

During our basic interviewing and interrogation course, the point is made that during
an interrogation a suspect’s willingness to reimburse a victim for stolen money or
property is often tantamount to a confession. Under this circumstances, the suspect’s
agreement to make restitution means two things. The first is that it represents a
strong indication that the suspect is guilty of the theft and, second, that the suspect is
close to making the first admission of guilt. This procedure is illustrated during an
interrogation shown at the course. The essence of this portion of the interrogation is
presented below:

I: "Kristi, I would like to believe that this is not something you planned
this out long in advance, where you got this job knowing that you would
have access to money everyday and could take money whenever you
wanted it. What I would like to believe is that something important came
up in your life and you found yourself short and gave into temptation
and took this $1000. Here’s what this is boiling down to. Either you
needed that money for something important or you just blew it, maybe
on drugs or something. I don’t think that’s the case. I don’t think you are
a drug addict. You needed it for something important, didn’t you?"

S: "I’m not saying I took it."

I: "Look Kristi, it boils down to this. Either you care about this thing or
you don’t. Now I think you care about it."

S:"Obviously I care what’s happening."

I:"Tell me this. At least would you be willing to pay the money back?
Let’s face it, if you care about this at least you should be willing to pay
the money back. Would you at least be willing to do that"

S: "Of course."

I:"Okay, good. That tells me that you want to get this straightened out.
Now, what did you need the money for? Did you need it for drugs?"

S: "No. It was for bills."

131
I: "What kind of bills?"

S: "Medical bills." (At this point the suspect offers a fully corroborated confession)

As this interrogation illustrates, the investigator’s suggestion that the suspect make
restitution is merely a technique to allow the suspect to start accepting responsibility
for her crime; it is a stepping stone that may lead to the first admission of guilt and
should not be considered proof of the suspect’s guilt. Common sense tells us that an
innocent person would not be willing to accept responsibility for a theft he or she did
not commit. However, there is a notable exception to this axiom.

Recently, two participants at different training seminars reported incidents where

confirmed innocent employees agreed to repay funds that were apparently stolen by
another person. Follow-up inquires revealed an important distinction between those
cases and the previously mentioned interrogation. Specifically, the innocent
employees’ agreement to make restitution was the result of being asked a question to
that effect during an interview. Furthermore, the question was phrased in such a way
as to imply that the investigation would stop if the employee reimbursed the funds,
e.g., "To resolve this internally, and not turn it over to the police, would you be willing
to pay the amount that is missing?" In essence these innocent employees believed
that forfeiting the money was more desirable than having to deal with the police. This
situation is very similar to the innocent defendant who agrees to plead guilty and
receive probation in order to avoid the gamble of a trial which could result in a jail
sentence.

The experience of these investigators serves as an important reminder of the

distinction between an admission and a confession. An admission is a statement or
action that tends toward proving guilt whereas a confession is a voluntary statement
that accepts responsibility for the crime, coupled with details of the crime only the
guilty person would know. When an employee is discharged or a criminal complaint is
filed based on a mere admission of guilt there is clearly an increased risk of a
miscarriage of justice and subsequent civil liability. A competent investigator needs to
recognize whether or not a suspect’s statement or action supports probable guilt or,
conversely, has no particular value in assessing involvement in a crime. The following
guidelines are offered with respect to evaluating the probable guilt or innocence of a
suspect who agrees to make restitution in a theft:

1. If the offer is made spontaneously, without prompting by the investigator, it is more

typical of the guilty. A common example of this is the shoplifter who, upon being
stopped outside the store, immediately offers to pay for the concealed merchandise.

2. If the offer is made during an interrogation and is not connected with an implied
promise of leniency, it is more typical of the guilty. In the earlier mentioned
interrogation notice that the investigator did not imply any possible leniency or lesser
consequence if the suspect agreed to pay the money back — he merely asked if she
would be willing to repay it.

132
3. A suspect who agrees to make restitution when asked an interview question such
as, "Would you be willing to reimburse the ($500) that is missing?" is probably more
likely guilty.

4. A suspect who agrees to make restitution for missing funds in exchange for
leniency or to resolve the investigation should not be considered as guilty based on
that willingness. Consider the honest tax-payer who is audited by the IRS. The audit
incorrectly reports that taxes need to be paid on past unearned income. The taxpayer
is offered a choice between paying $800 in back taxes or to contest the assessment
in court. Certainly some tax-payers would pay the $800 rather than go through the
inconvenience of contesting the assessment.

The Significance of Listing in Behavior Symptom Analysis January 2004

Listing, as a behavior symptom, describes a series of events or information included

within a subject’s response. In the following dialogue both of the subject’s responses
illustrate an example of listing:

I: "Why didn’t you tell your wife about these allegations of sexual abuse against you?"

S: "Well, first, I wanted to wait to see what the actual allegations were.
Second, I didn’t want to upset her and third, I never really had a chance
to talk to her in private about it."

I: "Why do you think an adult would have sexual contact with a child?"

S: "Maybe they have psychological problems or perhaps they were

abused when they were young. It could be that the child did something
to instigate the whole thing."

There are two important considerations with respect to listing by a subject. The first is
that the subject decided, for some reason, to offer multiple answers within their
response. The second is that, at a preconscious level, the subject decided on the
order in which to present the multiple answers.

Listing as an indication of a rehearsed response

In mentally preparing for an interview the deceptive suspect may anticipate certain
threatening questions and prepare rehearsed responses to those questions.
Consider, for example, the suspect guilty of a robbery who must explain why he was
late arriving home from work the evening of the robbery. Obviously, he cannot tell the
truth (that he was late because he was robbing a liquor store) so he must develop an
alternative excuse. As the suspect ponders possible alternative explanations, often a
number of excuses occur to him and these invariably surface as a "list" within his
response e.g.,

I: "Why were you late getting home from work that night?"

S: "Well, first had a late order to fill so that put me behind schedule and
second, because traffic was heavy, I decided to take a different route

133
 home and I got lost. Finally, I was running low on gas and stopped to fill
up the tank and there was a line at the gas station."

When an investigator hears a response of this nature which lists explanations, a

rehearsed response should be suspected. This is especially true when the response
is denoted by reference points such as "first...", "second...", "third..." or, "A...", B...",
"C...". This behavior suggests that the suspect is not being spontaneous in his
answer but rather, is offering a rehearsed response.

In preparation for an interview, the innocent suspect does not go through this same
thought process. The innocent suspect will certainly think about who may have
committed the crime, why and how the crime was committed and what they were
doing at the time of the crime. However, innocent suspects will not mentally rehearse
their responses to anticipated interview questions. If the reader thinks back on a
recent occurrence within their life where something unusual or irresponsible
happened, e.g., why was a report turned in late?", almost always, there is a single
principal explanation for our behaviors. Consequently, in the preceding robbery case,
the following response would be more indicative of truthfulness:

I: "Why were you late getting home from work that night?"

S: "At about 4:45 my supervisor handed me a late order that had to be filled and I
didn’t leave work until about 6:30."

Evaluating the order of listed information

When I put together my grocery list I picture myself in the store and list in order, aisle
by aisle, the groceries I need. Similarly, when I recount the scoring of a football game
to a friend, I will discuss scores and plays chronologically, starting with the first
quarter and ending with the last. It is human nature to organize events by proximity or
time. However, what if there is no logical sequence to a series of events or
information? For example, if I am asked what my favorite desserts are my response
might be, "Blueberry pie, chocolate cake and ice cream." My mind somehow decided
the order in which to present this list. Insight to the psychology of listing order can be
helpful to an investigator.

When asked a non-threatening question, there is a tendency to place information

within a hierarchy in order of psychological significance or preference. The first item
listed tends to hold the most psychological significance to the speaker. During the
2003 wild fires that swept California a woman was interviewed and asked about how
she was coping with the fire. Her response was, "It is so devastating. I lost my dog
and I have no place to go back to". In interpreting her response, this woman was
revealing that her dog was more important than her home. In a different scenario,
consider that the woman’s husband’s body was found inside the burned down house.
A response such as, "I feel so terrible. I worked years getting the house just the way I
wanted it and, of course, I’m sad about my husband too." should raise some
eyebrows.

Consider the following exchange of information during an interview:

134
I: "Who were you with last night?"

S: "James Robertson, Bob Kingston and Fred Jones. James is my neighbor and I
know Bob and Fred from work."

If the investigator is interested in verifying the subject’s whereabouts, the order in

which these names were listed indicates that Fred Jones is not as close to the
suspect psychologically as James or Bob and, presumably, would have less of a
motive to lie to the investigator. Consequently, Fred Jones would be the best source
to verify the suspect’s alibi. On the other hand, if the investigator was interested in
developing background information about the subject, James Robertson probably
would be the best source to contact.

Another phenomenon relating to listing is that when a subject is asked a threatening

question and presents his answer as a list, often the last item mentioned is closest to
the truth. Under this circumstance the suspect, using his imagination, is often able to
come up with one or two false items but then runs out of ideas and the final item
mentioned is the closest to the truth. During our training seminars an interview of a
deceptive suspect is shown where the investigator asks, "Why do you think someone
would steal money from their employer?" The suspect’s answer is, "Maybe they
needed to pay more on their car insurance. Maybe they owed someone some money.
Maybe to help out a friend — it could be anything." This suspect confessed to
stealing the $1100 to bail her boyfriend out of jail, e.g., "to help out a friend." The
suspect knew exactly why she stole the money and initially offered two misleading
motives. With her creativity exhausted, the last motive suggested was the true one
behind her crime.

When a subject’s response to an interview question contains the behavior of listing,

often additional insight can be gleaned from the response. Consequently, the
investigator should incorporate, within an interview, questions that encourage the
behavior of listing. The following are some suggestions:

"Why didn’t you call the police immediately after this happened?"

"Tell me why you wouldn’t (commit crime)?"

"Why do you think someone did (commit crime)?"

"If you were to (commit crime) what sorts of things would you be most concerned
about?"

"What are some of the problems within the company that you think contributed to
(investigation)?"

"What aspects of your marriage did you find most difficult?" (Spouse homicide)

"What government policies most bother you about America?" (Terrorism)

Interrogating a Suspect on the Issue of Identity Theft December 2003

135
The Federal Trade Commission estimated that in 2002 identity theft cost businesses
and consumers 53 billion dollars. Because of the prevalence of identity theft, many
investigators find themselves having to interrogate a suspect on this issue. Identity
theft is an unusual offense because it is not only a crime, but also an MO to commit
other crimes. The first consideration, therefore, is to decide upon what issue to
accuse the suspect of involvement. The general guideline here is to base the
accusation on the strongest evidence. For example, if there is strong evidence
indicating that a suspect (using someone else’s identity) made fraudulent credit card
purchases, the confrontation statement should only address the illegal purchases.
During Step Eight the investigator can develop the details of how the suspect
obtained the fraudulent credit card. This is similar to an arson/homicide. In most of
those cases it is best to confront the suspect on the killing and later develop the
details of starting the fire to cover up the homicide.

We have found that when dealing with multiple crimes, it is easier to persuade the
suspect to tell the truth to one crime at a time and that once a suspect confesses to
one crime, information about other illegal activity is usually forthcoming. On the other
hand, an investigator is making this task much more difficult by initially confronting
the suspect on both crimes, e.g., "Brian our investigation clearly indicates that you
fraudulently obtained a loan using someone else’s identity and then illegally defaulted
on the loan."

When the strongest evidence does point to identity theft, this should then be the
focus of the interrogation, e.g., "Mark, our investigation clearly indicates that you
obtained a passport and driver’s license using someone else’s information." In this
example, it would be appropriate to use a transition statement that addresses the
purpose for the suspect’s actions, e.g., "The reason I wanted to talk to you about this
is because, right now, we don’t know why you got these documents." A theme can
then be developed contrasting the suspect’s possible link to international terrorists
and using the documents to highjack an airplane to crash into the White House vs.
wanting to establish a separate identity for tax purposes, to hide assets in a divorce,
to escape government intrusion or possibly to escape from gambling debts or a
vindictive ex-wife (whatever the facts of the case suggest).

A universal theme that applies to all cases of identity theft is the ease at which the
suspect committed the crime. Credit card companies and banks can be blamed for
being greedy and so anxious to issue cards or a loan that they failed to properly
check a person’s true identity. The following is a theme centered around this
approach: "George, I realize this thing is not entirely your fault. Banks and credit card
companies are so anxious to get customers that they rush applications through
without really properly checking on information. In addition, they entice honest people
like yourself to do something like this through their advertisements where they
promise quick approvals and an application that requests practically no information. A
lot of these companies don’t even meet with their customers and everything is done
over the internet or through the mail. If they really cared about something like this
happening they should not make it so easy to do."

Another angle to consider is how the suspect got the victim’s personal information. In
most cases this information is obtained through the victim’s carelessness or sold on
the street or over the internet. This suggests a theme that contrasts breaking into a

136
safe or home to obtain the information vs. inadvertently running across it by seeing
documents the victim left out in plain view. If it is probable that the suspect purchased
the information, the person who sold it to the suspect can be blamed for approaching
the suspect and putting pressure on him to buy it.

In other cases, it may be appropriate to blame curiosity and the media. The theme
would go something like this, "Joe, I think what happened here is that you heard on
TV or read in the newspaper about how easy it is to get a credit card using someone
else’s personal information. Just out of curiosity you decided to test the system to see
if it was as easy as everyone said it was. After submitting the simple application, to
your amazement, they issued you a card. Under normal circumstances you probably
would have thrown the card away and never used it, but just when the card arrived
so did other bills and you gave into temptation and put charges on your new credit
card. I would hate to think that you went into this whole thing with the greedy intent of
maxing out the card by buying frivolous things that you didn’t really need.

The following are possible alternative questions to consider for identity theft cases:

"How many false identities (false credit cards, fraudulent loans) have you
established? Dozens or just a few?"

"How much have you charged to this card? Did you charge the maximum limit,
$10,000 or was it less than that?"

"Are you a member of an organized network, perhaps with terrorists affiliation or did
you just do this to (hide from your ex-wife)?"

"Did you pay money to bribe people to get this (credit card, home equity loan) or did
they simply accept your application at face value?"

Confessions follow a hierarchy. It is psychologically easiest for guilty suspect to admit

what they did. Second, they may or may not truthfully acknowledge the method or
planning involved in their crime. The most difficult aspect of a crime to reveal is the
true motive behind the act. For this reason, again, it is our recommendation that in
most cases of identity theft the interrogation focus on the crime that was committed
through identity fraud and develop secondary issues after the suspect has confessed
to the original issue.

For further information on interrogation approaches to specific types of crimes,

consider ordering The Investigator Anthology.

Maintaining Objectivity During an Interview November, 2003

An interview is designed not only to collect and gather information but to assess the
credibility of the person offering that information. In some instances the investigator
will have clear evidence to validate a subject’s information such as surveillance
video, documents or forensic evidence. Oftentimes, however, such evidence does
not exist and the investigator must rely on interviewing techniques and behavior
symptom analysis to assess a person’s credibility. To elicit meaningful behavior
during an interview requires that the investigator be perceived as an objective and

137
unbiased observer. On the other hand, if it is apparent that the investigator strongly
wants to believe a subject then false information can easily be accepted as the truth.
Similarly, if an investigator approaches a subject as someone who is a liar, that
expectation too, will be fulfilled.

This does not mean that it is improper for an investigator to form a preconceived
expectation of a person’s truthfulness prior to an interview. Investigators are trained
to analyze factual information such as motives, opportunity, access, propensity and
evidence and a good investigator oftentimes will form probability estimates of a
person’s involvement in a crime prior to an interview. These initial assessments,
however, should remain at the cognitive level and not be conveyed to the subject
during an interview. The dangers of allowing preconceived expectations to surface
during an interview is revealed in this recent consultation:

A mother convinced her 19-year-old daughter to contact police regarding repressed

memories of sexual abuse committed by the mother’s ex-husband (the daughter’s
natural father). During the audio-taped interview the daughter reported one actual
memory of sexual abuse involving her father touching her vaginal area while she was
in bed with him. When asked about having sexual intercourse with her father the
daughter denied remembering such an occurrence, yet stated that she "must have
had sex with him" because on one occasion she "hurt" the next day. The investigator
never asked what she meant by hurting (vaginal pain, emotional injury, etc.) but
rather continued the interview under the assumption that the woman had intercourse
with her father. Through the use of leading questions, the investigator eventually got
this woman to state that she had sexual intercourse with her father approximately 10
to 15 times. During the course of this interview either the woman’s memory was
magically restored or she felt comfortable telling the investigator information he was
anxious to hear, even though it was not based on factual recall.

Other factual information in this case supported probable sexual molestation (of
some nature) by the father. A definite fact, however, is that at the time of the interview
the woman had no specific recollections of having sexual intercourse with her father,
yet multiple allegations of sexual intercourse were listed in the criminal complaint. For
whatever reason, (pity toward the woman, hatred toward the accused father) this
investigator lost his objectivity and included unsupportable information in the criminal
complaint.

Establishing Objectivity

Whether the subject of an interview is a victim, witness or a suspect, it is improper to

assume that the person will tell the truth. The investigator must reinforce the
importance of telling the complete truth so the subject knows what is expected of him
or her. Early during an interview it is often productive to make a statement to the

138
subject emphasizing the investigator’s objective role during the investigation. In the
repressed memory case, a possible statement would be as follows:

"Linda, let me explain what will happen this afternoon. I understand that
there are some things you would like to tell me about your father and
we will talk about that. My role as an investigator is to collect and
analyze information. I don’t judge people as good or bad or decide what
an appropriate punishment might be or anything like that. I simply
collect information, but the information I collect all has to be truthful. I
know you have probably talked to your mom and other people about
your father and that’s fine. I don’t care what you’ve told other people but
it is very important that everything you tell me today is based on things
you actually remember and that you are 100% certain really happened."

A standard opening statement we make for all suspects we interview is similar to the
following:

"Jim, during this interview I will be asking you questions about (issue
under investigation). Some of the questions I’ll be asking you this
afternoon I already know the answer to but the most important thing is
that you be completely truthful with me before you leave here today. If
you (did issue) our investigation will clearly indicate that but if you had
nothing to do with this, it will show that as well."

During our seminars we show interviews of both truthful and deceptive subjects. Prior
to each of these interviews the investigator has formed an expectation probability of
the person’s guilt or innocence based on available factual information. However,
when viewing these interviews participants would have no idea whether the suspect
was considered to be more likely truthful or deceptive. In other words, the
investigator’s demeanor, tone of voice, questions and questioning style were not at
all affected by their initial assessment of the subject’s probable truthfulness.

Maintaining Objectivity

There are statements an investigator should avoid making during an interview

because they suggest a bias in his expectation of the subject’s perceived
truthfulness. Some of these statements include:

1. Demeaning the suspect, "I deal with slugs like you every day."

2. Challenging a suspect, "That’s not what you told the other investigator — don’t lie
to me."

3. Validating a victim’s account, "I know it is difficult to discuss being

assaulted but I still have to ask you some questions." [Note that this
investigator has fully accepted as a fact that the victim was assaulted]

4. Pardoning the suspect, "I don’t think you had anything to do with this but I would
still like to ask you some questions." [Note that the probably innocent person who has
been told that he or she is not a suspect in the investigation has little motivation to

139
reveal sensitive information that could contribute to identifying the guilty person.
Innocent suspects volunteer helpful information because they do not want the
investigator to believe they committed the crime.]

The investigator’s demeanor during an interview can also transmit a bias to a subject.
In the case of a suspect, an accusatory tone of voice may signal to the suspect that
the investigator is already convinced of the suspect’s guilt and cause the suspect to
become defensive and offer little information or to request an attorney. A sympathetic
tone of voice accompanied with positive head nodding may signal to the deceptive
witness or victim that their false story is being fully accepted.

Persuasion vs. Objectivity

When an investigator uses active persuasion during an interrogation in an effort to

convince the suspect, victim or witness to tell the truth, clearly the investigator’s
outward demeanor is no longer objective. Under this circumstance a statement has
been made to the person being interrogated that the investigator believes that he or
she has lied. This raises the question of whether or not persuasive tactics can be
properly used during an interview without jeopardizing the investigator’s objectivity.
Under some circumstances an investigator must engage in passive persuasion to
encourage a suspect, witness or victim to tell the truth during an interview as the
following examples illustrate:

Telling a suspect that the stolen vehicle is being dusted for finger prints and if his
prints are found in the car it will prove he was in the car;

Implying possible evidence by saying, "Think carefully before you answer this next
question";

Reassuring a reluctant witness that retaliation is very rare and that their cooperation
will get the threatening person off of the streets;

Telling a sexual assault victim that you talk to women on a regular basis about sexual
matters and that there is nothing she could tell you that you have not heard from
other women;

Suggesting exaggerated answers to a question when the subject delays his

response, e.g.,

Inv: "Were you drinking at all that night?

Suspect: "Ah..."

Inv: " Did you have like 15 or 20 drinks?"

Conclusion

140
An investigator must appreciate what his or her role is in the adversarial system. It is
not the investigator’s job to prove that a particular person is guilty of a crime — that
responsibility falls onto the prosecutor. It is, however, the investigator’s responsibility
to make certain that any incriminating statements made during an interview or
interrogation are legally obtained and represent the truth. Similarly, it is the
investigator’s responsibility to make a reasonable effort to establish that a witness or
victim’s statements are the truth and to fully investigate a crime. At a minimum, this
latter effort should involve fully exploring a suspect’s alibi and making a reasonable
effort to eliminate other possible suspects in the crime. If these two criteria are
followed many individuals who, through DNA results were later proven to be wrongly
convicted of a crime, would never have gone to trial. The investigator and judge are
the only truly objective members in our adversarial system and efforts to learn the
truth should not abruptly stop once a person confesses or is charged with a crime.

For more information on interviewing victims consider attending our three day course
on child abuse investigations.

Laughter and the Detection of Deception October, 2003

Recently my wife and I attended her high school reunion. While such reunions are
marketed as a great time and an opportunity to get re-acquainted, in truth they are
very anxiety provoking. The reunion forces classmates to reveal occupational and
marital failures, the success or disappointments of raising a family, health problems
and the undeniable effects of aging. As my wife became engaged in conversation I
sat back and observed the people in the room. I heard talking and a great deal of
laughter. This observation reminded me of something I learned years ago in a
psychology class -- people relieve stress and anxiety by talking and laughing.

During any formal interview intended to assess a person’s credibility, the subject of
the interview will experience anxiety and general nervous tension. Consequently,
laugher or attempts at humor by the subject will be a natural outlet for anxiety. Under
some circumstances, however, laughter can be a behavior symptom of deception.
The following guidelines are offered to assist in the investigator’s interpretation of a
subject’s laughter or attempts at humor.

Attempts at humor

When a truthful suspect is being interviewed concerning a crime, common sense

would indicate that the person should be very concerned and serious. On the other
hand, because the suspect is experiencing anxiety, it is not uncommon for the truthful
suspect to engage in some levity in an effort to relieve general nervous tension. As
an example, during the early minutes of an interview a verified truthful suspect was
asked, "What do most people call you?" The suspect's response was, "Well most
people call me George except when I’m in trouble with my girl-friend, then she calls
me all sorts of nasty names (laugh)." As the interview progressed, the suspect made
no further efforts at attempted humor. The fact that the suspect's humorous statement
occurred at the beginning of the interview points to general anxiety release and
should not be used as a behavior symptom of deception.

141
Consider a situation where the suspect’s interjected humor comes much later during
the interview. After about 20 minutes into the interview the investigator asked the
suspect, "If you were given a polygraph examination on (issue) what would your
results be?" The suspect’s response was, "I’m such a nervous wreck because of
these allegations the needles would probably go all over the place and I'd break the
machine (laugh)." The timing of this humor, along with the implied prediction that he
would fail the examination, both support deception.

Another category of attempted humor can be described as sarcastic humor. Sarcasm

is often a veiled truth. For example, a suspect is asked, "Have you ever thought
about forcing a woman to have sex with you?", and he answers, "Oh definitely. I
spend all of my time thinking about ways to get women to succumb to my male
desires (laugh)." The suspect’s answer is an implied denial, but the literal
interpretation about his underlying fantasies is probably closer to the truth.

Evaluating the smile

A forced or insincere smile is often used to disguise dislike or anxiety. Consider the
situation where two opposing attorneys meet to discuss their current litigation.
Following the introduction they shake hands (a custom to demonstrate that neither
are carrying weapons) and offer a forced smile when replying, "It is a pleasure to
meet you." With an insincere smile, often the lips barely part and the smile lasts for
only a second or two.

On the other hand, a genuine smile reflects acceptance and appreciation. A sincere
smile will involve a full parting of the lips and will last an appropriate length of time.
An important aspect of evaluating the sincerity of a smile is the context in which the
smile occurs. When I arrive at a training site and meet the course coordinator who
informs me that the outline books have arrived and he has the AV equipment all set
up and ready for me to use, my smile reflects genuine appreciation.

However, consider the smile in the context of an interview. I am about to walk into a
room to assess the credibility of a suspect accused of selling classified documents to
a foreign government. As I enter the room the suspect gets out of the chair and
vigorously shakes my hand. While smiling ear-to-ear he says, "It’s a real pleasure to
meet you Mr. Jayne. You have such a neat job and, by the way, that’s a really nice
suit you’re wearing." Instantly I know that I have just shaken the hand of a liar. No
person (innocent or guilty) enjoys coming to our office for an interview. The phony
smile this suspect offered is of the variety associated with a used car salesmen - it is
too broad, too frequent and inappropriate given the nature of our interaction.

During a different context, the interrogation, the investigator may see the guilty
suspect smile partially in what might be called a smirk. This slight smile involves the
closed lips twisting in an upward turn. Often, when a suspect smirks the investigator
assumes it is a symptom of defiance and cockiness and may stimulate a defensive
remark such as, "Wipe that smile off your face when I’m talking to you." In truth, the

142
suspect has little conscious awareness that he is forming a slight smile. In many
instances, the smirk is a symptom of accepting the investigator’s statements and
underlying guilt feelings. It is a symptom that the suspect is getting close to making
the first admission of guilt, and the investigator should recognize it as such.

Evaluating the laugh

Psychologically, the laugh relieves much more anxiety than a mere smile and sends
much stronger social signals. Studies show that laughter lowers blood pressure and
stress hormones, that mutual laughter builds stronger interpersonal relationships and
that people who laugh easily are judged to be more approachable and trusted than
individuals who rarely laugh. With respect to detecting deception during an interview,
an investigator should consider three primary causes for a suspect to laugh.

The first cause for laughter during an interview is anxiety release. This should be
associated equally with truthful and deceptive suspects. The nervous suspect will
look for any excuse to laugh to relieve anxiety. For example, the investigator may ask
to see the suspect’s driver’s license and, in retrieving it from a wallet or purse, the
suspect drops it on the floor. Upon picking it up the suspect may respond, "I’m a little
nervous talking to you, sorry (laugh)." This is ambiguous laughter and should not be
associated with truth or deception.

A second cause for laughter during an interview is associated with interjected humor.
Consider the suspect who is asked, "What do you think should happen to the person
who took the money?", and the suspect responds, "I’d like to get my hands on him
first (laugh). But I guess jail would be the best place for him." This suspect’s laughter
is appropriate in that he is initially suggesting an exaggerated illegal means of
punishment and offers a humorous solution. Appropriate laughter of this nature, in
and of itself, is not a behavior symptom of deception.

The final, and most important cause for laughter (from a detection of deception
perspective) is laughter that can be considered inappropriate. Psychologists refer to
this behavior as erasure because it has the psychological effect of erasing the
meaning of the statement. To appreciate erasure consider the nonverbal behavior of
winking. If I make a comment to a coworker, which is not intended to be taken
seriously, I may wink after making the comment. The wink erases the meaning of my
words. Similarly, deceptive suspects may erase the meaning of their words through
an inappropriate laugh.

As with all behavior symptoms, when evaluating a laugh as possible erasure the
investigator must evaluate the timing of the laugh. The following are all examples of
verified deceptive suspects whose laughter followed a significant statement:

Q: "Who do you think stole this $200?"

A: "No one. I don’t even know that it was stolen (laugh)."

Q: "Once we complete our entire investigation, how do you think it will come out on
you? "

143
A: "Clean (laugh)."

Q: "Have you ever just thought about having sexual contact with a child?"

A: "That thought repulses me (laugh). "

On the other hand, when a laugh occurs prior to a statement, or in the middle of an
innocuous statement, the investigator should not consider it as possible erasure. The
following examples both illustrate insignificant laughter:

Q: "How do you feel about being interviewed concerning this missing money? "

A: "(Laugh) Kind of scared, I guess. I've never had to go through anything like this
before."

Q: "Have you ever been questioned before concerning missing money?"

A: "Never. That's why this whole thing, you know, (laugh) is so weird."

As these guidelines suggest, when a suspect laughs inappropriately during an

interview the investigator should ask himself, "What did the suspect just say?" If the
laughter followed a significant statement (usually a denial or a stated position on an
issue), erasure should be suspected. On the other hand, laughter that occurs during
an interrogation should almost always be considered inappropriate. Because of the
accusatory nature of the interrogation, the wrongfully accused suspect will not relieve
anxiety by making light of the accusations and laughing them away. The truly
innocent suspect’s anxiety will escalate to anger and frustration which will be directed
at the investigator.

In conclusion, because laughter and humor relieve anxiety, it is common for both
truthful and deceptive suspects to engage in these behaviors during an interview. The
mere presence of laughter or attempted humor during an interview should not be
considered a behavior symptom of deception. However, by considering the timing
and context of the behavior, laughter or attempted humor may become a meaningful
symptom of deception. In the context of an interrogation, laughter or levity is
inappropriate and should be associated with the deceptive suspect.

The Use of Evidence During an Interrogation: Part II September 2003

In the earlier web tip a fundamental principle of interrogation was presented: A guilty
suspect may be persuaded to tell the truth if he is convinced that the investigator is
absolutely convinced of his guilt. In some cases the suspect’s guilt is, in fact, almost
certain because of actual evidence collected against the suspect. Under this
circumstance, most suspects readily confess. Unfortunately, many interrogations are
conducted when there is very limited direct evidence supporting the suspect’s guilt. In
other words, the primary reason the interrogation is conducted is in an effort to either
develop sufficient evidence to prove the suspect’s guilt or develop information that
will exonerate the suspect.

144
When the decision to interrogate a suspect is based essentially on circumstantial or
testimonial evidence, it may be necessary to introduce evidence that does not
actually exist. Before doing so, an investigator should be aware of the legality of this
tactic. The landmark decision addressing the issue of engaging in deception during
an interrogation is Frazier v. Cupp, 1969 U.S. The Court ruled that deception by an
investigator is generally permissible provided that it does not shock the conscience of
the community or court.

In addition to the legal constraints of misrepresenting evidence, an investigator must

also consider the psychological risks of making false statements to a suspect during
an interrogation. An investigator will only succeed in persuading a suspect to tell the
truth if the suspect trusts what the investigator is saying. Furthermore, during an
interrogation a suspect has a heightened level of suspicion and will pick up on the
slightest misstatement by the investigator and use the error to fortify his resistance to
tell the truth. Because of this consideration, our staff rarely lies about having
evidence against a suspect during an interrogation.

Consequently, an investigator should consider misrepresenting evidence to a suspect

during an interrogation only as a last resort when other persuasive efforts have been
ineffective (and the investigator is still convinced that the suspect is guilty). There are,
however, tactics to introduce fictitious evidence during an interrogation that do not
involve deception at all. We recommend that these be tried before an out-right
misrepresentation of the evidence.

The Implication of Evidence

Often an investigator will know, based on the crime scene analysis or the victim’s
account, what the guilty person must have done during the commission of a crime.
For example, going into an interrogation the investigator may know that a gun used in
a homicide was thrown into a nearby garbage can or that a diamond ring stolen
during a burglary was pawned for $250 at Larry’s Pawn Shop by a person somewhat
matching the description of the suspect. Armed with this inside information the
investigator may state during the interrogation, "We know that after you did this you
threw the gun into a garbage can on Madison Street" or, "We know that you pawned
a diamond ring taken from that home and got $250 bucks for it from Larry’s Pawn
Shop". When guilty suspects hear these statements, it has been our experience that
they almost always accept them as fact rather than ask the obvious follow-up
question "How do you know that?" A suspect who is innocent of the crime, of course,
would not ask about how their guilt was revealed, but rather would adamantly deny
engaging in the activity.

A second technique to imply the existence of evidence that does not really exist is to
bring it up "inadvertently" during an interrogation. Consider the case of a suspect
being interrogated on the issue of accepting illegal kick-backs. The investigator may
make a statement similar to the following, "We know when it happened, how it
happened and where it happened. Before you came in here I was sitting down with
the other investigator reviewing the tape — well, forget about the tape, but we were
talking about this thing and wondering how long you’ve been doing this." When an
investigator tells a suspect to forget about a piece of evidence that apparently should

145
not have been mentioned, it adds tremendous credibility to the actual existence of
the evidence.

Evidence Will Exist in the Future

It can be an effective interrogation technique to discuss incriminating evidence as

existing at some future point in time. As an example, the investigator may state, "We
both know that they’re going to find your DNA on the victim!" Under this
circumstance, the suspect cannot challenge the investigator’s statement by
demanding to see the crime lab report because it does not yet exist. On the other
hand, the investigator must select evidence that the guilty suspect knows could exist.
When interrogating a career burglar, for example, it may actually be
counterproductive to state, "We both know that they’ll find your fingerprints inside that
apartment!" since it is likely the suspect wore gloves during the burglary. In this
regard, evidence that is generally safe to talk about as existing in the future include:

1. The accomplice will eventually tell the truth

2. A witness will be able to place the suspect at or near the crime scene

3. Transfer evidence (clothing, hair follicles, carpet fibers) will link the suspect to the
crime

The Use of the Bait Question to Select Evidence

To select possible fictitious evidence to use during an interrogation, the investigator

can "test" the evidence through the use of a bait question asked during the interview.
A bait question suggests the possibility of evidence existing that would implicate the
suspect in the crime. Examples of bait questions include, "If we were to check your
phone records, would we find any calls made to (victim)?" or, "If we were to review
the surveillance video at the store, would it show you there at the time this credit card
was used?" If a suspect’s response to the bait question is an emphatic and
immediate denial, that piece of evidence should not be used as fictitious evidence
during the interrogation. In the case of the phone records, the suspect may have
called the victim from a pay phone or in the case involving the use of a stolen credit
card, the suspect may have sold the card to someone else. In both cases, even
though the suspects are guilty of the crime, they are not concerned about the
suggested piece of evidence implicating them.

On the other hand, if the suspect’s response to the bait question during an interview
is a weak or qualified denial accompanied with nonverbal indications of deception,
the suspect is obviously concerned that the evidence could exist. Under this
circumstance it would be appropriate, during the interrogation, to tell the suspect
something like, "When we check your phone records you know that we will find out
that you called (victim)!" or, "Once we review the surveillance video we both know its
going to show you inside the store when that credit card was used!"

Cautions

146
An investigator should exercise caution when introducing fictitious evidence during
interrogations of the following classes of suspects:

1. Youthful suspects

2. Suspects of lower intelligence

3. Suspects who claim that they cannot remember committing the crime
because of some condition such as drug or alcohol consumption,
epilepsy, head trauma, repression, etc.

Statistics demonstrate that the first two suspect classes represent a disproportionate
number of false confessions. Some youthful suspects, or suspects of lower
intelligence may place greater weight in the investigator’s statements than in their
own knowledge of their innocence. In other words, if an investigator lies about finding
the suspect’s fingerprints on a knife used in a stabbing, the suspect’s immature logic
may argue that the investigator must be correct and the suspect’s inability to
remember the stabbing is the result of being young or having a low intelligence.
Contributing to this is the suspect’s willingness to please the investigator by
acknowledging the crime and the failure to appreciate the full consequences of such
an admission.

In the instance of a suspect who claims to have no recollections at the time of the
crime, it is almost impossible, based on demeanor or investigation, to determine if the
reported amnesia is factual or merely a ruse to avoid accepting responsibility for
committing the crime. Under this circumstance, for legal and ethical reasons, it is
recommended that the investigator consider the reported amnesia as legitimate until
proven otherwise. In light of this, the amnesic suspect’s mind must be considered a
blank slate at the time the crime was committed. If the investigator lies about having
evidence which implicates the suspect in the crime, he is writing false information on
that slate which may lead an innocent suspect to conclude that he must be guilty of
the offense.

Recommendations

1. Never reveal evidence during an interview until first giving the suspect an
opportunity to volunteer the information.

2. Generally start the interrogation with a statement indicating high confidence in the
suspect’s guilt, but do not refer to specific evidence.

3. Do not bring out evidence too early during an interrogation. Generally wait for an
impasse when the interrogation seems to be stalling before mentioning specific
evidence.

4. When actual evidence is introduced imply that the evidence presented it is only a
small part of everything that has been collected.

147
5. While lying to a suspect about possessing incriminating evidence is generally
legally permissible, psychologically it is a risky tactic and should be considered only
when other efforts to persuade a guilty person to tell the truth have failed.

6. Consider implying the existence of evidence by stating something like, "We know
that you..." or by "inadvertently" introducing evidence and then retracting the
statement.

7. Consider a statement that refers to the evidence existing in the future.

8. Exercise caution when introducing fictitious evidence during the interrogation of

youthful suspects, suspects with low intelligence or suspects who claim to have a
memory failure at the time of the crime.

Contaminating a Subject’s Behavior July 2003

When inferring deception from a suspect’s behavior, investigators must remember

that a subject’s outward behaviors during questioning are not direct signs of lying.
Rather, when a person lies behavior symptoms such as poor eye contact,
stammering or foot bouncing are the product of underlying emotions associated with
the fear of having the lie detected. These observation are called "symptoms" because
none of them directly indicate deception. To determine if an observed behavior is a
possible symptom of deception, the investigator must eliminate other variables which
may cause the same behavior. In other words, even though the behavior was
present, if it was contaminated because of some external or internal factor the
investigator should not consider the observation as a reliable indicator of deception.

Consider a high school student who is pulled over for speeding. It is an April evening
in Wisconsin and the outside temperature is about 40 degrees. The driver is an honor
student who just completed a day of performing music events for state competition
and is late getting to a friend’s birthday party. In his haste to get to the party he did
not put on a jacket. Furthermore, he wears his hair long and has a quiet, thoughtful
personality. The officer asks him to step out of the vehicle to gather general
information and observes that the driver visibly shaking and responding softly to
questions. Based on these observations, a field sobriety test is conducted wherein
the officer asks the young man to repeat the alphabet backwards as fast as he can.
The driver, of course, is unable to do this and the officer engages in a field
interrogation to elicit an admission of alcohol or drug use. After no admission was
forthcoming and a search of the vehicle yielded no evidence, the young man was
issued a citation and allowed to go to the birthday party.

This officer arrived at an erroneous opinion of suspecting drug or alcohol use

because he failed to take into consideration variables that influence a person’s
behavior. Being underdressed and exposed to a 40 degree temperature will cause
even the most honest person to shiver. Some people, by nature, are soft spoken
whether talking about their family or job or answering questions regarding possible
involvement in a crime. An investigator who relies upon behavioral observations to
establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause must be aware of factors that
contaminate behavior symptoms.

148
Establishing Normative Behaviors

At the outset of any interview an investigator should ask non-threatening background

questions to establish baseline behaviors and make other important assessments.
The three most important areas in which to establish normal behaviors are eye
contact, speech characteristics and general nervous tension. There are many natural
causes for poor eye contact including low self esteem, cultural upbringing and
emotional states such as embarrassment or shame. There is a wide range of normal
speech patterns within the population. Under normal circumstances some people
speak quite loudly while others speak softly. Some individuals speak very rapidly
while others draw out their words or have periods of silence in the middle of a
sentence as they collect their thoughts. Similarly, a subject’s general nervous tension
can vary widely. Some people, with the slightest source of anxiety, will display signs
of anxiety release such as pacing, laughing, foot bouncing, gum chewing or hand
wringing while others maintain their composure and display no manifestation of
anxiety even in a crisis situation. Once a subject’s normal behavior is established the
investigator can then look for changes in that behavior when questions concerning
the issue under investigation are asked. The other important initial assessments to
make while asking non-threatening questions are the subject’s intelligence, language
skills, mental health and physical impairments (medical conditions, fatigue, stuttering,
etc.) as each of these internal factors may lead to a misdiagnosis of the subject’s
behavior.

Proxemics

When conducting an interview the investigator should sit about 4 - 4 ½ feet in front of
the subject. If both people are standing the distance can be shortened to about 2 ½ -
3 feet. If the investigator sits or stands too close to a subject the subject will feel
threatened and may engage in protective behaviors. These include moving away
from the investigator, turning the lower body away from the investigator, crossing
arms and legs, and offering abbreviated responses. These, of course, are classic
deceptive behaviors but can be induced from a truthful person as a result of
proxemics.

Attitude

It is normal for the average citizen to experience some anxiety when talking to a law
enforcement officer even though the officer is acting professionally and is, in no way,
intimidating. However, when the officer’s attitude is perceived as threatening, this
may cause apparent deceptive behavior from a truthful person. When the young man
referred to earlier initially denied using any drug or alcohol the police officer
responded by saying, "I don’t like to be lied to!" This remark set the tone for the entire
field interrogation. An investigator who comes across as judgmental, condescending
and intimidating will invoke defensive behavior from a subject. Under this
circumstance some subjects will respond by refusing to answer questions, making
accusations of racial or ethnic biases, threatening a law suit, increasing the volume of
their voice and aggressiveness of their body language. Other subjects will respond to
this threat by withdrawing. These subjects may exhibit poor eye contact, respond to
questions softly, become confused to the extent of offering inconsistent information or
assume a guarded attitude where they volunteer little information.

149
Environment

An ideal environment in which to observe behavior symptoms of deception is

controlled. It will have a comfortable temperature and there will be no visual or
auditory distractions. Of key importance, the environment will be private i.e., the
investigator and subject will be alone in the room. Realistically, however, interviews
are conducted in many different environments, and these variations must be taken
into consideration. A subject who is interviewed in a holding cell where the
temperature is 95 degrees may sweat profusely even though he is telling the truth. A
subject who is questioned facing the sun or under bright lights will exhibit poor eye
contact. Similarly, a suspect who is questioned by someone wearing dark sunglasses
will tend not to look at the other person’s eyes. A subject being questioned in the
presence of family members or co-workers may exhibit poor eye contact, guarded or
evasive responses and a closed posture not because of deception, but because of
the awareness that others can see him being questioned.

Question Formulation

Even when an interview is conducted in a controlled environment and the

investigator’s attitude is non-judgmental and sitting a proper distance from the
subject, behavioral contaminations can still result because of the manner in which
questions are asked during the interview. John E. Reid and Associates is often
consulted to review video-taped interviews and interrogations to offer guidance to an
investigation. The following are the most common contaminations that cause difficulty
in this task:

1. Failure to distinguish between an interview and interrogation. An interview

should be non-accusatory whereas an interrogation is accusatory and involves active
persuasion; they are two separate and distinct procedures. There are a number of
behavior symptoms which have opposite interpretations depending on whether they
occur during an interview or interrogation. If an interaction between a subject and
investigator starts out non-accusatory but the investigator then challenges the
subject’s statement or accuses the subject of lying, this changes the dynamics of the
interaction. Even if the investigator returns to a non-accusatory tone, the subject’s
behavior has been contaminated. An often repeated message in our seminars is, "If
you are going to interview, interview. If you are going to interrogate, interrogate —
don’t mix the two."

2. Failure to make behavior-provoking questions issue specific. Consider that

two truthful suspects are interviewed on a sexual assault. The first is asked, "Have
you ever thought about forcing a woman to have sex with you?" The second is
asked, "Have you ever thought about doing something like this?" The first suspect
responds, "Absolutely not." The second responds, "Well, this is a strange situation for
me to be in and I never in my wildest dreams thought I’d ever be accused of doing
something like this." Both suspects are telling the truth, yet because of the
ambiguous manner of asking the second question, the suspect’s response appears
evasive.

3. Tagging questions. When a suspect is asked, "Did you see (victim) on the day of
her death?" an early or late denial can be a strong indication of deception. However,

150
if the investigator continues to talk after asking a question a truthful subject may
answer the question too early providing a misleading symptom of deception. The
following is an example of a tagged question: "Did you see (victim) on the day of her
death. I’m not suggesting you killed her or anything but did you just see her that
day?" In addition, tagging a question buys time for a deceptive suspect to formulate a
comfortable response which may result in what appears to be an on-time response.
The lesson here is to keep questions short and succinct — place anxiety on the
potentially deceptive suspect, don’t remove it.

4. Suggesting answers. The purpose for asking behavior-provoking questions is to

draw out the suspect’s underlying attitudes toward the investigation. An investigator
can significantly affect a suspect’s response to these questions by suggesting
possible answers. As an example, consider the following improperly asked question:
"Do you think the person who left the scene of that accident should be sent to jail?" A
deceptive suspect may well agree with the investigator’s suggestion. The proper way
to ask this question is, "What do you think should happen to the person who left the
scene of that accident."

5. Asking questions too quickly. During our seminars we emphasize the

importance of note-taking during a formal interview. The primary importance of note-
taking is that is slows down the pace of questioning. It is much easier to lie to a
series of questions that are asked rapidly than questions that are separated by a
period of 5-7 seconds of silence as the investigator writes out the suspect’s
response. A deceptive suspect is uncomfortable with silence created during note-
taking and often exhibits many significant behavior symptoms while the investigator
is writing out his response. Conversely, a rapid-fire questioning approach may cause
an innocent subject to become confused and offer inconsistent information.

Conclusion

Field studies investigating the accuracy of behavior symptom analysis report

impressive findings. It is important to remember that the interviews analyzed in these
studies were conducted in a manner that eliminated or minimized possible
contamination of the subject’s behavior symptoms. On the other hand, many of the
laboratory studies which have produced low accuracy rates for detecting deception
have failed to control for variables which influence a subject’s behavior symptoms.
Contamination of a subject’s behavior is a real effect and should not be ignored by
researchers or individuals who work in professions that rely on making inferences
from a person’s behavior.

Law enforcement officers rely extensively on their ability to "read" a person based on
behavioral observations. In making these assessments it must be remembered that
there are both innocent and guilty possible causes for the same behavior. A
behavioral observation only becomes a reliable symptom of deception when the
investigator can eliminate other possible causes for the behavior.

Neurolinguistic Evaluation

Principles

151
The outer cortex of the human brain is divided into left and right hemispheres. When
performing different activities, one hemisphere dominates over the other. In 80% of
the population the left hemisphere is associated with creativity and assessment
whereas the right hemisphere is associated with analytic thinking and factual recall.
Furthermore, the direction in which a person breaks gaze (right or left) reflects the
hemisphere of the brain being accessed for information. Because of the arrangement
of neuropathways, breaking gaze to the left indicates that the right hemisphere of the
brain is being accessed and breaking gaze to the right means the opposite.

This phenomenon can provide investigators insight on the truthfulness of a subject=s

recall during an interview. Consider that a subject is asked, AWhere did you eat lunch
yesterday?@ If the subject tells the truth he will break gaze to the left, indicating that factual
information is being retrieved from the right hemisphere of the brain (for the majority of the
population). If the subject breaks gaze to the right before answering this question (for the
majority of the population) this indicates either fabrication or editing of information. In other
words, the creative and assessment hemisphere of the brain is being accessed.

Establishing a Subject=s Norm

To properly use neurolinguistic evaluations during an interview, the investigator must first
establish the subject=s normal direction of breaking gaze when recalling factual information.
This can be accomplished at the outset of the interview by asking background questions that
require long-term factual memory. Examples of these questions include, AWhere did you
work prior to this job?, AWhat year were you married?@or, AWho was your previous
supervisor?@ Notice that each of these questions has only one truthful response and the
subject is unlikely to lie to the questions.

Questions requiring a possible judgment or assessment may offer misleading information with
respect to establishing a subject=s normal direction of breaking gaze when recalling factual
information. For example if a subject is asked, AHow long have you owned this vehicle?@ he
may respond, AAbout three years.@ While the suspect is not likely to lie to this question, his
answer involves an estimation (assessment) which may stimulate the creative hemisphere of
the brain. A better question to ask is, AWhat is the year and make of your vehicle?@

There is no correlation as to which hemisphere of the brain stores factual information and
being right or left handed. A left handed subject is just as likely to break gaze to the left when
recalling factual information. Furthermore, brain dominance (being right or left brained) does
not predict the direction a person will break gaze to recall factual information. The only way
to determine a subject=s normal direction of breaking gaze when recalling factual
information is to establish his own normal behavior.

Neurolinguistic Evaluations During an Interview (The following discussion assumes that

the investigator has established that the subject=s normal break of gaze when recalling
factual information is to the left)

At first blush, it would appear that neurolingustic evaluations would allow an investigator to
perform almost as a human lie-detector. Unfortunately, it is not quite that simple. Consider the
following dialogue where breaks of gaze prior to the subject=s answers are indicated by: ü
(right) a (left) û (straight) and dots (...) indicate each second the subject delays his response.

152
I: ADid you steal that missing $2,000 deposit?@

S:ûANo I did not@

I: ADid you help make up the deposit?@

S: û ANo. The manager made it up by herself.@

I: AHave you made any large cash payments this week?@

S:a AOn Monday I paid my rent which was $800 but that was a check. So I didn=t really
make any large cash payments.@

I: ADid you make any cash deposits into your checking account this week?@

S: ü ... AMy payroll checks are automatically deposited so I don=t generally make cash
deposits.@

This subject is deceptive and yet a straight-forward analysis of his neurolinguistic evaluation
does not seem to support this opinion. When the subject lied to the first question he
maintained direct, eye to eye contact. When a deceptive suspect enters the interview prepared
to lie about his involvement in a crime, often his eye contact will be direct to anticipated
questions. He has already made the decision to lie and therefore does not have to access
cognitive centers of his brain to make this decision. Astute investigators, however, would pick
up on his non-contracted denial which indicates a possible rehearsed response. When asked if
he helped make up the deposit, again his eye contact was maintained, but this time it was
because he was confident in his truthful response. The question about making large cash
payments resulted in a break of gaze to the left, indicating factual recall. However, his
response contained the qualifying word Areally@. The fourth response reveals the most
deceptive criteria. When asked about making cash deposits the subject breaks gaze to the right
indicating either fabrication or editing. In addition, there is a three second delay and an
evasive response, including the qualifying word Agenerally@. What happened in this case is
the subject stole the $2000 and deposited it into his checking account to help make delinquent
payments, including his rent.

As this example illustrates, when evaluating the direction in which a suspect breaks gaze, it is
important to evaluate the behavior in the context of the question asked, the suspect=s
anticipation of the question prior to the interview and to consider the behavior in conjunction
with other verbal, paralinguistic or nonverbal behaviors. At the risk of over-simplification, the
following guidelines can be offered for neurolinguistic evaluations (for 80% of the
population):

TRUTHFUL DECEPTIVE

OBSERVATION

Direct Eye Contact Confidence, recent Rehearsed, prepared response

recall

153
Break Gaze to Left Factual recall Factual recall

Break Gaze to Right Editing / Estimation Fabrication

Our most effective use of neurolingustic evaluations has been when asking a suspect an
unanticipated question that requires long-term memory. One example, shown at our three-day
seminar, is of a young woman who claimed to have been abducted at knife point for several
hours. She relates that her male abductor took her into a liquor store (a story she had
previously told the police). Because her story was originally believed, the police never
questioned her about the activities inside the liquor store. During our interview we asked
whether the man brought the knife into the liquor store with him, whether or not he bought
anything and whether or not he showed ID to the clerk. These were all unanticipated
questions that require long term memory. Prior to each response she clearly breaks gaze to the
right as she feebly attempts to fabricate a response.

Conclusion

Because it is based on scientific research and established physiological phenomenon,

neurolinguistic evaluation sounds as though it would be a powerful tool in detecting
deception. Unfortunately, because of the variables involved, neurolinguistic observations must
be carefully evaluated. They can certainly increase an investigator=s confidence in a
suspect=s truthfulness or deception. However like all behavior assessments, neurolinguistic
evaluations must be considered in conjunction with other behaviors that occur during a
suspect=s response and throughout the suspect=s interview.

The Importance of Corroboration Within a Confession

Within the last year numerous inmates have been released from prison and had their
convictions overturned as the result of post-trial exculpatory evidence. Many of these
individuals confessed to the police. In some cases, the false confession was admitted
as evidence. In other cases, the false confession was used as leverage to urge the
suspect to accept a plea bargain, resulting in no trial..

The reported interrogations of some of these suspects involved physical coercion,

duress and outright torture. While the Supreme Court has consistently prohibited
such interrogation practices, evidently the trial courts rejected the defendant's claim
that their confession was false. Traditionally, courts have afforded greater credibility
to an investigator's testimony than that of a defendant anxious to escape punishment.
However, because future defense claims of improper interrogation practices may be
given more credence, investigators and prosecutors should anticipate greater
scrutiny by the courts in admitting confession evidence. The once accepted axiom
that no innocent person would confess to a crime has proven to be false. Because of
this, the prosecution must demonstrate that a confession is, in fact, trustworthy. The
most convincing evidence to demonstrate the truthfulness of a confession is
corroboration.

154
Dependent Corroboration

At the outset of any investigation, the lead investigator should decide what evidence
or information will be withheld from the public and all suspects for the purpose of
verifying any subsequence confession. This is called dependent corroboration
because the information is dependent upon the crime scene or other investigative
source. In theory, only the person guilty of committing the crime should be able to
provide this dependent corroboration.

The information selected for dependent corroboration needs to be carefully selected.

Three guidelines can be offered in this regard:

1. The guilty person should reasonably remember the information

2. The information should not be so vital as to inhibit the investigator's efforts to

effectively interview a suspect without revealing the information

3. The information should be mundane and not easily guessed by an innocent

suspect

Consider a case where a young girl was abducted from her bedroom, driven to a
remote location, sexually assaulted and then killed. The cause of death was
strangulation. In an effort to hide the body, the murderer dragged the body about 50
feet to some underbrush and covered the body with tree branches. This scenario
suggests many possible pieces of dependent corroboration. An investigator might
select the victim's attire (pink pajamas) as dependent corroboration. However, a
guilty suspect intent on committing the crime may not remember the color of the
pajamas and an innocent suspect may guess that the victim was wearing pajamas.
Another possible piece of dependent corroboration is the remote location where the
body was found. However, withholding this information greatly restricts the
investigator's ability to effectively interview the suspect. Perhaps the best piece of
dependent corroboration in this case is the fact that the body was dragged to
underbrush and covered with tree branches. Certainly the guilty person would
remember doing this and withholding the information would not impair the interview
of that person.

Defense attorneys will argue, sometimes with merit, that investigators inadvertently
released dependent corroborative information to their client. We have personally
encountered situations where an innocent person was able to provide such
information because (1) crime scene photographs were used during an interrogation
and (2) the information was revealed by an investigator who was not advised to keep
the information secret. Especially in these times where an investigator's credibility
may be suspect on the witness stand, dependent corroboration may not be viewed
as definitive by a court or jury.

155
Independent Corroboration

Clearly the most convincing evidence of a truthful confession is one which contains
verifiable information not known until the confession. This is called independent
corroboration because the investigator does not know about the evidence until the
suspect reveals it, and the evidence is obtained independent from the initial
investigation. In the previous murder case, independent evidence would include such
things as the tool used to gain entry to the victim's bedroom window (tool marks), a
witness who could place the suspect near the crime scene (gas station attendant) or
a souvenir kept from the victim (bracelet). Investigators tend to be reluctant to seek
independent corroboration because they believe that it will only add time to an
already lengthy investigation. However, the result of not spending this extra time is
the possibility of having a guilty suspect's confession suppressed, or an innocent
suspect convicted of a crime he did not commit.

Rational Corroboration

Consider that in our homicide example entry was made to the victim's bedroom
through an open window, the suspect had a full tank of gas and kept no souvenir. Is
there nothing left to possibly demonstrate the trustworthiness of the confession? The
one other criteria courts may consider in deciding whether or not to admit a
confession is whether it appears to be rational in its insight and detail.

A rational confession contains unsolicited thoughts and ideas in conjunction with

specific behaviors that suggest spontaneous recollection of the crime. While an
innocent person, with an active imagination, may be able to provide a rationale
confession to someone else's crime, it is unlikely. As an example of a possibly false
confession that lacks rational insight consider the following:

"On Saturday, January 15th I held up a man with a knife in an alley next to Bert's
Tavern on Main Street. I stole this man's wallet and it contained $70 in cash. After I
stole the wallet I pushed the man down and ran south on Main Street.

The reason the preceding confession should be viewed with suspicion is that it only
verifies information already known to the investigator, and incorporates known
patterns of behavior associated with street robberies. Compare the previous
confession to the following (partial) confession that contains rationale insight
statements:

"On Saturday, January 15th I was bored so I decided to rob a drunk guy leaving Bert's
tavern. A guy who was probably 55 or 60 and obviously drunk left the tavern and
when he approached an alley I asked him if he had a light for my cigarette. He went
through his pockets for a lighter and at this point I pulled out a knife and said, 'come
with me and give me your wallet.' I pushed him into the alley and took a wallet from

156
him. I was afraid he might call the police on a cell phone so I told him, 'Give me your
cell phone.' He said he didn't have one and I searched him and did not find one. At
that point I ran south down main street and went to my apartment on Madison Street
to count the money."

As illustrated, the first example covers all of the elements needed to prove the crime
but the confession lacks insight or spontaneous behaviors. A confession is more
likely to be considered trustworthy if it contains some of the following elements:

• Quotations by the suspect or victim "Come with me and give me your wallet."
• Thoughts or emotions "I was bored"
• Explanations for behavior "I was afraid he might call the police"
• Irrelevant details "A guy who was 55 or 60 and obviously drunk"

Conclusion

A confession is the most damaging possible evidence against a defendant in a court

of law. However, as recent cases illustrate, innocent people can be coerced to offer
or sign a false confession. The recent media attention focused on innocent persons
being found guilty of a crime they did not commit should stimulate efforts by
investigators to make certain that confessions obtained during the course of an
investigation are, in fact, trustworthy. The best means to accomplish this goal is by
corroborating the confession with (1) crime information that was withheld from the
suspect, (2) information about the crime not known until the confession or, (3) rational
information that reflects spontaneous recollection of the crime.

157
The Use of the Restitution Question During an Interrogation
March 2003

During training in the Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation, we teach that

when a suspect appears to be ready to confess the investigator
should ask an alternative question. As an example the investigator
may ask, "Did you plan this out for months and months in advanced
where you had it calculated down to the second or did it pretty much
happen on the spur of the moment? It was the spur of the moment
wasn't it?" If the suspect nods his head in agreement all is well. But
what if the suspect offers a weak denial such as, "But honestly, I
didn't even do it." When a suspect (whose guilt is reasonably certain)
continues to reject the alternative question, the investigator may
consider asking a restitution question.

The restitution question is a generic term describing any question

designed to allow the suspect to make a partial concession of guilt
which may then be used as a stepping stone to elicit the first
admission of guilt. Consider that a bank teller is being interrogated on
the theft of $2000. The investigator may ask her, "At least would you
be willing to repay the missing money?" If the teller agrees to do this,
she has made the first step toward admitting her theft. Other
examples of restitution questions include:

"Would you like me to talk to the (victim) and find out what they would
do if their property was returned?" (Burglary)

"Would you be willing to submit an amended insurance claim?"

(Insurance fraud)

"Would you at least be willing to give up alcohol and stop drinking?"

(Interrogation where intoxication was blamed for affecting the
suspect's judgment."

"Would you at least agree to get psychological counseling?" (Child

abuse, sexual assault, battery)

"Would you be willing to agree to supervised visits with your

children?" (Child abuse)

Guilty suspects will often agree to make such concessions because it

allows them to relieve anxiety and guilt associated with their crime
without accepting personal responsibility for committing it. If the
suspect is reluctant to accept the concession, e.g., reimbursing stolen

158
Background Investigations Conducted Over the Telephone:Part I January, 2003

Starting the Interview

Recently I was interviewed by telephone concerning the suitability of an acquaintance

applying for a job involving national security. The interviewer started out saying that he just
wanted a few minutes of my time and, indeed, I was on the phone for less than four minutes.
The reason the call went so quickly was that his questions were all similar to the following,
AYou=re not aware of any past problems (applicant) has had with alcohol, drugs or criminal
behavior are you?@; ADo you know of any security risks (applicant) presents?@; AWould
you recommend (applicant) for a position of national security?@ Fortunately, I am confident
this applicant is qualified for the position. However, if I did possess adverse information, I
probably would not have revealed it during this telephone interview. One of the reasons for
this is how the investigator started the interview.

Unless there are just one or two specific issues to be resolved, it is not possible to conduct a
meaningful background interview in four minutes. While it is certainly proper to advise the
person being interviewed of an estimated length for the interview, the stated length should be
over-stated, perhaps suggesting 20 or 30 minutes. This will give the subject the impression
that the investigator is interested in detailed answers and that it is not a peripheral inquiry. In
addition, the investigator does not want to interview someone who is facing a time deadline
such as having to leave for work in 10 minutes. If the subject does not have 30 minutes to talk
with the investigator, a more convenient time should be arranged for the telephone interview.

Because telephone interviews lack the human connection of a face to face interview there is a
tendency for the investigator to Aplease@ the subject. This may be apparent by the
investigator assuming an apologetic tone because the subject was called at home or by
softening questions in an effort not to offend the subject. The investigator needs to remember
that because of the convenience and less threatening environment a telephone interview
offers, almost every subject would prefer to be interviewed by phone rather than in person. To
establish control during a telephone interview it is advisable to seek the subject=s permission
to be interviewed with a statement such as, AI would like to talk to you about (applicant). If
you prefer not to do this over the phone I would be happy to meet with you in person. What
would you prefer?@ Once the subject has agreed to be interviewed over the phone it is their
choice and the investigator=s demeanor should be the same as when conducting a face to face
interview. That is, he or she should be professional and non-accusatory, but also clearly goal-
oriented and persistent in seeking the truth.

A subject will share much more personal information during a telephone interview if he or she
is alone and not distracted. Because I answered the phone in our family room, my interview
was conducted with my son and wife present while they watched a football game (and also
overheard my side of the conversation). To establish a private environment it is appropriate
for the investigator to make an initial request something like, ABecause we will be discussing
sensitive issues, you may want to switch to a phone in a private room. Do you have another
extension that would be more private?@

159
Before any questions about the applicant=s background are asked, the investigator should
introduce the purpose for the interview in such a way as to encourage truthful and complete
answers. A possible opening statement to make in this regard is,

As part of our screening process for this position we conduct a very thorough
background investigation which includes interviews with personal
acquaintances, neighbors and past employers. In addition, we conduct a very
thorough criminal, civil and financial record check of each applicant. It is
important for you to realize that many of the questions I will be asking you are
simply to verify information already known. With that in mind, how long have
you known (applicant)?

This introduction encourages truthfulness and candor in a number of ways. First, the subject is
led to believe that because the investigation is so in depth that the investigator is likely to
already know of any adverse information the subject possesses. Psychologically, It is much
easier to be the second person to confirm information rather than the first person to volunteer
it. In addition, this introduction would cause the subject to be concerned about being caught in
a lie if he withheld certain information, e.g., AHow is it that you didn=t know...@. Contrast
the previous introduction to the one used during my telephone interview. It went something
like this:

AI hate to disturb you at home on a Sunday but I was just assigned this
investigation and haven=t even received the background on (applicant) yet but
since you lived in Wisconsin I wasn=t sure if you=d be available to speak
with me tomorrow in Chicago so I though I=d try you at your home number.
You were listed as a reference for (applicant) who is applying for a position
involving national security. I will only take a few minutes of your time, are you
sure this is a good time to talk to me?@

This introduction does little to encourage truthfulness (or confidence in the investigator=s
ability to detect possible deception). As soon as the investigator identified himself I told him
that I had been expecting his call and indicated that he had called at a good time. Nonetheless,
he continued to apologize for calling me on a Sunday. His contrite demeanor diminished his
position of control during the interview which became very evident when he started asking
the interview questions. Second, he revealed that he had no background information on the
applicant C I could have lied through my teeth without experiencing any fear that my answers
were inconsistent with known information. Finally by relating that I was listed as a reference
put me in a position where I felt obligated to speak favorably of the applicant. The
investigator should have started the questioning process by saying, AOur records indicate that
you personally know (applicant). Please tell me about the nature of your relationship

Background Investigations Conducted Over the Telephone: Part II February,

2003

Phrasing Interview Questions

In the January web tip suggestions were offered for initiating a telephone interview. At
the outset of a telephone interview, the investigator's goals are to (1) elicit a

160
commitment from the subject to be interviewed for a reasonable period of time, (2)
talk to the subject in a private setting and, (3) introduce the interview in a manner that
encourages truthfulness. Once these goals are accomplished, the investigator will
seek information about the applicant by asking questions.

Because of the inability to evaluate nonverbal behavior during a telephone interview,

it is especially important to phrase interview questions properly. A fundamental
principle of question formulation is that an investigator should never phrase an
interview question in a manner that expects the subject to volunteer adverse
information about another person. To do so goes against all tenants of human nature.
Even when interviewing someone who is very honest and truthful, the investigator
must recognize how difficult it is to offer negative information about an acquaintance
who is the subject of a background investigation. Therefore, interview questions need
to be phrased to not only encourage truthfulness, but also to discourage deception.
Proper question phraseology during an interview can be reduced to a number of
guidelines.

1. Do Not Ask Negative Questions

During a recent telephone interview in which I was contacted to provide background

information about an acquaintance the investigator asked me, "You're not aware of
any problems (applicant) has had with alcohol, drugs or criminal behavior are you?"
This is called a negative question in that it is phrased in a way that expects
agreement. Negative questions such as, "You've never witnessed (applicant) abuse
alcohol, have you?" or, "The applicant is patriotic, isn't he?" invite deception and even
the most honest person is unlikely to respond, "Actually you're wrong. The applicant
is a member of an underground terrorist group."

2. Do Not Ask Compound Questions

A compound question addresses multiple behaviors in the same question. Consider

the previously listed question, "You're not aware of any problems (applicant) has had
with alcohol, drugs or criminal behavior are you?" as an example of a compound
question. When I answered "No I'm not" to this question was I referring to the
applicant's alcohol use, drug use or criminal behavior? -- The investigator has no
idea. A deceptive subject who, for example, knows that the applicant uses cocaine
will psychologically focus on the parts of a compound question to which he is telling
the truth. This makes detecting deception very difficult. These three behaviors
(alcohol abuse, drug use, criminal behavior) should each be addressed as separate
topical areas within the interview..

3. Do not use judgement phrases within an interview question

A judgement phrase allows the subject of the interview to assign a meaning or

interpretation to a particular word within the question. In the earlier example the
investigator asked me whether the applicant had any "problems" with alcohol, drugs
or criminal behavior. Consider that I know this particular applicant smokes marijuana
on weekends and drinks eight cocktails a night. Depending on how I define
"problems" I can easily justify my negative response to the question. Interview
questions should seek objective information that is not subject to interpretation.

161
Questions such as, "Has (applicant) ever told you that he experimented with illegal
drugs?", or "Has applicant ever been convicted of a crime?" have only one possible
truthful response. If the subject tells less than the truth, the investigator can often pick
up on behavior symptoms indicative of that fact, e.g., "He's never told me that he
experimented with any hard drugs" which would stimulate an appropriate follow-up
question, such as, "What social drugs has he told you he experimented with?"

4. Do not use inappropriate qualifiers within an interview question.

During my telephone interview I was asked, "Do you know of any security risks
(applicant) presents?" This questions contains the qualifying phrase, "Do you know."
Qualifying phrases weaken the emotional impact of a question making the question
easier to lie to. This question should have simply been phrased, "Does (applicant)
present any security risks to our country?' Other common qualifying phrases that
should be avoided when asking interview questions are, "Do you happen...", "Can
you remember...", and "Do you think..."

When a subject may not reasonably know an exact answer to a question it is

appropriate to use qualifying phrases. For example, "Do you happen to know when
(applicant) last traveled outside of the United States?" However, when seeking
specific information such as whether or not the applicant has been the subject of a
criminal investigation, the question does not require any estimation from the subject.
Either the subject has this knowledge or he does not. Therefore, it would invite
deception to ask, "Do you happen to know if (applicant) has been the subject of a
criminal investigation in the last 2 years?"

5. Use opinion questions appropriately.

As the name suggests, an opinion question seeks a qualitative assessment from the
subject. Examples of opinion questions would be, "On a scale of 1 to 10 how would
you rank (applicant's) patriotism?" or, "How would you describe (applicant's)
temperament?" Opinion questions are not designed to elicit incriminating information,
but rather to assess the subject's possible knowledge about the applicant in a
particular area. Consider that a subject described the applicant's temperament as
follows, "Like all of us, he loses his temper on occasion but it hasn't been a problem
with me." This response should suggest a number of follow-up questions that may
elicit meaningful information. For example:

"When is the last time you've seen (applicant) lose his temper?"

"What caused him to lose his temper?"

"Did (applicant) become physical?"

"How many times (a week/month) does (applicant) lose his temper?"

"What is the worst thing you've seen (applicant) do when he lost his temper?"

"Why do you believe (applicant) has not lost his temper with you?"

162
A common error investigators make when asking opinion questions is the failure to
elicit specific examples when the subject's opinion is favorable. As an example, if I
ranked an applicant's patriotism as a "10" the interviewer should then ask me to cite
some examples to support why I ranked the applicant so high.

It is inappropriate to use opinion questions to elicit specific information about an

applicant's background or suitability. For example, a negative response to the opinion
question, "Do you consider the applicant to be a threat to this country?" offers no
reassurance of the applicant's threat-potential to the United States. Interview
questions which elicit an opinion should not be used as the basis for a hire / not hire
decision, but rather as an introduction for more objective information.

6. To Evaluate an Applicant's Suitability, ask Behavior-based Questions

The ultimate purpose for conducting a background investigation is to develop

objective information about an applicant that will reflect on that person's qualifications
for a position. The investigator needs to establish specific information about what the
applicant has or has not done in relevant areas. This requires the asking of behavior-
based questions.

The first step in planning a background investigation is to identify the topical areas
that need to be discussed. For a particular applicant the investigator may come up
with the following list:

Military experience

Family relationships

Education

Alcohol use

Illegal Drug use

Criminal behavior

Blackmail potential

Once topical areas of the interview have been identified, the investigator should
develop a subset of questions to address each area. While these additional
questions will add time to an interview, the importance of asking questions that
address specific behaviors cannot be overemphasized. A fundamental principle of lie-
detection is that it is much easier to lie to a broad question than one which
specifically addresses what a suspect has actually done. A bank teller who has stolen
overages from her cash drawer will experience little anxiety when denying the
question, "Have you ever stolen any money from the bank?" However, this same
teller will experience considerable anxiety if asked, "Have you ever kept an overage
in your cash drawer?" A competent investigator should ask questions that stimulate
the greatest level of anxiety if the subject chooses to lie to the question.

163
In addition, when developing specific questions, the topic should be introduced with
non-threatening questions that allow the subject to make minor admissions. This is
done to establish a pattern of the subject offering information to each question. The
questions should eventually target more relevant areas. The following dialogue would
be effective in developing specific information about an applicant's alcohol use:

What type of alcoholic beverage does (applicant) drink?

How often a week do you have alcoholic beverages with (applicant)?

How often a week does (applicant) consume alcoholic beverages?

What is the most number of alcoholic drinks you've seen (applicant) consume?

Has (applicant) driven a car after consuming more than six drinks?

Has (applicant) consumed alcohol prior to lunch time?

Has (applicant's) use of alcohol been discussed among your friends or co-workers?

In conclusion, it is certainly possible to conduct an effective background investigation

over the telephone. The topical areas discussed during the interview should each be
addressed separately, and the investigator needs to be aware of the importance of
properly phrasing interview questions to encourage truthful responses. When
possible deception is detected, it is important to ask follow-up questions to further
evaluate the subject's behavior or elicit an admission.

Handling The Angry Suspect December 2002

Every investigator has encountered a subject who exhibits symptoms of anger. Of all
possible emotions, anger presents the greatest impairment of an investigator's ability
to detect deception and persuade a suspect to tell the truth. Legitimate anger may
precede physical violence and a personal safety issue may be at stake. Because
anger is such an intense emotion, it often clouds other behavior symptoms. In fact,
anger can mimic deceptive responses during a polygraph examination of a truthful
subject. Finally anger, real or feigned, offers a tremendous outlet for the deceptive
suspect to vent the guilt or anxiety associated with his crime. Because of these
reasons, an investigator should do everything possible to avoid causing a suspect to
become angry or upset during an interview or interrogation.

Understanding Anger

Anger is part of a complex protective response that occurs when a person's ego (self-
image) or physical well being is threatened. In addition to focusing perceptions
toward the source of the threat, anger causes internal physiological changes such as

164
the release of adrenaline into the blood stream which prepares the body to fight off
the threat. (If the individual chooses to flee from the threat, fear is the primary
emotional state involved). Anger describes the end-stage of other less intense
emotional states which could be listed in the following hierarchy:

Legitimate anger, especially during an interrogation, is a good indication of

truthfulness. Because it is the final expression of underlying emotional states,
legitimate anger builds gradually, where it may be observed that initially the suspect's
face becomes red, his hands are clenched and his eye contact is piercing. The
suspect may then lean forward in the chair and once the anger erupts, it is difficult to
dissipate. Despite the investigator's efforts to calm the suspect, the symptoms of
anger persist. Finally, legitimate anger will be evident in all three channels of
communication. The suspect will use descriptive language such as, "Listen, I did not
rape anybody!" With respect to paralinguistic communication, each word of the
response will be delivered in a staccato fashion.

What if a suspect's anger does not appear to be legitimate? This situation, which
should be more strongly associated with deception, often involves feigned anger or
self-propagated anger. Feigned anger is a learned response where the suspect has
experienced prior success in avoiding consequences by raising his voice, making
veiled threats and appearing upset. It is a well orchestrated act that the suspect
performs when parents, teachers or police are close to finding out what he did wrong.
Feigned anger will suddenly erupt without warning, as if there is an internal anger
button the suspect can push. Because it is not sincere, feigned anger is easily
dissipated if the investigator maintains his confidence and composure. Finally,
feigned anger may be recognized because of inconsistent behaviors within the three
channels of communication. For example, the suspect may be speaking in a loud
tone, but has crossed arms and is leaning back in the chair.

Many deceptive suspects attempt to propagate their own anger by finding fault with
the investigator or investigation. While this anger is real in the sense that the suspect
is truly upset it is, nonetheless, an attempt to manipulate the investigator. The reason
the suspect wants to become angry is to vent his internal feeling of guilt externally.
Psychologically, it is similar to the child who throws a tantrum in the grocery store
when his parents refuse to buy him candy. The pain caused by the child banging his
head and kicking the floor is converted to anger toward his parents -- the child is
venting his internal disappointment externally. Furthermore, when a suspect
generates anger toward the investigator it allows him to psychologically justify his
lies. An axiom of lie-detection is that it is much easier to lie to someone we dislike
than to someone who treats us with respect and dignity. It is for this reason that every
deceptive suspect would love to make an enemy out of the investigator.

To avoid self-propagated anger, the investigator should recognize the suspect's

efforts to engage the investigator in an adversarial relationship. As an example,
consider that when an investigator enters the room he notices that the juvenile
suspect has his feet resting on the investigator's chair. If the investigator responds,
"Get your feet off my chair you skum bag!" he is providing fuel for the suspect's self-

165
propagate anger. A much more effective response to this situation would be for the
investigator to politely introduce himself and engage in introductory questions while
he gradually moves his chair from under the suspect's legs. By not even commenting
on the suspect's attempt at manipulation, the investigator will have maintained control
of the interview without giving the suspect cause to express anger. Other suggestions
in this regard are:

Responses to Anger

The most appropriate response to legitimate anger (coming from a probably truthful
suspect) is to tactfully step down the interrogation. The easiest way to terminate an
interrogation is to ask questions. Therefore, the investigator should return to the
interviewing format and perhaps revisit some of the topics that were covered during
the interview, i.e., "Tell me again what you did last Friday night." Eventually, it would
be appropriate for the investigator to say something like the following, "John, we are
still at an early stage in this investigation. There are other people we need to
interview and evidence that has not yet been analyzed. I fully understand your
position in this matter and if you had nothing to do with (crime) your innocence will be
proven. I will let you know if we need to talk to you further."

When dealing with feigned or self-propagated anger, certainly it would be wrong for
the investigator to decrease his confidence of the suspect's guilt, e.g., "Well, John,
there's something here that you haven't completely told the truth to". This retreating
position will reinforce the suspect's belief that if he maintains his anger long enough,
the investigator will eventually be convinced of his innocence. A much more
productive response to feigned or self-propagated anger is an insight statement such
as the following, "Joe, I can tell from your emotional state that you are very worried
about what will happen to you because of this thing. I wish I could tell you that if you
tell me the truth nothing would happen to you, but I'd be a liar if I said that. I'm not
here to give you a hard time. The only reason I came back in here to talk to you is to
give you an opportunity for input in my report before I send it out."

This response accomplished a number of important goals. First, the investigator has
not backed off at all on his confidence of the suspect's guilt. Second, the investigator
is actually using the suspect's apparent anger as further evidence of his guilt through
an insightful connection to the suspect's fear of punishment. To further refute the
suspect's attempt to avoid consequences through feigned anger, the suspect is
essentially told that he will be punished for his crime. Finally, the investigator makes a
statement against self-interest implying that a confession in not needed and that the
only reason the interrogation is being conducted is to give the suspect an opportunity
to explain the circumstances behind his crime.

The Role of Anxiety During Interrogation September 2002

The Role of Anxiety During Interrogation

A psychological model has been developed that describes the relationship between

166
perceived consequences and anxiety during an interrogation.(1) The model states
that the interrogator's goal is to legally reduced perceived consequences associated
with telling the truth, while also legally increasing perceived anxiety associated with
continued denial. The use of the word "anxiety" was carefully selected in this model
to avoid confusion about which interrogation techniques would be considered proper
or improper within the Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation. Despite this, during a recent
consultation, an attempt was made by opposing counsel to argue that intimidation
techniques are proper during an interrogation because they increase the suspect's
anxiety. This is certainly not true, nor is it consistent with our model.

A clear distinction must be made between anxiety and fear. Anxiety describes a
generalized feeling of apprehension or uneasiness directed inward, toward the
subject. As an emotion, it is closely related to guilt or shame which are also directed
inward. Consider a hypothetical person, Tom, whose extravagant lifestyle has caused
him to fall behind on bill payments. When he goes to bed at night he worries about
how he will pay rent and will he have enough money to buy food. These feelings of
apprehension are generalized and directed inward. In addition, because they are
self-generated, Tom has control over the level of anxiety experienced (he could move
to a less expensive apartment, sell his car, change his spending habits, etc.).

Fear, on the other hand, is a specific feeling of dread that is directed outward, toward
the object of a threat. Consider that a man named Jerry has fallen so far behind on
his rent that he received an eviction notice from his landlord. Because of the
specificity of this threat Jerry may well experience fear and this feeling will be
directed outward toward the threat of not having a place to live. Of most importance
(for interrogation), because the fear is directed away from Jerry, he does not have a
sense of control over the threat in his mind he believes that if he fails to come up with
money to pay his rent he will not have a place to live.

Because anxiety and fear both manifest themselves through autonomic arousal it is
tempting to classify them on a continuum with anxiety representing the low end of the
arousal scale and fear defining the high end. From a psychological and legal
perspective, however, this is misleading. Even though anxiety and fear may both
result in similar arousal states, with respect to interrogation, the important distinction
is the origin of the emotion which subsequently affects the perceived control the
subject has in alleviating the emotional state.

The reason anxiety-enhancing techniques are considered legal during an

interrogation is that the subject retains full control over his decision to confess. The
subject may exercise his free will to reduce the anxiety of an interrogation by walking
out of the room, requesting an attorney or telling the truth. However, because fear is
the result of an outside threat to the suspect , his or her free will may be impaired.
The suspect may well come to believe that the only way to avoid the threat is by
confessing. This would be true for both the guilty and innocent suspect which is
precisely why courts evaluate the presence of threats in deciding the admissibility of
a confession.

Returning to the earlier consultation, the attorney attempted to argue that intimidation
techniques merely increased a suspect's anxiety level, and, therefore, should be
considered proper within the Reid Technique. The attorney failed to recognize the

167
distinction between anxiety and fear. With this distinction in mind, it may be beneficial
to list specific interrogation techniques and compare those which increase a
suspect's anxiety (proper) to those which increase a suspect's fear (improper).

"I would hate to see you ten years from now worrying that your wife
Increases anxiety -
or employer might find out what you did and having to face the
proper
consequences then it's not worth it."
"Listen, if you don't start telling the truth I'm going to lose my temper
and get angry. Believe me, you don't want to get me angry Increases fear -
(interrogator slaps hand down on desk top and is 6 inches from improper
suspect's face)."
"If this is something you planned out long in advance that tells me
Increases anxiety -
you're basically a dishonest person. But, if this happened on the spur
proper
of the moment, that would be important for people to know."
"The fact that you haven't told me the truth about this tells me you're
an incompetent mother. You know what they do with incompetent
Increases fear -
mothers? They take away their children. If you continue to say you
improper
didn't do this I'm going to have your children put in a foster home and
you will never see them again!"
"I'm sure this has been bothering you ever since it happened. You
probably haven't slept well at night and perhaps have been smoking Increases anxiety -
and drinking more than you usually do. Put your life back on a normal proper
track -- let's get this thing straightened out!"
"You know what you are? You're a criminal. What you did is a crime
Increases fear -
and I could pick up the phone and have you arrested right now. You
improper
want to be arrested? You want to spend Christmas in jail?"
"I certainly did not have to come in here and talk to you about this. I
could have simply turned in my report without your explanation. From
Increases anxiety -
talking with you earlier I thought you were a decent person but maybe
proper
I was wrong. Maybe you don't care about what people think or about
your future at all. If that's the case I'm wasting your time and mine."
"I'm going to ask you a question and one of two things will come out Increases fear -
of your mouth either that you did this or your teeth." (N.Y.P.D. Blue) improper

An important responsibility a professional investigator assumes is to know what

statements or behaviors are permissible during an interrogation and which ones are
not. Especially when testifying, an investigator must be able to defend the techniques
used to elicit a confession. In this regard, explaining the distinction between anxiety
and fear may become central to the admissibility of a confession. As a general
guideline, if the statement or action addresses what the investigator may do or what
might happen to the suspect if he continues to deny involvement in the offense, the
statement invokes fear and should be avoided. If the statement or action addresses
the suspect's own perception of his future or how others may perceive him if he
continues to deny involvement in the offense it invokes anxiety and is probably
permissible.

168
The Importance of a Written Statement August 2002

An employee has been interviewed and interrogated concerning the issue of

falsifying time card entries. At the conclusion of the interrogation the investigator
brings in a witness who is told that the employee admitted that he falsified his time
card on several occasions in the last six months. However, no written statement is
taken from the employee. The employee is terminated for time theft and files a
wrongful discharge suit, which also alleges slander, emotional distress and
discrimination. When this case goes to court the company has nothing whatsoever in
writing from the ex-employee indicating any act of wrongdoing. He is bound to deny
acknowledging the time card violations and the result of the trial will rest on the
investigator's credibility when he testifies that the subject did make incriminating
statements.

Not having a statement signed by the defendant represents a potential nightmare for
prosecutors, corporate attorneys and the investigator who will face a rough cross
examination concerning his motives to fabricate the incriminating words allegedly
made by the defendant. This is especially true in civil suits where the employer's
actions were primarily based on believing what the investigator reported were the
incriminating statements made by the employee, and not on physical evidence.
Furthermore, when the only witness to an oral confession is another investigator the
defense may build a conspiracy theory arguing that one investigator is simply
covering for the other investigator's incompetence so that they can both keep their
jobs.

While an oral confession is legally admissible as evidence, it is much more difficult for
the defense to attack a written statement signed by the defendant. When the court
has a written document attesting to a defendant's involvement in a crime this not only
supports the investigator's testimony that the defendant did confess, but also
enhances the investigator's credibility when denying other allegations that may be
made relative to the interrogation. On the other hand, without such a signed
statement, the investigator has no independent corroboration supporting any events
of the interrogation and he will face an uphill battle at trial with each allegation of
impropriety.

Let's return to the interrogation of the employee suspected of time card violations.
Here is the actual portion of the interrogation where the investigator claimed the
suspect confessed:

I: Are you falsifying your time card every day or just every once in a while?"
S: If I did it, it certainly wasn't every day.
I: Good, that's what I thought all along. What is the total number of times you did it
during the whole six months that you worked here?
S: If it happened at all it would just be a couple of times.
I: What is the largest amount of time that you got paid for that you didn't really work.
Would it be 4 or 5 hours?
S: Absolutely not.
I: What do you think, maybe one or two hours?
S: If I was off on my time it certainly was not by hours.
I: So maybe up to an hour or so.

169
S: I have no idea.
I: But you were off on your time card on a number of occasions in the last six months,
right?
S: I might have been.
The investigator who was brought in to witness the "confession" was told that the
suspect admitted falsifying his time card on a number of occasions in the last six
months. Acting on that same information, the company decided to terminate the
employee. The problem is that this employee never confessed to falsifying his time
card. The original investigator, anxious to prove the employee's dishonesty, was the
victim of selective listening. He wanted to hear that the employee falsified his time
card so when the employee said, "If I did it, it wasn't every day" the investigator
believed that the employee had made his first admission of guilt. The investigator
either failed to hear or comprehend the employee's qualifying statement, "If I did it."

This employee may or may not be guilty of significant time card violations. All that
can be stated with certainty is that he did not acknowledge them during his
interrogation. This introduces a final benefit to taking a written statement, which is
that it commits the subject to the admissions made during an interview or
interrogation. The above mentioned employee would never have written or signed a
statement such as,

"During the six months that I worked at XWZ Corporation I have falsified the hours
that I worked 6 to 8 times. The first time was in February 2002 when I added 2 hours
to my time card. The last time was in June 2002 when I also added 2 hours of time
that I did not work. The total amount of time I have been paid for that I did not work
would be between 12 to 14 hours. I am very sorry I did this and the reason I did it
was because I have not been given enough hours to pay my bills. No threats or
promises were made to me to write this and everything I wrote is the truth."

Had the investigator in this case attempted to take such a written statement he would
have immediately recognized that the employee had not confessed to time card
violations. This may have resulted in further interrogation of the employee or a
realization that the employee was not involved in significant time card violations. In
either event, the taking of a written statement in this case would have potentially
protected the company from civil liability.

The issue arises as to whether a written statement should be taken from every
subject who has made incriminating statements. As a guideline, it is prudent to take a
written statement anytime the subject's admissions may lead to an adverse impact on
the subject, e.g., suspension, demotion, termination, prosecution. It only takes one
lawsuit to appreciate the importance of this advice.

In conclusion, our experience has been that about 80% of suspects will readily write
out their own statement after they confess. For the remaining 20%, the investigator
can write out a statement, which the suspect will read, make any required
corrections, and then sign. This procedure generally takes no more than 10-15
minutes and serves three important functions. The first is that it will enhance the
investigator's credibility in court when he testifies that the suspect did, in fact,
confess. Second, a written statement will assure that the investigator understands
exactly what the suspect is confessing to. Finally, the statement will commit the

170
suspect to his admissions, decreasing the likelihood that he will later claim never to
have confessed.

Going Directly from an Interview into an Interrogation

July 2002

In the Reid Technique a clear distinction is made between interviewing and

interrogation. The interview is non-accusatory, question and answer process that is
designed to elicit information. An interrogation is accusatory in nature and is
designed to elicit the truth from someone whom the investigator believes has lied.
Furthermore, the two procedures are generally separated in time. At the completion
of the interview the investigator steps out of the room and returns in five or ten
minutes to start the interrogation. The pretense for stepping out of the room may be
to review notes, talk to another investigator or to make a quick phone call.

There are several benefits for creating a brief separation of time between the
interview and interrogation. This pause allows the investigator time to formulate an
interrogation strategy, e.g., what confrontation statement to make, what themes and
alternative question to use. By separating the interview from the interrogation it is
easier for the investigator to go from the non-accusatory and fact-finding tone of the
interview to the accusatory and persuasive tone of the interrogation. Finally, the
investigator can use his absence from the interview room as a pretense to strengthen
the confrontation of the suspect at the outset of the interrogation. A possible ploy
might be something like, "Jim, I just got off the phone with the crime lab and they
were able to match hair follicles from the bedroom. In this folder are the results of our
entire investigation and there is no doubt that you are the person who took this girl
from her bedroom."

There are situations where an investigator may go directly from an interview into an
interrogation without any time period separating the two procedures. The first
involves an environment in which it is impractical for the investigator to leave the
suspect alone after completing the interview. Consider a college student who was
interviewed in his dorm room about a date rape. The investigator knows that the
student came from a privileged family and also knows that he had a single dorm
room. Even though the student was not taken into custody (thus, no Miranda
warnings were required) there was a concern that had a formal interview been
scheduled at the university police station the student's father would have arranged for
an attorney to be present during the interview. Furthermore, being in a single dorm
room allowed privacy for the interview and interrogation. However, the interview
environment does not lend itself to a plausible reason for the investigator to step out
of the room following the interview and return ten minutes later to initiate the
interrogation.

Under circumstances of this nature the investigator should complete the interview
and immediately confront the suspect. However, the standard confrontation
statement should be somewhat modified. A possible statement for the previously
mentioned date rape is, "Tom, we have been investigating this incident since it was
reported and I have asked you a number of questions that I already knew the
answers to. After talking to you and reviewing all of the evidence, there is no question

171
that you did force (victim) into having sex with you." Unlike a standard confrontation
statement, which is made while standing, when circumstances require that the
investigator go directly from an interview to an interrogation the investigator would
remain seated.

A second circumstance where the investigator may go directly from an interview to an

interrogation occurs when the suspect exhibits a clear indication of wanting to
confess during the interview. Often this will occur early during an interview where, for
example, the suspect becomes confused when relaying his alibi or perhaps when he
is asked a question such as "Did you (fire that gun)?" and the suspect puts his head
down and simply shakes his head implying a denial. If it were decided to initiate an
interrogation at this point, rather than directly accuse the suspect of involvement in
the offense, the investigator would immediately develop a theme. In the latter
example, the investigator may state:

"You know Tom, in cases like this the important thing to establish is why someone did
something. Once we get the paraffin test back we'll be able to determine if you fired a
gun in the last 48 hours. But that test won't tell us what the circumstances were. I
know you were drinking that night and alcohol tends to cloud a person's judgment in
that they will do things when they are drinking that they never do otherwise. I can tell
from looking at you that you are sorry about doing this but I don't know the
circumstances behind what happened (continue with theme)."

Interrogating a suspect prior to completing an interview should be reserved for

suspects who clearly exhibit symptoms, not only of deception, but also of wanting to
confess. Once the interrogation is initiated the investigator should not return to the
question and answer format of the interview. In other words, the decision to initiate an
interrogation at some point during an interview is a permanent one. Once the
investigator engages in an interrogation, even if for only a few minutes, and then
attempts to return to the interviewing format, the subject is unlikely to offer any
meaningful information during the remainder of the interview and the success of a
subsequent interrogation is severely diminished.

Furthermore, there are clear risks involved in a premature interrogation. By cutting

the interview short, the investigator loses potential insight into the suspect's crime
that may be provided during a full interview. The abbreviated interview also may
inhibit the investigator's ability to establish the level of rapport needed to persuade
someone to tell the truth. Finally, the investigator loses the procedural advantages of
separating the interview from the interrogation. These are each significant factors
contributing to the success of an interrogation and the investigator should carefully
weigh them before deciding to terminate the interview and engage in an immediate
interrogation of a suspect.

Conducting An Exit Interview June 2002

When an employee gives his two week notice to leave a company, the typical
response centers around how to find a replacement for that person. What is often
overlooked is that the departing employee represents a potential wealth of
information in such areas as violations of company policy, theft, sexual harassment,
and employee drug use. The reason this employee is a valuable source of

172
information is because he probably has direct or indirect knowledge of wrong-doings
within his department and will often reveal this information because there is no fear of
being terminated or disciplined by the employer.

One of the keys to a successful exit interview is to introduce the interview in a

manner that encourages truthfulness. The employee should be allowed to feel
comfortable revealing misconduct by others and should be made to feel important by
providing his input to corporate decisions. The following introduction accomplishes
these two goals:

"Jim, something we have learned over the years is that to really find out what's
happening in a particular division of the company, we need to talk to the people who
work there. You've worked in (shipping and receiving) for almost five years and have
done an outstanding job. I would like to spend a little time this afternoon reviewing
your observations and experiences with (Company). I know that we are not perfect
and that sometimes things happen within the workplace that shouldn't happen. For
some time now we have talked to employees who have decided to leave the
company in an effort to learn how we can improve our organization. The information
they have provided has been very helpful in making corporate decisions.

There are a couple of important things to keep in mind during our discussion. The
first is that none of the information you tell me will be released to your co-workers. So
this information is confidential in that regard. Second, much of what you tell me today
I've probably already heard from other employees that I've talked to, but I certainly
would appreciate your candor and input. When a group of employees work in the
same area around the same people they oftentimes tend to observe the same thing.
But I am asking you to share all of your observations with me, even if you think I am
already aware of the situation, because your perspective on things in very important
to me."

Following this introductory statement, the interviewer should ask some background
questions. One reason for this is to allow the employee to feel comfortable talking
about their job experience, but in addition, this information will help target areas to be
addressed later during the interview. It would not be appropriate at the outset of the
interview to ask the employee why he or she is leaving the job as this question
immediately puts the departing employee in a defensive position. Possible
introductory questions would be:

How did you originally come to work for (Company)

What positions have you worked within the company (how long, which locations)
What shifts have you worked?
Who have your supervisors been?
The interviewer will then want to cover specific topical areas with the departing
employee. The sequence of these topics should go from less serious to more serious
behaviors. The reason for this is that most employees will make admissions to less
serious misconduct and by the time the more serious issues are raised the employee
has already established a pattern of sharing sensitive information. This makes
admissions to the more serious areas much easier to make. As an example, the

173
following sequence of topical areas might be discussed with the employee:

Violating company policies

Safety violations
Sexual harassment
Theft
Work related drug use
Each topical area should be introduced with a short statement to encourage
admissions. After the area is introduced, the interviewer should ask a series of
principal questions that address specific behaviors. If the departing employee makes
an admission to the principal question, appropriate follow-up questions should be
asked. The following is a possible introduction for violation of company policies, along
with principal and follow-up questions. Notice that all of the principal questions are
phrased in the past tense. This is to reinforce, in the employee's mind, that he soon
will be an ex-employee and cannot suffer consequences for admissions.

"Jim the first area I would like to discuss with you concerns not following company
rules. Now everyone bends rules on occasion and we expect that. What we would
like to identify are problem areas where major rules are violated on a regular basis."

"What percent of employees in your work area showed up more than 15 minutes late
to work at least once a week?"
(If there are time cards) "Do you know if someone else punches their time card for
them?"
"Did any of your managers or supervisors report to work more than 15 minutes late at
least once a week?"
"Were any of your co-workers disciplined or talked to about their tardiness?"
"How were they disciplined?"
"What percent of employees came back from lunch more than 15 minutes late?" "Is it
usually the same ones or does it vary?"
"What percent of employees in your work area left work more than 15 minutes early
at least once a week?"
"Are you aware of employees who called in sick, when in fact, they were not sick?"
"Was this common for everyone, or did some people do it much more than others?"
"How often did employees in your area use the company phone for personal calls?"
"Are there one or two people who tended to do this more than the others?"
"Have employees in your area used a company vehicle for personal errands?"
"Do you know what personal errand this employee did?"
"Have you seen employees intentionally damage merchandise in the shipping and
receiving area?"
"What was damaged?"; "How was it damaged?"
"Has a supervisor ever told you to keep something secret?"
"What did he or she ask you to keep secret?"

As these principal questions reflect, the departing employee's answers will generally
indicate whether or not there is a potential problem within a particular area. The
follow-up questions should establish the extent of the problem but not request the
names of employees responsible. We have found that a departing employee will
continue to divulge meaningful observations as long as specific names of co-workers
are not elicited. On the other hand, if the interviewer presses for a specific name (or

174
too many details) after the first admission is made, the departing employee will be
reluctant to volunteer further information. Therefore, it is our recommendation to go
through all of the topical areas in a general sense before attempting to elicit specific
names.

Consider that a departing employee has acknowledged, during his exit interview, that
he is aware of two employees who smoke marijuana during breaks, an employee
who intentionally damaged company property and an employee he suspects of theft.
To elicit the names of these employees, the interviewer might say something like:

"Jim, you've been really helpful this afternoon and I appreciate your honesty. Much of
what you've told me has either been suspected or mentioned by others. I would like
to discuss these employees in a bit more detail with you. As I told you earlier,
anything you tell me today will not get back to co-workers. In fact, I've probably
already heard their names before but I want to make sure we are talking about the
same people."

"Who is it that you suspect has taken merchandise from the warehouse without
permission?"
"Why do you suspect (Name)?"
"Do you think anyone is helping him do this?"
"What merchandise do you suspect him of taking?"
"How do you think he is getting it out of the warehouse?"
"Who intentionally damaged the lamp shipment that you told me about?"
"What other company property have you seen him damage?"
"Has he made any verbal threats to co-workers?"
"Are you aware of any violent behavior he has engaged in outside of the job?"
"Who is using marijuana during breaks?"
"How do you know this?"
"Who else do you think is aware of this?"
"Do you know if they are selling any drugs from the company?"

The purpose for the exit interview is to elicit, in an efficient manner, relevant work
related information an employee may possess. While opinion questions such as,
"How did you like working for (Company)?" or "What changes could you suggest to
improve our company?" may be appropriate as ice-breakers for the interview, what
needs to be developed is factual information the employee has seen, heard or was
told. By developing factual information a disgruntled employee, who is motivated to
offer negative opinions about co-workers or supervisors, is much easier to detect
because of the lack of specific observations to support any derogatory remarks.

The information learned through an exit interview may be used in a number of ways.
It could serve as the impetus for an internal investigation or heightened security. It
might indicate the need to counsel a manager or supervisor on enforcement of
company policies or treatment of employees. In an opposite situation where the exit
interview indicates good compliance with company policies and favorable rapport
with management, the manager should be awarded with positive feedback.

175
Considerations with Respect to the Use of Evidence During an Investigation
May 2002

The Reid Technique represents a structured investigative approach to solve cases

involving little or no evidence. The first step of the technique is factual analysis in
which the investigative information is analyzed to identify possible suspects and
assess each suspects' probable involvement in the offense. The second step is the
interview of possible suspects to develop additional investigative information and
behavior symptoms indicative of truth or deception. When a suspect exhibits
deceptive behavior during the interview, the investigator may move into the final step
of the technique which is to interrogate that person. The interrogation is conducted in
an effort to learn the truth from that individual. In some cases an investigator is able
to gather enough evidence of a suspect's guilt that a confession is not needed to
successfully prosecute that person. Collecting prima facie evidence of a suspect's
guilt, however, is a rare occurrence. In most cases the investigator only obtains
circumstantial evidence that points toward a particular suspect's probable
involvement in a crime. In other cases, there may be limited physical or testimonial
evidence that further implicates the suspect. This web tip will offer recommendations
on the use of such evidence during the course of the investigation.

Recommendation #1 When inviting a non-custodial suspect in for a voluntary

interview, do not mention specific evidence that points toward that person's
guilt.

There are basically two reason why guilty suspects voluntarily agree to be
interviewed or take a polygraph examination. The first is the belief that they can lie
without being caught. The second is that they do not want to incriminate themselves
by being the only person who is not cooperating with the investigation. However, this
entire thought process changes considerably when the investigator reveals
incriminating evidence to a suspect. Consider the following invitation for a voluntary
interview:

"Jim, I need to talk to you about a robbery of a gas station clerk last Friday night. You
already have a record for robbery and we have two witnesses who saw you drive
away from the gas station right after the robbery. In addition, I know that you have
been spending a lot of cash since the robbery. What time can you come in and talk to
me about this?"
No suspect in his right mind would agree to meet with this investigator. The suspect
has little choice but to believe that the investigator is already convinced of his guilt. In
addition, this invitation leaves little doubt that the suspect is the only person being
considered as guilty of the robbery. Under this circumstance, most guilty suspects
would force the investigator to prove a case against him and not cooperate with the
investigation. A much more productive invitation to this suspect would be as follows:
"Jim I am investigating a situation where some money was taken from a gas station
clerk last Friday night. I am in the process of scheduling preliminary interviews for
people who were seen around the gas station that night. Your name has come up on
that list and I was wondering whether you could come in and talk to me about this?"
This invitation is much more likely to result in the suspect agreeing to submit to a
voluntary interview for two reasons. The first is that the suspect believes there is no

176
real evidence pointing toward his involvement in the robbery, thus increasing his
belief that he can lie successfully during the interview. Secondly, the suspect does
not want to incriminate himself by being the only person seen around the gas station
that night not to cooperate with the investigation. During our seminars we emphasize
that an investigator is much more likely to elicit the truth from a suspect who
voluntarily agrees to be interviewed (where Miranda warnings are not required) than
a suspect who is taken into custody. Remember that just because an investigator has
probable cause to arrest a suspect, he is not obligated by law to place that suspect in
custody.

Recommendation #2 During an interview, never bring up evidence until first

giving the suspect an opportunity to tell you about it voluntarily.

A common mistake investigators make during an interview is introducing evidence

prematurely. Consider a hit and run case where the investigator knows, from talking
to a body shop mechanic, that the suspect replaced a headlight and damaged grill on
his vehicle three days after the accident. The suspect told the mechanic that the
damage occurred in a parking lot where someone must have backed into his car. If,
during the interview, the investigator shows the suspect a copy of the work order and
asks him to explain how his car got damaged, obviously the suspect will relate the
same story he told the mechanic. However, if the investigator first asks questions
along the following lines, much more meaningful information may be learned:

Q: "Have you been involved in an accident at all in the last two weeks?"
Q: "Has your car received any damage in the last two weeks?"
Q: "Have you had any repair work done on your vehicle in the last two weeks?"

An innocent suspect, who was in no way involved in the hit an run accident, will
respond truthfully to these questions and relate details of the parking lot incident and
repair work done. The deceptive suspect, not wanting to incriminate himself, is likely
to answer "no" to these questions. It is an axiom of detecting deception that a
suspect who lies about small events is likely to be guilty of the crime. However, the
investigator must invite the suspect to lie. To do this, evidence revealing the truth
(witness statements, past arrest record, recent purchases, etc.) must be withheld
from the suspect during the interview at least until the suspect has first been given
the opportunity to tell the truth on his own volition.

Recommendation #3 Use evidence strategically during an interrogation.

The vast majority of interrogations are conducted on suspects for whom there is
insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Before a suspect will
accept the consequences of his crime by telling the truth, he must first believe that
there is already a high probability that his guilt has been, or will be established. If an
investigator begins an interrogation by laying out circumstantial evidence that tends
to implicate the suspect's possible involvement in the offense, the suspect will
immediately recognize that there is insufficient proof of his guilt to obtain a conviction.
Consequently, early introduction of evidence during an interrogation often reveals the
weakness of the investigator's case. In addition, when an investigator reveals specific
evidence during an interrogation the suspect has something tangible to attack as the
following dialogue illustrates:

177
I: "Joe, you told me before that you didn't have any body work done on your car yet I
know that you had a front headlight and grill replaced at the local Buick dealer three
days after this accident. I talked to the mechanic who did the work and have a
statement from him so don't lie and tell me you didn't hit that man."

S: "Let me explain something to you. First, I did not hit the man and I don't know
anything about that. You're right in that I didn't tell the truth about the repair work. I
thought it would make me look guilty so I didn't tell you. But I didn't hit that guy with
my car."
This suspect is unlikely to tell the truth about his involvement in the hit and run
accident. He now knows that the only evidence the police have is the repair work
done on his vehicle and he can easily explain it away. Consider, however, that the
investigator initially withheld this evidence and used it more strategically later during
the interrogation as illustrated:
I: "Joe, I think you responded as anyone else would have under the circumstances.
This guy is out walking in the dark, wearing dark clothes and he's been drinking so
he's staggering all over the road. You are driving by and he practically walks right in
front of your car and this thing happens. At that point you got scared and continued
driving. Most people would have done exactly the same thing."

S: "What proof do you have that I did this?"

I: "I would love to sit down and go over with you, piece by piece, all of the evidence
that we've collected on this case but it's against department policy for me to do that.
Eventually, of course, you'll have a chance to see all of the evidence but by then my
report will be submitted and it will be out of my hands. Joe, you're not some sort of
clever criminal who has done things like this your whole life. When something like
this happens to an average guy like you and me we don't know enough to cover our
tracks. A criminal would have taken his car out of state to have the headlight and grill
replaced. You had it done at the Buick dealer right here in town three days after the
accident. A criminal would have gone back and collected the parts of the grill from the
accident scene so they could not be matched with the broken grill that was replaced.
Again, I can't discuss the specific evidence with you, but what I think will be important
to bring out is whether or not you were purposefully aiming your car at this guy or if it
really was just an accident..."

A successful interrogation relies extensively on pretense and innuendo. If

circumstantial evidence is introduced at all, it should be mentioned in passing as if it
is the icing on the cake. It doesn't take a skilled defense attorney to successfully
attack circumstantial evidence - most criminal suspects are quite capable of doing
this on their own. Furthermore, it has been our experience that interrogations
centered around incriminating evidence are the most likely to involve illegal threats
and promises of leniency from the interrogator. Frustrated by the suspect's perhaps
implausible but possible innocent explanation for the evidence, the investigator
resorts to tactics that may well cause a subsequent confession to be suppressed as
evidence in a court of law.

In conclusion, despite television portrayals of investigators routinely gathering

overwhelming forensic evidence of a suspect's guilt, in real life the most common
form of evidence admitted at trial is the spoken word. Examples include a victim's

178
physical description of the defendant, eye witnesses who can identify the defendant,
witnesses who refute the defendant's alibi, witnesses who offer testimony relating to
the defendant's motive or propensity to commit the crime and the defendant's
confession. Because investigators often only develop evidence that tends toward
proving a suspect's involvement in a crime, but is insufficient to prove guilt, the
evidence must be used judiciously. In some cases, an investigator is better off not
mentioning circumstantial evidence at all. Remember the adage that it is sometimes
better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all
doubt.

Evaluating the Truthfulness of a Reported Sexual Assault April 2002

Wisconsin recently introduced legislation that would prohibit a sexual assault victim
from being asked to take a polygraph examination. Many states have already passed
such a law. Clearly doubting the veracity of a sexual assault victim's claim is not a
politically popular position. Victim advocate groups argue that the polygraph further
traumatizes the sexual assault victim. It is interesting to note that a robbery victim is
not afforded the same consideration. Neither are the parents who claim that their
child was abducted. In fact, the FBI recommends that in such cases one of the first
investigative steps should be to administer a polygraph examination to the parents.
Nonetheless, many agencies are legally prohibited from utilizing the polygraph
technique to ascertain the truthfulness of a rape victim.

Certainly the majority of reported sexual assaults represent legitimate claims. Yet in
our office each year, we identify women who have completely falsified a report that
they were raped. We can add to that list a significant number of women who claimed
to be raped when, in fact, the sex act was consensual. The most frequent motives for
a false claim of rape are to gain attention or to explain away a pregnancy or sexually
transmitted disease. In some cases we have encountered a woman who was caught
engaging in a consensual sexual act and, to save face, reported that she was being
raped. On rare occasions we have encountered a false claim of rape motivated
through revenge against the named rapist. Regardless of the motive, false claims of
sexual assaults have cost departments hundreds of wasted hours looking for a rapist
that does not exist. In some documented cases, innocent defendants have been
convicted based on the alleged victim's identification of the man even though she
was never raped.

Sexual assaults can be divided into two broad categories. In the first, a specific
person is named. Often these will involve acquaintance rapes. In these cases the
named suspect will either say that he did not have sexual intercourse with the victim
or that it was consensual. This is an ideal situation for the accused man to take a
polygraph examination. The problem is that too often the suspect is immediately
arrested based on the victim's complaint. Because of the arrest and required Miranda
warnings, the suspect is likely to ask for an attorney and no attorney would agree to a
polygraph examination conducted by a police agency without first having his client
examined privately. In most cases, therefore, we recommend that the suspect not be
arrested, but rather be voluntarily interviewed, at which time a polygraph examination
may be offered as a way to quickly resolve the issue.

The second situation is not so easily resolved. In this case the victim reports that she

179
was sexually assaulted but no specific suspect is identified. These reports can be
classified on a continuum of being highly probable, probable or suspicious. Highly
probable reports will be supported with clear physical evidence of rape (vaginal
tearing, bruising, seminal fluid, foreign pubic hair). In these cases the victim's account
should be accepted at face value. In addition, DNA analysis should be conducted on
foreign body fluids or tissues. Stranger rapes tend to be a serial crime and the
growing database of DNA samples collected from sex offenders may lead to an easy
identification of the rapist.

The probable rape complaint lacks compelling physical evidence but contains
characteristics that are frequently present in factual reports. The reason for the lack
of physical evidence is often because the victim delayed reporting the rape. There
are a number of reasons why legitimate rape victims do not report the assault in a
timely manner. Some are too embarrassed to come forward. Others experience guilt,
believing that they somehow invited the attack. During the victim's interview it is
valuable to ask, "Why did you decide to report what happened to you now?" A victim
who is falsifying the rape claim is often unable to identify any specific reason for her
delayed report. On the other hand, a legitimate victim is often able to articulate a
specific reason for the delayed report. In some cases this may relate to emotional or
physical after effects of the rape, such as nightmares, pregnancy or contracting an
STD. In other cases the victim may refer to a conversation with a confidante who
eventually convinced her to report the attack. It is highly suggestive of a legitimate
claim when a victim reported the assault to a close friend or family member shortly
after its commission.

Another reason a sexual assault case may lack physical evidence is because the
rapist did not carry through with the crime. A report of attempted sexual assault
should be carefully scrutinized for its veracity. Most rapists will carry out their crime
once it has started. On the other hand, a victim who fabricates a rape for attention
receives all of the psychological gains by reporting an attempted rape, or abduction
and yet does not have to explain why there is no physical evidence to support her
claim.

The suspicious sexual assault may include a number of questionable elements.

The first assessment concerns the description of the rape itself. The behavior of
actual rapists tend to be fairly similar. One type will attack the victim out of the blue,
which may involve an abduction. A second type will gain the victim's confidence and
coerce the victim into having sex. The abduction type rape is often brutal and may
involve unnecessary violence. The coercive rape is much more passive and the
rapist may even apologize after the attack. When a rape victim incorporates elements
from both types of rapes (coercive and random attack) into her portrayal of the crime,
a number of issues arise.

To identify inconsistencies in a report it is often beneficial, during the initial contact, to

ask a victim to write out a complete description of everything that happened. Ideally,
the victim should be seated alone in a room with several pages of lined paper with
the question on top of the first page: "Write down everything that happened which
caused you to file this complaint." The investigator should encourage a detailed
description by telling the victim that he will return in 15 or 20 minutes. When the
investigator returns, the written statement should be reviewed to make certain that

180
the elements of the crime are covered and that sufficient investigative leads are
present. If these are absent, the investigator should only seek clarification in those
areas. This procedure offers a means for a victim to relate sensitive information at
her own pace and to minimize the emotional trauma associated with having to
verbalize what happened to her. Of equal significance, the victim's written account
can be analyzed for veracity through content analysis and provide a baseline of
behaviors and sequences of events which can later be used to identify
inconsistencies in the report. Several days after writing out the initial report, the victim
can be approached to clarify some aspects of her account. Compared to their original
statement, a legitimate victim will relate the same events, probably with greater detail
and certainly in the same sequence whereas the fabricating victim may significantly
omit or change key events. Changes in sequence of events is particularly important
to note.

In a second recounting of the rape, the legitimate victim may recall slightly different
words or phrases made by the rapist. However, if the woman initially reported that the
man first struck her in the face and then undressed her, but in the second account
that he undressed her first and then hit her in the face, this discrepancy in the
sequence of events supports the suspicion of a probable falsification.

A second consideration is the description of the rapist. An actual rape victim will
preserve a real memory of the image of the rapists (if one exists). It will not change
with time or suggestion. In a fabricated claim, there is no factual image of the rapist
to recall. Consequently, it may change with time or suggestion. In this regard, it is a
useful interviewing technique for the investigator to purposefully incorporate
inconsistent information within an interview question. Consider that the victim
reported that the rapist had a scar running down his right cheek. During a
subsequent interview, the investigator might ask, "Now you said in your written
statement that he had a scar on his left cheek, about how long was the scar?" The
legitimate victim, relying on factual recall, will readily detect this discrepancy and
correct the misinformation in the investigator's question. The fabricating victim is
likely to miss the inconsistency and readily provide an estimated length of the scar.

Finally, the victim's lack of cooperation in the investigation may make the claim
suspicious. A legitimate victim will be anxious to catch the man who raped her. She
may exhibit some reluctance to testify at trial, but will generally be very cooperative
during the investigative stage. A victim who has fabricated the rape claim may put off
appointments to look at mug shots or may be unreasonably unavailable to identify a
possible suspect in a lineup. When working with a sketch artist, she may offer very
vague information or inconsistent information. In one case of a false claim of rape we
investigated, the description of an un-masked suspect started off as Hispanic and
then went to African American but ended up as possibly Caucasian. An experienced
sketch artist will develop a pretty good sense of what a normal victim or witness'
description sounds like during the session. The investigator should talk to the artist
and ask whether or not the victim's recall, detail, consistency and verification
statements were normal or unusual.

In conclusion, the first step of any sexual assault investigation is to assess the
veracity of the victim's report. In some cases, there will be absolutely no doubt that
the victim was raped. In many cases, the nature of the report itself will support a high

181
probability that the victim was sexually assaulted. In rare cases, the victim's report
may be judged as suspicious. The most valid means to ascertain a victim's
truthfulness is through the polygraph technique. When this is not a legal option, the
investigator should arrange for the victim to take a Behavior Analysis Interview.
Ultimately, the evidence required to drop an investigation or charge a victim with
obstruction of justice will be a confession. To obtain a confession, of course, the
alleged victim will have to be interrogated. The decision to confront and interrogate a
woman who claims that she was raped should only be made when there is a
reasonable suspicion that the report is false.

The Role of Motivation in the Interpretation of a Subject's Behavior February

2002

In psychology, a person's motivation generally relates to the strength of their desire to

accomplish a specific goal, which is also referred to as their drive. On the other hand,
the concept of motivation in criminal investigation refers to the need a suspect
fulfilled by committing a criminal act such as financial gain, power, esteem, etc. This
difference is not incompatible, for a person's clarity in defining a specific goal and the
drive to accomplish that goal both encompass the construct of motivation. If a
suspect lacks either a specific goal or the drive to accomplish that goal, inferences of
truth or deception are often misleading.

A good example illustrating the relationship between goal orientation and the drive to
accomplish a goal is the research that has been published investigating detection of
deception. Laboratory studies create an artificial scenario where subjects are
assigned the role of either committing a mock crime or not committing it. These "liars"
or "truth-tellers" may then be administered a polygraph examination or face to face
interview to collect data which is subsequently analyzed for indications of truth or
deception. With this methodology, the typical result is that neither procedure achieves
accuracies much above chance levels. However, when using similar data derived
from actual criminal suspects (field studies) the same analysis consistently reveals
accuracies far above chance levels.

The difference between these two populations is the level of motivation. "Truthful"
laboratory subjects often do not form a clear goal of needing to be reported as telling
the truth. While the deceptive laboratory subjects may have a clearly defined goal of
avoiding being detected in a lie, they have very little drive to accomplish that goal.
Consequently, both "truthful" and "deceptive" laboratory subjects produce similar
polygraph charts or behavior during an interview. On the other hand, because a
criminal suspect's livelihood, reputation and freedom are at stake, both innocent and
guilty suspects form clear goals and a strong drive to accomplish the goal. It is
important to appreciate that innocent and guilty suspects form different goals during
an interview or polygraph examination. The innocent suspect's goal is to be
exonerated or reported as telling the truth. The deceptive suspect's goal is to not
have his guilt identified. This difference in goal orientation forms the basis for all
inferential lie detection procedures.

With this background, it must be remembered that not all criminal suspects operate
from high levels of motivation. A common exception is the innocent person who is
essentially told, at the outset of the interview, "I don't believe you had anything to do

182
with this crime." Under this circumstance the person has no need to establish a goal
of being exonerated. The result may be unresponsive polygraph charts and possibly
misleading behavior symptoms. Examples of these misleading behavior symptoms
include failing to name a particular suspect, vouching for everyone, failure to
speculate as to possible motivations by the guilty and offering a noncommittal
punishment toward the guilty person. In essence, the unmotivated innocent subject
lacks a number of underlying attitudes seen from an innocent suspect who is highly
motivated to be exonerated.

To maintain high levels of motivation during an interview, an investigator should avoid

downplaying the suspect's possible involvement in a crime. During a formal interview
our introductory statement to all suspects is, "If you were involved in (crime) our
investigation will clearly indicate that. If you had nothing to do with this it will show
that as well." Our experience has shown that, especially suspects who are innocent
of involvement in a criminal offense, need to be stimulated to form a clear goal of
needing to be exonerated to produce behavior indicative of that fact.

In the opposite situation, the guilty suspect may be so overwhelmed with evidence
against him that he does not form a strong inner drive to escape being detected in his
crime. In essence, this suspect experiences a feeling of helplessness going into a
polygraph examination or interview. During a polygraph examination this suspect
may not exhibit significant arousal when he denies involvement in the crime - he is
convinced that the polygraph will detect his lie and, therefore, is not motivated to
avoid detection of deception. During an interview his nonverbal behavior may appear
withdrawn and distant but the verbal content of his responses to behavior provoking
questions may be more typical of the innocent. For example, the suspect may openly
acknowledge that a crime was committed and that he had the best opportunity and
motive to commit it. He may even offer a reasonably harsh punishment for the guilty
person and deny that the guilty person should be given a second chance. This is
exactly the behavior displayed by a guilty suspect who, prior to our interview, had
already told her husband about her commission of the crime. Acting on factual
information we interrogated the suspect and she readily confessed. During a post-
confession interview she explained that her husband had already forgiven her and
she had accepted the fact that she would be punished for what she did. When asked
why she did not just come forward and admit her guilt she stated that husband
advised her to lie.

With respect to the guilty suspect who lacks motivation because he has given up, we
generally suggest that an investigator withhold incriminating evidence from a suspect
until the interview or even interrogation. By doing so, not only is the suspect more
likely to agree to be interviewed, but his level of motivation will remain high. During
an interview the investigator wants the guilty suspect to believe that he can escape
detection by suggesting that no crime was committed, opening up the investigation
by naming unrealistic suspects, stating that the guilty person deserves leniency, etc.

The preceding comments all relate to the subject's internal motivation during non-
accusatory procedures (polygraph examination and interviews). What happens when
the external level of motivation is significantly increased through an accusatory
interaction, such as during an interrogation? There are some behaviors, both truthful
and deceptive, which become more obvious during an interrogation. For example, a

183
truthful suspect's denials become much more forceful and emphatic during an
interrogation. On the other hand, the accusatory nature of interrogation may amplify
intrinsic factors affecting a person's behavior (personality, culture, intelligence, etc.)
which may decrease the reliability of some behavioral observations. Finally, there are
a number of specific behavior symptoms which take on quite different interpretations
whether they occur during a non-accusatory interview or an accusatory interrogation.

One of these is the use of non-contracted denials, e.g., "I did not start that fire."
During an interview, non-contracted denials are more often heard from deceptive
than truthful suspects. However, during an interrogation, non-contracted denials,
especially when delivered in a staccato fashion, are associated with truthfulness.
Similarly, a bolstered phrases such as, "I swear, I don't know anything about that fire!"
is indicative of deception during a non-accusatory interview. During an interrogation
an innocent suspect, out of frustration or anger, may make the same statement. On
the nonverbal level, staring or a forward-leaning posture throughout an interview is
often a sign of deception, where the guilty suspect is forcing his presence on the
investigator. However, during an interrogation these behaviors may be a good sign of
sincere anger and shock, which is more indicative of truthfulness.

These are but a few examples of behaviors which are affected by the nature of the
interaction with the investigator. They indicate why, when we do consultations to
evaluate a suspect's behavior, we always ask whether or not the suspect has been
accused of involvement in the offense or has been previously interrogated on it.
Becoming confrontational with a suspect introduces a new variable to consider when
evaluating behavior. If the accusation is clear and direct such as, "Tom, there is no
doubt that you are the person who started that fire!" we can confidently assess the
suspect's behavior. Where problems arise is when the investigator shifts from non-
accusatory to accusatory questioning and then returns to non-accusatory questions.
A lesson we emphasize during our training seminars is worth repeating: If you are
going to interview - interview. If you are going to interrogate - interrogate.

In summary, an investigator must be aware of the subject's level of internal

motivation to form clear goals and the drive to accomplish that goal. In this regard,
the investigator should approach each interview in an impartial manner and certainly
not downplay the possibility that the person being interviewed is considered as
someone who may have involvement in the offense, or be motivated to withhold
information. Second, the investigator should not overwhelm a suspect with
incriminating evidence prior to the interview. To do so not only decreases the
likelihood that the suspect will voluntarily agree to be interviewed, but may create a
sense of helplessness which can distort goal orientation and cause misleading
behavior or polygraph charts. Finally, the investigator must appreciate the influence
that the nature of the interaction with a suspect (non-accusatory, accusatory) has on
that person's behavior.

Don't Overlook The Person Who Reported The Crime January 2002

A guideline we teach during our seminars is that the first person interviewed during
an investigation should be the individual who reported the crime. The primary reason
for this is because that person often can provide the most accurate investigative
information surrounding the crime. Consider a homeowner who reports that someone

184
entered his home and stole jewelry from a bedroom. The investigator needs to
establish that the jewelry actually existed, when the jewelry was last seen, who has
keys to the home or knowledge of an entry code, whether doors are always locked,
which acquaintances knew where the jewelry was kept, etc. As with any interview,
the investigator must keep in mind that the person who reported the crime may lie
about these details. In fact, in a significant number of our investigations, the person
who reported a crime also turns out to be the perpetrator of the crime.

The most common circumstance where the reporter of a crime is also the perpetrator
occurs when the reporter has the best opportunity and means to commit the crime.
Under this circumstance the suspect reports his own crime because it would be
suspicious not to. In other words, the suspect would logically have been the first
person to discover the crime. This may involve the husband who claims that he
returned home from work and found his wife stabbed to death, the individual who
reports that his car was stolen from an apartment parking lot or the individual who
reports unauthorized charges on his latest credit card statement. A contributing
motivation to report one's own crime is the belief that by reporting the crime the
person will escape scrutiny or even consideration as a possible suspect in the crime.
The following case, involving a teller who stole $1000 from his cash drawer to pay
expenses related to renting an apartment, is typical of a guilty person who reports his
own crime:

At the end of the day the teller reported a $1000 shortage to his supervisor. He
reported his own theft because he knew it would have eventually been discovered by
auditors and he would then have to face tough questions about why he failed to
discover a $1000 discrepancy in his funds. During his Behavior Analysis Interview he
denied having any suspicions as to who may have stolen the money. In fact, he
denied the probability that his shortage was the result of employee theft. Rather, he
suggested the possibility that a customer may have reached over the counter and
grabbed the money or that he may have mistakenly given a customer too much
money. The teller openly acknowledged violating bank procedures by failing to keep
his cash drawer locked and also leaving it unattended for a period of time. He also
volunteered the fact that he did not verify straps of money he received from the main
vault.

There are a number of characteristics of this interview that are typical of many guilty
suspects who report their own crime. One of these is that the suspect failed to name
a particular person as someone he suspects may be guilty of the crime. To do so
would require pointing a finger at someone he knows is innocent. Rather, these
suspects will often suggest unrealistic explanations for the commission of the crime.
In this regard, it is not uncommon for the suspect to acknowledge the possibility that
he may be inadvertently responsible for the act. This might include careless use of
smoking materials in an arson, accidentally throwing away a deposit in a theft or
causing a spouse's despondency which resulted in an apparent suicide when, in fact,
the suspect staged the suicide. By accepting (non-criminal) responsibility for an act
the guilty suspect relieves a great deal of anxiety associated with his crime because
he is telling part of the truth. Finally, these suspects often acknowledge sloppy
security procedures in connection to the crime (not verifying money straps, leaving
house doors unlocked, loaning keys to unauthorized personnel) . By doing so, they
open up the investigation by providing access to individuals who normally would not

185
have the means to commit the crime.

Another variation of crimes reported by the perpetrator involves delayed reporting of

an on-going crime. A manager at a savings and loan was embezzling funds from
customer's loan payments. After stealing almost $25,000 over a six-month period of
time he reported the embezzlement and initiated the investigation. His reporting of
the thefts coincided with the departure of an employee in the loan department who
recently resigned to spend time with her children. Going into the investigation we
certainly believed that she was the prime suspect. However, the first person we
interviewed was the manager and his behavior clearly reflected deception. After a
relatively short interrogation he confessed. In his confession he stated that he was
concerned that the embezzlement would be detected in an up-coming audit and saw
an opportunity to divert suspicion from himself by reporting the embezzlement shortly
after the loan department employee resigned.

The most common motivation for a suspect to report his own on-going crime is a fear
that he will be caught in the near future. A typical case is the drug dealer who comes
forward to report drug sales in his neighborhood. By doing so he is hoping to diffuse
allegations buyers will make against him once they are arrested. A parallel situation
exists in a sexual harassment case where the harassing supervisor files a complaint
against the complainant, again in an effort to negate that person's credibility. It is
human nature to believe the first person who comes forward. The investigator needs
to recognize this possible underlying motive especially when the reporter is later
implicated in criminal behavior. A revealing question to ask during the interview in
these cases is, "Why did you decide to report this now?" Often the deceptive suspect
cannot identify a credible cause and effect relationship explaining his decision to
report the crime.

The final variation of the guilty person reporting his own crime is the most rare. In this
circumstance the perpetrator intended to flee after committing the crime, but
someone discovers him at the crime scene. We will call this second person the
discoverer. Under this circumstance, the perpetrator may decide to run and hope that
the discoverer cannot identify him. If that is not a viable option, he may turn to the
discoverer and report the crime. Possible examples include homicide, arson or
criminal damage to property. We have also worked cases where the perpetrator was
caught during the commission of his crime, e.g., stealing merchandise from a
warehouse or using illegal drugs at work. Regardless of the circumstance, as soon
as the perpetrator realizes that he has been seen, he turns to the discoverer and
says, "Call 911, the apartment building is on fire," or, "Gee, it smells like someone's
been smoking marijuana in here." Such a portrayal of implied innocence by reporting
the offense is often effective at diverting attention away from the perpetrator. In fact,
many of these cases are solved only after an investigator has eliminated a number of
possible innocent suspects and then goes back to conduct a formal interview of the
reporter. When a crime is committed in an unpopulated or private area it is unusual to
have one person discover the crime shortly after its commission. To have two
independent people make this claim is highly improbable.

A thorough interview of the discoverer may also provide meaningful information. The
investigator should keep in mind that a suspect who has just narrowly escaped being
caught committing a crime will typically appear overly anxious and nervous to the

186
discoverer. Being in this frame of mind, the reporter's answers to initial questions
asked by the discoverer may be inconsistent or quite vague. In addition, the reporter
may ask inappropriate questions of the discoverer such as, "How long have you been
standing there?" or, "What did you see?" An investigator should take advantage of
the discoverer's recollections of the reporter. In particular, the discoverer should be
asked questions about the reporter's demeanor and appearance, e.g., frightened,
guarded, quiet, out-of-breath, flushed, perspiring, etc. The conversation between the
reporter and discoverer should also be explored. The investigator may learn that the
reporter offered the discoverer a completely different explanation for his presence at
the crime scene than what the reporter later told the responding officer.

In conclusion, when an investigator interviews the person who reports a crime, there
is a tendency to afford that person instant credibility because he came forward to
report a crime. This credibility is probably warranted when the reporter could have
just as easily not picked up the phone and hoped that someone else would call the
police. However, when the reporter of the crime has immediate access and
opportunity to commit it the investigator must maintain a high index of suspicion to
identify possible behavior symptoms of deception. To accomplish this, the reporter of
a crime should be interviewed in a private and controlled environment. Most
importantly, the interview should incorporate behavior provoking questions to elicit
behavior symptoms of truth or deception.

Screening New Employees: Part I November 2001

In light of the tragic events of September 11th, there is a heightened awareness to properly
screen new employees. The terrorist=s attack on the WTC and Pentagon has greatly
expanded the definition of a Asensitive position.@ In August of this year who would have
imagined that crop dusters, truck drivers, water treatment employees or airline caterers would
require employees of the highest integrity? As President Bush stated, AThe United States will
never be the same again.@

The purpose for preemployment screening is to predict future behavior. While it will never be
possible to perfectly forecast a person=s behavior, psychologists have long established that
the best predictor of a person=s future behavior is to evaluate their recent past behavior.
Consider that John and Joe are both applying for a position of trust. John has been discharged
from two employers in the last 5 years and has a criminal conviction for possession of
marijuana. In addition, John has stolen $200 in merchandise from employers in the last 5
years. Joe has never been fired from a job and his employment history reflects steady
promotions. Joe has no criminal record and has not stolen from recent employers. Even
though there is no guarantee that John will engage in acts of dishonesty if hired, research
strongly supports the finding that if such activity does occur, John will be much more likely
involved in it than Joe. From a productivity, loss prevention and safety perspective, employers
should hire only those job applicants who represent a low risk for misconduct.

There are a number of preemployment screening procedures to evaluate a person=s past

behavior. The following chart lists the advantages and disadvantages of some of these:

Advantages Disadvantages

187
Screening Procedure

Drug Tests Accurately detects recent Drug-using applicants may

drug use abstain while seeking
employment

Criminal Record Check Will reflect criminal Does not reveal crimes the
convictions only in those applicant committed but was
counties checked never caught for

Prior Employer Contacts Verifies that the applicant Previous employers often will
worked for the employer not reveal adverse
information

Preemployment Polygraph Can identify past adverse The Employee Polygraph

Examination behaviors that only the Protection Act of 1988
applicant knows about precludes most private
employers from using the
polygraph

Face to Face Integrity Can identify past adverse Requires an interviewer

behaviors that only the trained in forensic
Interview applicant knows about interviewing techniques

An employer must recognize that no one knows more about a job applicant=s past behavior
than the applicant himself. To thoroughly learn about a person=s past requires a procedure
where the individual provides that information, which is then subject to verification either
through physiological data (polygraph) or behavior symptom analysis (Integrity Interview).
Because neither the polygraph nor the Integrity Interview are 100% accurate, an employer
should implement additional preemployment screening tools as part of the entire employee
selection process. At a minimum, an employer should contact past employers. Falsification of
an employment application is the most common area of deception for job applicants. This
includes failure to list all past employers, reasons for leaving jobs, job responsibilities and
level of education or training.

When filling a position of trust (money handling, access to merchandise or company records)
the employer should not only verify the applicant=s employment history but perhaps conduct
a criminal record check and require drug screening as well. It is also advisable to require that
the applicant produce original documents that are job related. Examples of these documents
may include a valid drivers license, a social security card, high school or college transcript,
professional license and proof of legal ability to work in the U.S.

The face to face interview with a job applicant is undoubtedly the most important part of the
screening process. Too often, this meeting is conducted with the assumption that everything
the applicant wrote on the employment application is the truth. Rather than verifying the

188
information on the application, the employer spends time talking about benefit packages,
hours, wages and promotion possibilities within the company.

A properly conducted preemployment interview should consist of the applicant being asked to
review his last five years of employment history including the specific dates of employment,
job responsibilities and reason for leaving each job. To gauge job performance and reliability,
the applicant should be questioned about past disciplinary actions, promotions, absenteeism
and tardiness. The applicant should also be questioned about use of illegal drugs in the last
two years and other drug related activities (buying, selling, use during or just before work
hours). Finally, the applicant=s illegal activities should be pursued starting with any criminal
convictions in the last seven years. It is important to realize that approximately 80% of
criminal admissions elicited during a preemployment interview involve crimes the applicant
was never arrested for. Therefore, the interviewer must ask specific questions about engaging
in crimes for which the applicant was never caught.

Depending on the position being applied for, the preemployment interview should delve into
specific past acts of recent job-related behavior. A person applying for a cash-handling
position should certainly be asked if he stole money from past employers. An applicant for a
driving position should be thoroughly questioned about his driving record especially as it
relates to accidents that were unreported and driving under the influence, even though he was
never caught. A police candidate with previous law enforcement experience should be asked
about use of excessive force during an arrest, theft from a crime scene or perjury while
testifying in court or applying for a warrant.

A job applicant who presents a high risk for liability, dishonesty or safety concerns will not
volunteer adverse information on an employment application. The employer must
aggressively seek out this information to detect unsuitable applicants before they are put on
the payroll and jeopardize the company=s future productivity. In uncertain economic times it
is tempting to view preemployment screening as a luxury easily cut from a corporate budget.
However, human resource professionals have long known that it is far less costly in time and
money to identify an unqualified job applicant and not hire that person than to fire that same
applicant after his behavior has hurt the company=s productivity, profit or reputation.

Screening New Employees: Part II December 2001

The importance of a face to face interview with a job applicant to evaluate their
recent past behavior was emphasized in the last web tip. One reason employers are
reluctant to ask probing questions during a preemployment interview is the fear of a
subsequent law suit. This discussion will focus on legal aspects of preemployment
screening and cost-effective strategies in making hiring decisions.

The underlying legal principle applied to areas of proper inquiry during a

preemployment interview involves a concept called a Bona Fine Occupational
Qualification (BFOQ). In other words, can the employer demonstrate that the
information elicited by the question is necessary to assess the applicant's suitability
for employment. Any written or verbal question asked of a job applicant in the
selection process must satisfy a BFOQ.

It may, therefore, be considered improper to ask the applicant if he rents or owns a

home but it would be permissible to ask for the applicant's mailing address since the

189
employer needs to know where to contact the applicant. Certainly it would be
improper to ask about the applicant's origin of birth but it is permissible to require
proof of being able to legally work in this country (upon being offered a position).

Fundamental to any employment position is a person's integrity, honesty and

reliability. Therefore, an applicant who lies on an employment application about being
fired from a previous position has demonstrated a lack of integrity. An applicant who
acknowledges recent drug use, shoplifting or auto theft indicates not only dishonesty,
but potential poor reliability as well. It is a reasonable possibility that an applicant with
a propensity for illegal activity risks being caught and arrested and therefore, will not
be able to show up for work.

There are a number of federal laws which regulate hiring practices. The longest
standing are discrimination laws under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1973 enforced through the Equal
Employment Occupation Commission (EEOC). These acts create protected classes
of people and prohibit an employer from using race, age, religion or national origin as
grounds for disqualifying a job applicant from employment. An employer who does
not hire a job applicant from a protected class may be challenged to articulate
specific grounds for their not-hire decision. A valid defense for EEOC claims is that
the employer utilized a BFOQ in disqualifying a job applicant. An example of this
principle is a job applicant's contact with police. It is generally considered
discriminatory to ask whether or not an applicant has been arrested for a crime.
However it is lawful to ask if the applicant has been convicted of a crime.

In 1988 the Federal government adopted the Employee Polygraph Protection Act.
This legislation argues that the polygraph is not a reliable indicator of truth and
deception and therefore prohibits most private employers from asking, requesting or
requiring a prospective employee from taking a preemployment polygraph
examination (or other purported lie-detection device such as a voice stress analyzer).
Exempt from this restriction are all government employees and private employers
who operate sensitive businesses such as nuclear power plants, drug manufacturing
or armed security services. There is also The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA). Preemployment questions relating to the applicant's medical or emotional
health are prohibited under the ADA unless the applicant has been offered a position.
With respect to illegal drug usage, the act permits employers to only question job
applicants about recent drug usage and unsuccessful treatment in a drug
rehabilitation program. Recent drug usage has been defined as a period of two years
and unsuccessful treatment in a rehabilitation program involves any use of an illegal
drug since leaving the treatment.

To protect against discrimination claims it is recommended that employers establish

pre-existing objective standards of unacceptable behavior against which all
applicants are compared. As an example, an employer may consider a person as
unsuitable for employment if the applicant has been fired from a job in the last 5
years, has used any illegal drugs in the last 2 years, has stolen money from
employers in the last 5 years or committed a theft crime in the last 7 years. Because
the same objective standards are applied to all applicants for a particular position, the
employer is in a position to demonstrate that the not hire decision was in no way
discriminatory.

190
Utilizing objective hiring standards in this manner can also decrease the costs of
preemployment screening. An employer should first implement the least expensive
and time-consuming procedures to pre-screen job applicants. Frequently, this will be
a face to face interview designed to verify information on a written application. Our
experience indicates that between 25 and 30% of job applicants make disqualifying
admissions during an Integrity Interview. This allows the employer to reserve more
expensive and time-consuming pre-employment procedures for those remaining
applicants who are most likely suitable candidates for the position.

Conversely, it is less cost effective to reverse this process where the employer first
spends the time and money to assess an applicant's knowledge, skills and abilities
and then objectively evaluates the validity of the written application and the
applicant's integrity through a face to face interview. Because the initial assessment
tends to be subjective, very few applicants are eliminated. This means that almost all
applicants for a position go through the entire extensive screening process. It is much
more cost effective to eliminate unqualified applicants at various stages of the
screening.

While this web tip presented legal guidelines for preemployment screening, it was
designed as an overview of some Federal guidelines regulating preemployment
inquires. As such, it is not intended to be all-encompassing.. In addition, there are
various state statutes that regulate preemployment inquires. Our best
recommendation is to develop a standardized written employment application that
satisfies all state and federal guidelines and to have each job applicant complete an
application. Further, the first stage of the hiring process should be to verify the
information written on that application.

Evaluating Omissions within a Suspect's Statement October 2001

An earlier web tip discussed the evaluation of inconsistencies within a suspect's

statements. Inconsistencies represent factual changes in an account whereas
omissions represent expected information not included within a response. It must be
realized that both truthful and deceptive subjects will edit (omit) information from an
account. Consequently, it is not the presence of an omission that necessarily
indicates deception, but rather what was omitted.

To evaluate omissions, an investigator must appreciate that every subject makes

conscious or preconscious decisions concerning the "best possible" response to an
interview question. If the subject is telling the truth, the best possible response will
include accurate information he believes the investigator needs to know to help
establish the subject's truthfulness. Consider that a subject innocent of a rape
allegation is asked, "What is your understanding for the purpose of the interview with
me today?" While there are dozens of possible responses to this question, the
following response is typical of an innocent suspect: "A lady is claiming that I raped
her in the parking lot outside of Boyd's Tavern last Friday night. I was at Boyd's that
night until around 11:00 but I sure didn't rape anybody." This subject omitted a great
deal of information from his response such as when he arrived at the tavern, who he
was with and how much he had to drink. However, the information he chose to

191
include within his response is his best possible response to the investigator's
question to portray innocence.

Consider a deceptive subject's response to this same question: "I guess some lady is
saying that I did something to her." This subject very purposefully omitted the nature
of the allegation (rape) as well as the alleged location and date of the assault. To
include this detailed information would increase the suspect's anxiety which, of
course, he does not want to do. In addition, the guilty suspect is often overly cautious
not to volunteer information that may not be known about his crime. If the investigator
asked a follow-up question such as, "Do you know when or where she is alleging this
happened?" and the subject denied knowing that information even though it is
documented that he was previously told these details, this strongly supports
deception.

Guideline #1: It is suggestive of deception when a suspect omits including

important details within a response. A suspect who offers inappropriate claims
of ignorance concerning a crime or allegation is often deceptive.

Based upon thousands of interviews, we have found that truthful subjects tend to
include certain kinds of information within a response that is often excluded from a
deceptive subject's response. One category of this information relates to emotions. If
a truthful subject was frightened, upset, angry or frustrated he or she will be open
with this information during an interview because emotional states become
intermingled with behaviors when recalling a factual occurrence. On the other hand,
a deceptive subject's response often focuses entirely on behaviors, e.g., first this
happened then that happened and then I did this. To fabricate emotions within the
account becomes an unnecessary lie so these are often inappropriately omitted.

Second, a truthful subject will include specific details within their response because
they believe the information will be helpful in solving the crime. Deceptive subjects
often omit specific information (times, dates, locations, descriptions) because it
requires more lies to remember. If this information is elicited during follow-up
questions, often deceptive suspects remain vague as to specific details, e.g., "Gosh, I
could have arrived home anytime between 5:30 and 7:00 last Friday night"; "I can't
remember her ever touching my bare penis but I wouldn't know if she did it while I
was asleep."

Finally, when appropriate, truthful subjects may include a spontaneous, unsolicited

denial or statement of verification. To the deceptive suspect, unsolicited denials are
an unnecessary lie and, consequently, they will omit them from their response.
Unsolicited statements such as, "I sure didn't steal any money to cause that
shortage", "I never had any sexual contact whatsoever with my niece", or " I never
robbed anyone in my life!" are much more likely to be included within a truthful
subject's response and omitted from the deceptive subject's response.

During our child abuse seminar, an interview is shown of a high school girl who
claims to have been raped in a bathroom at her school. This false allegation, as
confirmed through her confession, offers an excellent study in omission. When asked
to relate everything that happened on the day of the reported rape she volunteers an
emotional state prior to the rape, "I was worried about being late to class because I

192
already had some tardy slips." Yet during her entire account of the rape itself she
never once mentions being frightened, embarrassed or experiencing physical pain.
She is so vague in the details of the rape that the rapist is not referred to by a specific
gender until follow-up questions are asked. Her initial account referred to "someone"
entering the stall and, "I was forced up against the back wall" and "I was made to pull
down my jeans." The reason the case was referred to our office was that the victim's
physical description of the rapist varied greatly over time.

Guideline #2: Truthful subjects include emotions, important details and

spontaneous denials within their response. Deceptive subjects may omit this
information.

A last consideration in evaluating omissions within a response involves the sequence

of information volunteered. When responding to a question it is human nature to
place important information before less important information; a subject will prioritize
events and occurrences based on emotional impact or novelty. When emotional or
novel information is included toward the end of a response, this is suspicious. It
strongly supports deception when the emotional or novel event is omitted entirely
during an initial response and only surfaces through the asking of follow-up
questions.

Assume that during a training seminar in Las Vegas I lost a great deal of money
gambling. I need cash to pay for my taxi ride home so I ask my training partner for a
loan. Being embarrassed about my gambling losses, I make up a story about having
money stolen from my wallet when I left it behind in the hotel room. After arriving
home my wife asks me how the course went and I provide details about the audience
and location but, of course, omit the fact that I lost money gambling. A couple of days
later my wife happens to talk to my training partner who immediately brings up the
theft from my wallet. Following that conversation my wife asks me, "Did anything
unusual happen during your trip to Las Vegas?" My response is, "Now that you
mention it, there was an incident with my wallet where some money was taken but it
wasn't that much." Will my wife believe me? Of course not. Being the victim of a theft
and having to borrow money to get home would have been the most memorable
experience of that trip and, if it really happened, it would have been the first thing I
told her about. The fact that I omitted it from my initial description of the trip clearly
supports the probability that there was no theft from my wallet.

We hear these kinds of omissions on a regular basis from suspects we interview. A

question that often brings out this omission is, "Who did you tell about (issue)?" In
one memorable case an alderman, who had recently been indicted by a grand jury
for extortion, stated that he had not told his wife about the indictment because he,
"did not want to unnecessarily upset her." In another case the suspect claimed that
two men robbed him of an $18,000 store deposit yet he never told his best friend
about the robbery because, "It was really none of his business." In both cases, the
suspects confessed.

Guideline #3: A truthful suspect will include emotional or novel information

early during a response. A deceptive suspect may bring up this information at
the end of a response or omit it altogether.

193
In conclusion, often what a subject does not say in response to a question is as
important as what he chooses to say -- Omissions represent a conscious decision.
Deceptive subjects avoid detailed descriptions of their crime and are reluctant to
volunteer information that may not be known by the investigator. The deceptive
subject may choose to omit emotional states or a spontaneous denial within his
response because they represent unnecessary lies. Finally, the suspect who places
emotional or novel information toward the end of his response or omits them
altogether has offered a behavior symptom supporting deception. As with all
behavioral assessments of a suspect, identifying omissions should be considered
collectively with other observations before an opinion of deception can be supported.

The Polygraph Technique, Part I: Theory August, 2001

The polygraph instrument, erroneously called a 'lie detector', is nothing more than a
monitoring device to record different physiological systems. The first polygraph was
developed in 1908 by a British Doctor to monitor a mother's physiology during labor
contractions. In the 1930's this technology was applied to a technique used to question
criminal suspects.

The polygraph instrument monitors three physiological systems. It records changes in

respiratory rate and volume, heart rate and blood pressure as well as sweat gland activity. The
reason these systems are monitored is that they each reflect arousal of the autonomic
(involuntary) nervous system (ANS). The ANS contains two types of nerves. The first type,
parasympathetic nerves, conserve energy and keep the systems in a relatively resting state.
The second type of nerve, sympathetic nerves, prepare the body for action in what is called a
fight or flight response. During intense emotional states such as surprise, fear, anger and pain,
sympathetic nerves are activated. From polygraph charts a trained examiner can identify
whether or not a particular question stimulated sympathetic arousal.

As can be seen, the polygraph instrument itself plays a minor role in detecting deception.
Rather, it is the questioning technique that is critical. The simplest technique relies on subject
recognition to stimulate autonomic arousal. Consider a burglary in which $500 in cash was
stolen from a cookie jar. A suspect who is innocent of this burglary would have no idea where
the $500 was stolen from. However, the guilty burglar would certainly remember that unusual
hiding place. A suspect could be given a polygraph examination where the central question
asked is, "Was the stolen $500 hidden in a _________?" In the blank the examiner could read
the words (1) shoe box, (2) desk drawer, (3) night stand, (4) cookie jar, (5) jewelry box, (6)
pocket book, (7) stereo cabinet. If this series of questions was asked on three different tests
and during each test a subject exhibited autonomic arousal to the item, "cookie jar" this result
would clearly support the finding of guilty knowledge, and therefore imply involvement in the
burglary. This simple recognition test is called a Peak of Tension test because often the
deceptive subject's autonomic arousal gradually builds to the point of recognition whereupon
the body exhibits relief, thus forming a literal peak on the polygraph records.

Oftentimes however, through police questioning or media coverage, details of a crime become
known to innocent suspects and the above mentioned Peak of Tension test is not a viable
design. In this circumstance the polygraph technique is used to identify whether or not a
subject is telling the truth when he answers "no" to a crime question such as, "Did you steal
$500 from a cookie jar in a home on Main Street?"Common sense might indicate that a lying
subject would exhibit autonomic arousal to this question and a truthful subject would not.

194
However, this is rarely the case. A truthful subject may exhibit arousal to this question as a
result of recognizing the importance of the question. Furthermore, a deceptive subject may not
exhibit arousal to this question because of fatigue, ingestion of drugs or a variety of
underlying psychological factors. To overcome these difficulties, in the 1940's John E. Reid
developed the Control Question polygraph technique.

Whereas the Peak of Tension polygraph technique relied on recognition, the Control Question
technique relies on a more involved psychological process called attention. In any high-
motivation situation a person focuses his thoughts, perceptions and actions toward a particular
goal. Attention is the process of excluding competing stimuli in favor of a particular goal.

To illustrate, consider that a polygraph instrument was attached to two parents attending a
high school band concert who also happened to be close friends. One of the parent's son plays
oboe while the other's son plays trumpet. During a particular piece of music there is an oboe
solo as well as a trumpet solo and both parents are aware of each other's apprehension over
the upcoming solos. The process of recognition would predict that both parents would exhibit
similar autonomic arousal during both the oboe and trumpet solos. However, because these
are competing stimuli, attention takes over. The polygraph charts of the parent of the oboe
player would show much more arousal during the oboe solo compared to the trumpet solo.
The polygraph charts of the parent of the trumpet player would show opposite results.
Consequently, even though recognition occurred in both parents during the playing of each
boys’ solo, their respective attention was direction toward one solo or the other. The
fascinating feature of attention as a psychological process is that it excludes competing
stimuli. It results in not only heightened arousal to a targeted stimulus, but also inhibits
arousal to competing stimuli.

Returning to the earlier burglary example, consider that it is known that the subject taking the
examination has a previous juvenile conviction for stealing a car from a neighbor's driveway.
During an interview that preceded the polygraph examination the subject explained that he
pled guilty to this charge even though he did not steal the car. Investigative information, as
well as the subject's behavior, leave no doubt that he did steal the car. Based on this
information, the examiner may establish the following set of polygraph questions where
questions (1), (2) and (4) are relevant questions and questions (3) and (5) are control
questions.

(1) "On July 15th, 2001 did you break into a home on Main Street?"

(2) "On July 15th, 2001 did you steal money from a home on Main Street?"

(3) "Did you ever steal anything from a person you knew?"

(4) "Did you steal $500 from a cookie jar in a home on Main Street?"

(5) "Did you ever take someone else's property without their permission?"

Assume that we are examining the person guilty of the burglary. He is lying to all five
of the above questions and yet, because the purpose of the examination is to
establish his truthfulness in the burglary, through the process of attention he will
exclude the questions concerning general thefts even though he is lying to them (the

195
polygraph is not a lie detector). His attention will be focused to the relevant questions
concerning the July 15th burglary.

Assume now that this subject is innocent of the burglary. He is telling the truth to
relevant questions (1) (2) and (4) but lying to control questions (3) and (5). Even
though the burglary questions are important to him (through recognition) the process
of attention will exclude those questions in favor of the much more threatening
questions concerning general theft. John Reid described this phenomenon in the
terms of emotionally weighted questions. He theorized that a subject will exhibit the
most significant arousal to questions which hold the greatest emotional weight as a
result of threatening a particular goal during a polygraph examination. The goal of an
innocent subject is to be reported as telling the truth during the examination. Thus,
the control questions are the most threatening. The goal of a deceptive subject is to
not be detected as lying to the issue under investigation. Thus the relevant questions
are the most threatening.

The control question polygraph technique compensates for many of the inherent
problems associated with a recognition test. In short, for a subject to be reported as
telling the truth during a polygraph examination he must demonstrate the ability to
exhibit sympathetic arousal through his responses to control questions. A deceptive
suspect who has ingested drugs or for some psychological reason does not exhibit
autonomic arousal during deception will not be mistakenly reported as telling the truth
because those factors will also inhibit responses to control questions. An innocent
subject, who may exhibit false arousal to crime questions because of recognition, is
provided stronger competing stimuli through control questions.

The Polygraph Technique Part II: Value During an Investigation September 2001

Each year in the United States hundreds of thousands of polygraph examinations are
administered. The primary value of the polygraph technique is to eliminate innocent suspects
early during an investigation. This greatly assists an investigation in that investigators can
focus their efforts on other suspects. When a suspect is identified as deceptive, frequently the
suspect will confess during an interrogation that follows the polygraph examination. While
this may sound like a positive finding, it is not because it encourages incompetent examiners
to use the polygraph instrument as a psychological prop to elicit confessions.

Properly administered, the polygraph technique is a non-accusatory diagnostic procedure that

allows an examiner to collect physiological data to infer whether or not a subject is telling the
truth to relevant questions (see August web tip). Accusatory interrogation has no place in a
properly conduced polygraph examination (Reid and Inbau, Truth and Deception the
Polygraph "Lie-detector" Technique, Williams and Wilkins, 1977). Unfortunately, the private
environment and intimate relationship an examiner forms with a subject during a polygraph
examination creates an ideal breeding ground for a confession. This factor is significant
enough that some state supreme courts have ruled that taking a polygraph examination is so
inherently coercive that any confession made during the course of a polygraph examination
should be suppressed. It should be understood that a confession obtained during an
interrogation following a polygraph examination is accepted in all states.

Since the polygraph is not a lie-detector, its usefulness during an investigation is entirely
dependent on the competency of the examiner. A competent examiner will be accurate in

196
determining truth or deception approximately 90% of the time (based strictly on chart
analysis). This figure will increase if the examiner incorporates other means of detecting
deception such as behavior symptom analysis. The competent examiner will be unable to
render a definite opinion of truth or deception in about 10% of subjects examined. An
examiner who boasts of an accuracy rate above 95% and an inconclusive rate less than 5%
should be avoided.

Training in the polygraph technique can range from two to six months of instruction. The best
training programs include not only the basic class-room instruction, but an internship period
as well. During this internship the student's charts and procedures are carefully scrutinized to
develop clinical skills. Following this training and obtaining a license, if required, competent
examiners will join a professional organization such as the American Polygraph Association
or the Association of Police Polygraphists.

An important part of an examiner's training is to identify those subjects who are at risk for
producing erroneous results. The ideal subject is one of average, or above average
intelligence, who is not mentally impaired and is in reasonably good medical health. It is also
important that the subject's emotional state is relatively stable during the examination. A
leading cause for false positive results (reporting a truthful subject as deceptive) is anger
within the subject. This anger may be caused by prior interrogation or an accusatory pre-test
interview. Inadequate development or selection of control questions is another cause for false
positive results.

False negative results (reporting a deceptive subject as innocent) may be the result of
improper question formulation in which relevant questions are phrased in such a way that they
do not present a significant threat to the guilty person. Subjects with a lower intelligence may
also increase the risk of a false negative result. In some cases, a guilty subject may engage in
countermeasures that the examiner fails to recognize during chart analysis. Identifying
countermeasures is a critical part of a competent examiner's training. In our office almost 25%
of guilty suspects are identified primarily because of their use of countermeasures. Innocent
subjects allow their body to respond normally during a polygraph examination. It is the guilty
subject who will consciously try to manipulate the polygraph recordings. In this regard,
agencies should be very cautious when using an examiner who relies exclusively on computer
analyzed charts. None of the software developed for this purpose is capable of identifying
specific subject countermeasures.

Another aspect of a competent examiner's training is to identify unsuitable subjects. Generally

speaking, children under the age of 14 are not suitable for the polygraph technique. Subjects
with significant mental disorders, such as diminished mental capacity or symptoms of
detachment from reality are often not suitable for the technique. The subject's mental state is
also an important consideration. Fatigue, intoxication, anguish and trauma may each render a
subject unsuitable for the polygraph technique.

Without a doubt, however, the greatest risk for erroneous polygraph opinions is outside
pressure. Agencies place tremendous pressure on polygraph examiners to obtain findings
consistent with predetermined expectations. There is pressure to form an opinion in every
case and, when a subject produces deceptive polygraph results, to obtain a confession from
that subject. For these reasons the position of a polygraph examiner should be somewhat
autonomous from other agency functions. The personality of the examiner should be such that
he or she is an analytic thinker and possess a great deal of self-confidence with little interest

197
in pleasing others or advancing in rank through politics.

With this background, the following are recommendations for the proper use of the polygraph
technique during an investigation:

Only use a well-trained, competent examiner;

Use polygraph examinations early during an investigation when there are multiple
suspects with opportunity, access and motive;

For legal reasons, do not use the polygraph as a ruse to get a guilty suspect into a
controlled environment merely to conduct an interrogation;

Avoid engaging in accusatory interrogation if the suspect may be willing to take a

polygraph examination;

Accept the examiner's opinion that a particular subject is unsuitable;

Do not place pressure on an examiner for a definitive opinion -10% are inconclusive;

If practical, have a second examiner "blindly review" polygraph charts to verify the
original examiner's opinion;

Do not rely on an examiner to solve your cases with a confession. The technique
should serve as a diagnostic investigative aid to establish a person's truthfulness.

Interrogations of Children July, 2001

National statistics would readily support the claim that, in the last decade, children
are increasingly involved in more serious crimes. It no longer shocks the average
listener to learn that a 12-year-old shot and killed his teacher, two 13-year-old boys
gang raped a girl after a school dance or a 14-year-old robbed a classmate of his
lunch money at knife point. Along with these incidents are reports alleging that police
obtained false confessions from children involving very serious crimes. We have
been consulted on a number of such cases. In our opinion, some of them were
clearly truthful confessions while others were probably false.

Several myths exist within the uninformed public concerning crimes committed by
children. One is that, because of limited cognitive abilities, a child guilty of a crime
would readily confess after a short period of questioning. If anything, children are
more resilient in maintaining and selling lies than a socially responsible adult. A
related myth is that children are unable to comprehend the consequences of their
crime. While the concept of long-range times, such as a 10 to 15 year prison
sentence, may be incomprehensible in an eleven-year-old's mind, the child has
enough awareness of future consequences associated with his crime to lie about it.
After all, if a child believed that it was alright to set fire to his 5th grade teacher's car
he would readily admit to the arson. Finally, experienced adolescent criminals are
very aware of the juvenile criminal justice system. The belief that, as a juvenile, the

198
worse thing that might happen to them is supervision or probation offers an incentive
to fight the system and force the government to prove its case, i.e., not confess.
Under this circumstance, when a juvenile is waived to adult court and now faces
serious consequences, there is public outrage that the prosecution did not try hard
enough to offer a plea bargain which would have given the juvenile a chance at
rehabilitation and a productive life.

The preceding, of course, applies only to the child who is guilty of a crime. A
professional investigator must conduct his interviews and interrogations always with
the possibility in mind that the suspect may be innocent. In this regard, the common-
sense guideline offered by professor Fred Inbau should be heeded, "Could what I am
about to do or say cause an innocent person to confess?" This guideline does not
refer to an innocent person in general, but the person presently sitting in front of the
investigator. Consequently, even if a juvenile is being interrogated on the issue of
homicide, the investigator must appreciate that he or she is still a child.

A general distinction can be made between childhood (1 - 9) and adolescence (10 -

15). While both groups will be motivated to lie to avoid consequences associated with
acts of wrong-doing, psychologically they are operating at quite different levels. It is
our general recommendation that a person under the age of 10 should not be
subjected to active persuasion techniques during interrogation (themes, alternative
questions). At this age the child is susceptible to suggestion and is motivated to
please a person in authority. The interaction between the investigator and child
should be limited to a question and answer session which is centered on factual
information and simple logic. While children in this age group generally have good
memory skills, it is selective and the investigator must be cautious in forming
opinions of deception based on inconsistent recall. In this younger age group the
primary difficulty with respect to interrogation is the child's undeveloped level of social
responsibility and inability to comprehend the concept of future consequences; their
lives focus around "here and now" concepts.

On the other hand, most adolescents have developed a sense of social responsibility
to the extent that they know if they admit committing a serious crime they will suffer
some future consequence. For this reason a confrontational interrogation may be
used with this age group involving some active persuasion. The extent of persuasive
tactics should not be dictated by the seriousness of the crime, but rather the maturity
of the child.

In general, courts have not established steadfast rules regulating the admissibility of
confessions offered by children. Rather, they look at the totality of circumstances
including the child's age, maturity, intelligence and previous experience with authority.
Some states have passed statutory requirements affecting the interview or
interrogation of juvenile suspects. In some states a parent or guardian must either
give permission to allow their child to be interviewed or permitted to be present
during the interview. Other states require legal representation when interviewing a
child who has become the focus of an investigation. Investigators, therefore, should
be familiar with respective state laws which may impact on their interview or
interrogation of a child in their state.

When a child is taken into custody and advised of his or her Miranda rights, the

199
question of whether the child is capable of making a knowing and voluntary waiver of
those rights may arise. Certainly a child under the age of 10 is incapable of fully
understanding the implications of waiving Miranda rights. Younger adolescents also
may fall into this category. When older adolescents waive their Miranda rights, it may
be helpful to have the suspect repeat back to the investigator what the rights mean.
This insight will help the court decide if the waiver was valid.

Courts routinely uphold the use of trickery and deceit during interrogations of adult
suspects who are not mentally impaired. Within the area of trickery and deceit,
clearly the most persuasive of these tactics is introducing fictitious evidence which
implicates the suspect in the crime. Because of its persuasive impact, this tactic
should not be used during questioning of children under the age of 10. Caution
should be exercised when introducing fictitious evidence during the interrogation of
an adolescent. Factors such as the adolescent's level of social responsibility and
general maturity should be considered before fictitious evidence in introduced.

The ultimate test of the trustworthiness of a confession is its corroboration. The

admissions, "I shot and killed Mr. Johnson" or, "I forced Susie Adams to have sex
with me" may be elicited from an innocent juvenile (or adult) suspect. These
admissions only become useful as evidence if they are corroborated by (1)
information about the crime the suspect provides which was purposefully withheld
from the suspect, and/or, (2) information not known by the police until after the
confession which is subsequently verified.

It must be recognized that historically innocent people have confessed to crimes they
did not commit. A disproportionate number of these suspects are children and
mentally impaired adults. While the exposure of a false confession is always
detrimental, the stigma attached to a law enforcement agency that allegedly induced
a false confession from a child is tremendous. Consequently, the interviews and
interrogations of child suspects should be conducted by investigators trained in that
area of expertise with the admonition that an uncorroborated confession, especially
by a juvenile, is likely to be suppressed.

Interviewing vs. Interrogation June, 2001

A concept we teach in our basic course is, "If you're going to interview, interview. If
you're going to interrogate, interrogate." There are two important parts of this lesson.
The first is that there are significant procedural differences between interviewing and
interrogation. The second is that if these procedures are intermingled, the
investigator will often be ineffective in accomplishing the goals of either one.

An Interview

An interview is a non-accusatory question and answer session with a suspect, victim

or witness. The goal of an interview is to gather information and make an assessment
of the subject's credibility. Some of this information will be investigative in nature.
Examples of investigative questions include, "When did you arrive home last night?";
"Do you have access to a handgun?"; "Do you know who Gloria Smith is?" Other
interview questions are specifically designed to elicit behavioral responses from a
subject such as, "Do you think this lady really was raped?" or, "Tell me why you

200
wouldn't force a woman to have sex with you?"

It is important that the investigator maintain a non-accusatory tone and demeanor

during an interview. This is so even when he knows that the subject has lied to an
investigative question or exhibits clear indications of deception to a question
designed to evoke behavioral responses. Under this circumstance if the investigator
becomes accusatory or challenging the subject will become guarded and reluctant to
offer information. A subject will offer much more meaningful information if he does not
feel threatened or intimidated. In short an investigator should allow, and in some
cases, even invite subjects to lie during an interview. As long as the subject continues
to answer the investigator's question information is being learned.

During an interview the investigator should talk about 20% of the time and the person
being interviewed 80%. To accomplish this balance, the investigator should keep his
questions succinct and, whenever possible, elicit a narrative response from the
subject. Too often, investigators reveal so much information through their questions
that following an interview the subject has learned much more about the investigation
than what the investigator has learned about the suspect's possible involvement in
the crime.

An Interrogation

The purpose for an interrogation is to elicit the truth from a person whom the
investigator believes has lied during an interview. It represents, therefore, an effort to
persuade the subject to tell the truth. In some instances, an innocent person will be
interrogated. Under this circumstance interrogation tactics used must not be so
persuasive as to elicit a false confession. A particular tactic to avoid is to threaten the
subject with inevitable consequences followed by a promise of leniency if the subject
confesses.

The interrogation should not consist of accusatory questions for this will only lead to
further denials from the subject. Rather, it should consist of a monologue during
which the investigator makes statements designed to persuade the subject to tell the
truth. The monologue often addresses the circumstances which led up to the
subject's commission of the crime. In addition, logic and rationale arguments (based
on evidence) may be used to persuade the subject to tell the truth.

During an interrogation, the investigator's demeanor should be understanding toward

the subject's criminal behavior. It is psychologically much easier for a subject to tell
the truth to someone who appears to understand why he committed the crime. At no
time should the investigator remind the subject of the seriousness of his offense or
possible punishment for it. Such reminders merely reinforce the subject's effort to
avoid consequences through continued denials.

If the investigator's persuasive statements have an impact on the subject, the guilty
subject often exhibits signs which indicate that he is considering telling the truth. At
this point the investigator asks a question which offers the subject two choices
concerning some aspect of the crime. For example, "Did you plan this out for months
and months in advance or did it pretty much happen on the spur of the moment?" If
the subject now acknowledges that the crime happened on the spur of the moment,

201
this represents his initial admission of guilt.

Once the subject makes an initial admission of guilt, active persuasion stops and the
investigator returns to the interviewing mode where a full confession is elicited by
asking non-accusatory questions. If the subject is truly guilty of the offense he will be
able to provide the investigator with details of the crime that only the guilty person
would know.

On the other hand, if the investigator makes no clear distinction between interviewing
and interrogation, less information will be learned when questions are asked during
the interaction that resembles "interviewing" and the persuasive impact of the
"interrogation" stage will be minimized. Of most concern, however, is that the guilty
subject may never truly be persuaded to reach a stage where he is willing to openly
talk about his crime (the first admission of guilt). Under this circumstance, often
active persuasion is used to extract details of the confession piece by piece. The
voluntariness of that confession, and even its trustworthiness, may later be
challenged in court.

Evaluating Inconsistencies Within an Account May, 2001

It is a common trial strategy for an attorney to attack inconsistencies within testimony

offered by a victim, witness, or an investigator. And yet most victims, witnesses and
investigators tell the truth when testifying. On the other hand, consider a suspect who
told an arresting officer that a friend drove him home on the night of a crime. Several
hours later the suspect tells an investigator that he drove himself home that night.
This inconsistency supports the opinion that the suspect has principal or secondary
involvement in the crime under investigation. However, not every inconsistency in a
suspect's statement supports deception. In fact, when an account is repeated two or
three times with perfect consistency this should be viewed suspiciously. The question
then becomes, when do inconsistencies in an account support deception?

It is first important to distinguish between inconsistencies and omissions between two

statements. An inconsistency refers to a change of fact between two accounts. When
a subject initially reports that on a particular afternoon he was golfing with friends and
later recalls that on the afternoon in question he was watching a football game alone
in his apartment, this is an inconsistency. An omission, on the other hand, refers to
information left out of an original account that is included in a subsequent statement.
During our training seminars we show the interview of a woman who fabricated a
story that she was abducted from a parking lot. While her statements were all
consistent, during her initial description of the assault she omitted the very significant
detail that the abductor had a knife.

A second important consideration is whether or not a suspect's statement represents

a true inconsistency. A security guard suspected of arson may state at one point
during an interview, "I checked the floors around 8:00 and didn't smell any smoke --
everything was fine. I don't believe I entered any of the rooms. I just walked the
halls." Later, he may acknowledge that it is possible that he checked the floors as late
at 8:15 and may have entered some rooms, because he occasionally does this. The
guard did not contradict himself because he used qualifying phrases in his first
statement ("around" and "I' don't believe").

202
A naive investigator may believe that if a person is telling the truth there should be a
perfect correlation between two accounts relayed at different times. However, there
are circumstances when a truthful person may provide inconsistent objective
recollections of what happened, when it happened and even where it happened. The
two most important factors to consider when evaluating inconsistencies are the
passage of time between the event and its recollection as well as the significance of
the event. Consider a suspect who initially reported that two weeks ago Friday when
he arrived home from work his wife was out shopping. After talking to his wife or
giving more thought to the evening, he may now recall that she had already returned
from her shopping trip by the time he arrived home. This inconsistency should, in no
way, tarnish his overall credibility.

Conversely, consider the suspect who initially reported that his wife struck him with a
frying pan which caused him to grab a knife to fend off her attack at which time he
stabbed her. During a subsequent interview he now acknowledges that, because he
was cooking, he already had the knife in his hand at the time his wife struck him with
the frying pan. The cause-effect relationship between being struck and grabbing a
knife is certainly significant and it is highly improbable that a person could somehow
be confused as to the sequence of these two events.

A person's state of mind at the time of an event should also be evaluated. Intense
emotions (anxiety, fear, pain) or intoxication may certainly influence an individual's
recall. However, such conditions should be associated more with omission and
memory qualifiers (I believe, etc.). When a person who was admittedly intoxicated or
frightened at the time of an event expresses no uncertainty in recollections and offers
an inflexible version of events the investigator should be suspicious of the veracity of
the recollections.

Finally, possible motivations for inconsistent statements must be assessed. A rape

victim may initially report that the assailant pulled down her jeans and later change
her statement indicating that she undressed herself at the man's instruction. This
inconsistency makes perfect sense since many legitimate rape victims are initially
reluctant to acknowledge any level of cooperation with the rapists, including engaging
in friendly conversation with him before the attack. In instances where a suspect is
interrogated and subsequently identified as being innocent, it is often because the
suspect previously lied about his alibi, access, motive or involvement in a crime
unrelated to the issue under investigation.. In each of these cases, the suspect will
be able to articulate a reasonable explanation for the earlier lie. A suspect may
explain that he offered a false alibi to avoid disclosing that he has been having an
affair. He may acknowledge lying about knowing the victim for fear of becoming a
suspect in the investigation or lie about being behind on bills (having a financial
motive) for the same reason. We are not suggesting that when these types of
inconsistencies surface during an investigation that they indicate truthfulness. In fact,
they often support deception. What is being suggested is that when these
circumstances exist the innocent suspect is able to offer a plausible explanation for
his previous lie.

The following guidelines are offered to interpret suspect inconsistencies that

support the opinion of deception:

203
1. The inconsistent event is significant in nature and would not likely to be forgotten.
There are inconsistencies in the sequence of significant events that relate to cause-effect
2.
relationships during a crime.
The subject changes his statement after being challenged either with actual or fictitious
evidence e.g., "If we were to talk to neighbors in that area would any of them tell us they
3.
saw your car in her driveway that day?" "Now I remember. I actually did go to her house
that day and drove in the driveway but decided not to go in."
The suspect rigid in recollections of remains facts that are usually estimated, e.g., " Three
4.
weeks ago I was at Tom's house from 7:10 until 10: 40."
Even though the suspect was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, he exhibits no
uncertainty as to his recollections of minor events, e.g., "I am certain that just before this
5. happened Julie stopped playing pool and went into the bathroom knowing that John was
in there. She was in the bathroom for seven minutes and when she came out she had a
smile on her face and her blouse was untucked.."
6. The suspect is unable to offer any reasonable explanation for his earlier inconsistency.

The following inconsistencies would not necessarily support deception and

may, in fact, indicate the normal memory process of a truthful person:

1. Small discrepancies in estimates of time or distances

2. The event represents an everyday behavior for the subject
A significant time period elapsed between experiencing an insignificant event and relating
3.
it
The suspect has a rationale explanation for his inconsistency, e.g., "After reviewing my
4.
calender I remembered that ..."
A suspect who lies about his alibi to cover an embarrassing event (being with a prostitute),
5. protect a friend or prevent disclosure of an illegal activity unrelated to the crime (using
drugs at a friend's house).
A suspect who lies about access or motives and, when interrogated, sincerely states that he
6. did not reveal this information earlier because he was afraid it would make him look
guilty.

In conclusion, significant inconsistencies in a suspect's statements certainly supports

an opinion of deception to the issue under investigation. These are most likely to
occur when the investigator challenges the suspect's original statement with real or
fictitious evidence. Most guilty suspects are able to relate a consistent account
because they keep their stories simple. Innocent suspects, who are anxious to get
everything right, may offer minor inconsistencies between two accounts.

Mirroring and its Value During Interviews and Interrogations April, 2001

What is Mirroring?

204
Recently I was talking to one of my sons about a possible location to spend our
spring vacation. My left hand was in my pocket and I was illustrating with my right
hand. My left foot was slightly extended. As my son listened to my ideas and
discussed possible activities, his right hand went into his pocket, he illustrated with
his left hand and his right foot was extended slightly toward me. His comments and
facial expressions appeared positive, but his posture left no doubt that he agreed
with the vacation plans, for his posture mirrored my own. Mirroring refers to the
tendency of two people to reflect each other's posture when they are relating well to
each other or are in agreement.

The opposite phenomenon is also true. When two people disagree or are emotionally
distant they often assume different postures. Consider the traffic stop where the
driver is asked to step out of the vehicle and talk to the police officer. The officer may
stand frontally aligned with the driver with his hands exposed using occasional
illustrators. The driver may cross his arms and orient his body away from the officer.
These non-congruent postures should alert the officer that the driver may not be
accepting the premise for the stop or may be otherwise non-cooperative.

The explanation for mirroring may relate to the fact that a person's posture
represents the foundation for other nonverbal communication. An individual's posture
reflects their interest level, emotional involvement and confidence. When expressing
thoughts, ideas or feelings the one person who will surely accept them is a reflected
image of that same person. To say this another way, when we have a conversation
with a mirror, the mirror will always agree with our position.

Use of Mirroring During an Interview

During an interview, the investigator should be aware of his own posture and assess
whether the suspect's posture is mirroring his own, which would generally support
openness and candor. For example, if the investigator is sitting with his right leg
crossed over his left leg at the knee and he is leaning slightly to the left, it would be
an indication of sincerity if the suspect eventually crossed his left leg over his right
and leaned slightly to the right. To test this assessment, the investigator may assume
a new posture, for example placing both feet on the floor and leaning slightly back in
the chair. If the suspect eventually assumes the mirrored posture, it further supports
the opinion that the suspect is being forthright.

Another technique to assess mirroring during an interview is for the investigator to

mirror the suspect's posture. In fact, therapists teach the technique of consciously
mirroring another person's posture to better relate to that person's feelings and
orientation. If a suspect is sitting upright in the chair with one foot extended in front of
the other, the investigator could assume the mirrored posture. One of two things will
happen. The suspect, if truthful, will be comfortable with the mirrored posture and
may start to open up and offer more meaningful information. A deceptive suspect, on
the other hand, is likely to experience anxiety when the investigator mirrors his
posture and may switch to a new posture.

A caveat is required here which is that if a suspect exhibits a posture reflecting

aggression (forward lean, arms crossed or threatening gestures toward the
investigator) mirroring this posture is likely to result in an escalation of aggression by

205
the suspect. This is obviously an undesirable situation in an arrest, interview or
interrogation. Under this circumstance we teach investigators to act in an opposite
manner from the suspect. If the suspect is yelling, the investigator should talk slower
and at a conversational level; if the suspect extends his hand toward the investigator
in a threatening manner, the investigator should extend one or both arms with the
palms exposed upward. In other words, to maintain control of the situation, the
investigator must not fuel it by mirroring the suspect's aggressive behavior.

Use of Mirroring During an Interrogation

The primary benefit of mirroring occurs during an interrogation. During early stages of
an interrogation the investigator's posture should reflect confidence. That is, he
should have his feet flat on the floor, his hands should be extended and there should
be a forward lean to his body. This is necessary to respond to the suspect's early
denials. However, as the interrogation continues and the suspect starts to mentally
debate whether to tell the truth, the investigator should assume the confession
posture. That is, he should break gaze down toward the floor, and go into a head and
body slump. The guilty suspect, who wants to talk about the circumstances of his
crime, will often mirror the investigator's posture and also assume a head and body
slump. Once the suspect is in this posture he should be asked an alternative
question to elicit the first admission of guilt.

After a suspect has accepted the alternative question, the investigator now needs to
bring him back into the conversation to elicit the full confession. Most suspects are
reluctant to discuss the details of their crime. This task is rendered much easier if the
investigator mirrors the suspect's posture at this stage of the interrogation. Often the
suspect will have a forward lean to the body, exhibit very little eye contact and may
have hand contact with the face. The investigator who sits up erect in the chair, grabs
and pen and paper and, while looking directly at the suspect, says, "Okay, tell me
what happened" is apt to get a sketchy account of the crime. On the other hand, if the
investigator mirrors the suspect's posture, perhaps by placing his left hand over his
eyes, assuming a slight forward lean in the chair and directing his eye contact
primarily to the floor the same question is bound to elicit a much more forthright
account of the crime.

In conclusion, because mirroring occurs at a preconscious level, it serves as a

valuable behavior symptom to assess a suspect's candor during an interview and
also as a procedure to allow a suspect to feel more comfortable telling the truth
during an interrogation. This principle applies not only with criminal suspects, but in
everyday interpersonal communication. The next time you find yourself in
disagreement with another person, mirror their posture and there will be a tendency
(on both your parts) to seek agreement. An easier task is to observe two conversing
individuals. If there is general agreement between the two, their mirrored postures
will reflect this.

Selecting the Proper Issue in a Child Physical Abuse Investigation March, 2001

The nature of most crimes involve a central criminal behavior such as stealing
money, starting a fire, selling drugs or having sexual contact with another person.
Under these circumstances, the focus of the interview will specifically address the

206
criminal behavior, e.g., "Did you steal that $2000?", "Did you start the warehouse
fire?" However, when investigating physical abuse to a child, the crime is often
secondary to an earlier behavior which may not be, in and of itself, criminal.

Consider the case of an infant who has several healing broken bones that are
consistent with shaking the child and pulling or twisting the child's leg. The criminal
element that needs to be established is causing the injuries to the child, yet the
behaviors that resulted in satisfying that charge (shaking the child or twisting a child's
leg) may not, in and of themselves, involve a criminal act.. A number of cases of this
nature have come to our attention where the focus of the interview, and especially
the interrogation of the suspected abuser, were improper, which contributed to the
suppression of the subsequent admission.

The Interview

In this type of investigation, it is improper to select as a principal issue whether or not

the subject is responsible for the child's injuries, in this case the broken bones.
Consequently, it would be improper to ask a suspect, "Did you break your child's
ribs?" or, "Did you do anything to break your child's upper leg bone?" The reason for
this is that the guilty suspect may not know if his treatment of the child was
responsible for the broken bones (unless it was a compound fracture where the bone
penetrated the skin). Furthermore, through defense mechanisms, the guilty suspect
may come to truthfully believe that his handling of the child did not result in the
injuries.

Consider the analogous case where three individuals randomly fired weapons into a
crowd of people where a person died from gunshot wounds. In this case, it would be
improper to question a suspect as to whether or not he killed the victim. The reason
for this is that the person responsible for causing the death would not know if it was a
bullet from his gun that struck the victim, and may also come to believe that
probability alone would favor the fact that it was more likely one of the other two
shooters who fired the fatal shot. In this case, the issue of killing the victim is
secondary to whether or not the subject was one of the three persons who fired a
gun into the crowd.

Once an investigator understands this concept it becomes much easier to structure

the interview and interrogation of a person suspected of physical abuse to a child.
The focus of the interview generally should not be if the subject caused the injuries,
but rather did the subject engage in any behaviors that may have caused the injuries.
As a sample list of questions for the previously mentioned case, the investigator may
ask:

At any time did you shake the child?

What caused you to do this? (What was the subject's emotional state?)

How long did you shake him?

Where did you hold him when this happened?
How often have you done this?
Did anyone see you do this?
What was the child's physical appearance after the incident?

207
At any time did you pull the child's leg?
Why did you pull his leg? (What was the subject's emotional state?)
Demonstrate how hard you pulled his leg.
Was anyone else present when you did this?
What was the child's physical appearance after pulling his leg?
At any time did you twist the child's leg?
Why did you twist his leg (What was the subject's emotional state?)
Demonstrate the twisting action.
Was anyone else present when you did this?
What was the child's physical appearance after twisting his leg?

Obviously, there are many other topical areas that should be covered with the subject
such as the child's general temperament, whether the subject was intoxicated or
under the influence of drugs while taking care of the child, his explanations for the
child's injuries and whether the subject was physically abused as a child. The
important point being made here is that for the purpose of detecting deception, the
focus of the interview should not center on whether the subject caused the child's
injuries but whether he engaged in any behaviors that may have resulted in the
injuries.

The Interrogation

A subject guilty of physically abusing a child is likely to either minimize or outright

deny engaging in behaviors that may have resulted in the child's injuries. The direct
positive confrontation should address these behaviors, not that the suspect caused
the child's injuries. It would, therefore, be improper to start out the interrogation,
"John, the results of our investigation clearly indicate that you caused your son's
broken leg." As mentioned earlier, the suspect guilty of child physical abuse often
refuses to cognitively accept responsibility for injuries to the child and therefore, at an
intellectual level, he is telling the truth when he responds, "That's crazy. I would never
do anything to harm my child." Even though the subject has shaken his child and
twisted his leg (and knows that he has lied about these activities during the
interview), in his mind he may refuse to accept responsibility for causing the child's
injuries. To continue the interrogation based on the premise that he is responsible for
breaking the child's leg invites a later claim of a coerced-internalized confession. In
this circumstance, the defense argues that the investigator attempted to convince the
suspect that he must be guilty of the charge against him.

A proper confrontation statement would be directed toward the suspect's denial of

engaging in behaviors that may have caused the child's injuries. An example
confrontation would be, "John, after reviewing all of our evidence, it is clear that you
have (shaken the baby) (twisted the baby's leg)." This confrontation addresses a
specific behavior. The suspect knows whether or not he did or did not shake the baby
or twist the baby's leg. If the investigator is uncertain as to what action the suspect
may have engaged in to cause the child's injury, an ambiguous confrontation may be
desirable such as, "Jim after reviewing all of our investigative findings it is clear that
you have not told the truth about the nature of contact you had with your son."

The interrogation theme, presented after the confrontation, is intended to recreate the

208
circumstances for engaging in the behaviors which may have led to the child's
injuries. Possible themes include losing one's temper because of the child's behavior
(crying, failure to sleep, talking back) or having an affected judgment because of
alcohol or drug use. It would be improper to suggest a theme that the suspect
inadvertently or accidentally engaged in behavior that caused the child's injury. One
does not inadvertently or accidently shake a child or twist a child's leg to the point of
causing physical injury. Suggestions of accidentally injuring the child may be
interpreted by some courts as offering a promise of leniency. Possible alternative
questions to elicit the first admission of guilt might be, "Do you shake the child every
single day, or does that just happen on rare occurrences?" or, "Did you twist the leg
completely around where you heard the bone break, or was is a partial twist?"

If the suspect acknowledges engaging in behaviors that may have resulted in the
injuries the confession must carefully document the dates, times and frequencies of
engaging in this behavior. Because these behaviors are difficult to quantify, it may be
useful to videotape the suspect recreating the shaking, twisting or pulling action on a
life-size doll. It would also be important to include within the confession the suspect's
state of mind at the time of the behavior (being angry, intoxicated, frustrated) and any
noticeable effects on the child following the behavior (crying, lethargy, discomfort). It
must be remembered that in many cases of physical child abuse, the symptoms of
the abuse will not directly correlate to the offender's behavior. That is, the injuries
may not be apparent until days or even weeks following the abuse. There are
exceptions to this guideline such as when the child dies as a direct result of the
abuse (suffocating the child, bending the child's head resulting in a broken neck) or
when bruising, swelling or bleeding occur in direct proximity to the behavior. Absent
these criteria, the confession should not contain the statement, "I caused my son's
broken leg by twisting it" or, "I killed my child by shaking her." These statements invite
the defense argument that his client could not possibly be certain that his behaviors
resulted in the reported injuries (or death) and, because of that, the confession was
obviously coerced and should be considered untrustworthy.

A confession is traditionally considered an acknowledgment of committing a crime

and in most situations a person certainly knows whether or not he committed a
particular crime. However, in some cases of physical abuse to a child the guilty party
may not realize that the shaking of a child caused a cerebral hemorrhage or that the
twisting of a child's leg resulted in a fracture. Under this circumstance, it is important
that the interview and interrogation focus only on behaviors the suspect knows he
either did or did not engage in.

Every prosecutor and child protective service investigator would love to go into a
court with a signed confession acknowledging that the defendant did cause the
reported injuries to the child. The reality is that some individuals responsible for
causing injury to a child do not know for certain that their actions caused the injuries.
However, an abuser certainly knows whether or not he shook a baby, twisted a leg,
pulled an arm or pushed the child's head against a wall. Under this circumstance, the
statement or confession from a suspected abuser should attest to his acknowledged
treatment of the child. Whether this treatment in all probability led to the child's
injuries is a question for a judge or jury to decide.

209
Question Formulation Guidelines: Part I January, 2001

Asking questions is one of the first language skills a child develops. However, almost
all of our question asking skills are developed under the assumption that the person
answering our question will tell the truth. Consider questions that might be asked
around a family's dinner table: "Ryan, do you need a ride home from the dance or are
you getting a ride with someone else?"; "Ben, how did your French test go?"; "Mom,
Clare didn't call when I was gone, did she?" When there is a low probability of
deception, how a question is formulated is relatively unimportant as long as the other
person understands what is being asked.

This is not the case when interviewing a suspect, witness or victim who is motivated
to withhold information. Under that circumstance, the investigator needs to phrase
questions in such a way that the question will not invite deception and, if the person
chooses to lie to the question, the question should stimulate behavior symptoms
indicative of that fact. Too often, however, investigators formulate interview questions
relying on rules learned for asking conversational questions and may be unaware of
how important question formulation is in the role of detecting deception. As an
example, each of the questions in the preceding paragraph are improperly phrased
for detection of deception purposes. This web tip, as well as next month's, will offer
basic guidelines with respect to proper formulation of interview questions.

Avoid asking compound questions

A compound question combines two inquires within a single question. For example,
an employee suspected of stealing money from a safe may be asked, "Did anyone
ever give you the combination to the safe, or did you ever find it written down
somewhere?" If the employee answers "No" the investigator does not know if the
employee is denying both areas of inquiry or just one of them. Assume that the
employee was never given the combination to the safe but did discover it written
down on a wall calender. When answering "No", the employee is telling part of the
truth, and therefore, may exhibit very few behavior symptoms suggestive of lying.
Contributing to the apparent truthful behavior symptoms will be the suspect's natural
tendency to psychologically focus on that part of the question to which he is telling
the truth (not being given the combination).

However, had the investigator separated these two areas of inquiry, quite different
behaviors may be elicited as the following dialogue illustrates:

Q: "Did anyone ever give you the combination to the safe?"

A: "No, never." [ direct eye contact, on time]

Q: "Did you ever find the combination written down somewhere?"

A: "Did I find it written down? No." [laughs, and covers eyes with hand]

Compound questions are often asked as a matter of efficiency. The investigator

realizes that he needs answers to two questions, e.g., "Did you touch your daughter's
bare vagina or did she have any contact with your bare penis?" and combines the

210
inquiries to shorten the interview. The additional time spent in separating the two
issues, however, may provide valuable behavioral information.

Avoid broadly worded questions

It is the inexperienced parent who asks their child, "How was school today?" The
child inevitable responds, "Fine" or "Not bad" and the parent assumes that the child
turned in all homework on time and received passing grades on all tests. The
seasoned parent will sit down with their child and ask specific questions; "What was
your grade on the history exam?"; "Did you turn in your chemistry assignment?";
"How much more work do you have to do on your social studies project?" These
specifically worded questions are much more likely to elicit meaningful responses.
These examples introduce an axiom of lie detection: It is much easier to lie to a
broadly worded question than a question that addresses a specific activity.

Assume that a suspect is guilty of embezzling $12,500 by stealing auxiliary cash

funds and writing fictitious reimbursement checks to make the books balance. During
an interview this suspect may be asked, "Did you steal any money from the
company?"and the suspect is likely to answer, "No I did not." The answer is obviously
a lie but the embezzler may exhibit minimal behavior symptoms of deception
because of the broad wording of the question. A possible reason for this is that the
question is anticipated and does not stimulate an emotional connection to the crime;
the closer a question relates to a suspect's crime, the more emotional weight it will
hold.

A much more productive line of questioning would be to ask the suspect a series of
specifically worded questions concerning the embezzlement scheme. Examples of
these include:

"Have you ever taken money for yourself from the auxiliary cash fund?

"Have you left the company with any money that did not belong to you?"

"Have you spent any money stolen from the company?"

"Have you written any checks to a fictitious account?"

"When we contact the people to whom the reimbursement checks were written, will
they tell us that they received the checks?

Text books addressing interviewing skills emphasize the importance of asking the
right question. What is the right question? Often we do not know until it is asked, but
it is never a broadly worded question. A prime example is a preemployment
screening interview. If a job applicant is simply asked, "In the last two years have you
used any illegal drugs?" almost every applicant will respond, "No". However, if the
interviewer asks more specific questions about drug usage, often admissions or at
least deceptive behavior, will result as the following dialogue illustrates:

I: "In the last two years have you tried heroin?"

211
A: "Gosh no."

I: "How about some of the social drugs like cocaine, acid or speed?"

A: "Nope"

I: "In the last 2 years have you experimented with marijuana?"

A: "Not on a regular basis."

I: "When is the last time you experimented with marijuana?"

A: "Quite a while ago."

I: "Did you have any in the last 24 hours?"

A: "Oh gosh no. It was last weekend."

The previously mentioned axiom warrants repetition: It is psychologically much easier

for a suspect to lie to a broadly worded question than one which specifically
addresses his act of wrong-doing.

Be aware of the importance of question syntax

With the previous guideline in mind, prior to conducting a formal interview, the
investigator should prepare a list of specific questions to ask a subject relative to the
crime. As an example, consider a homicide case in which the victim (Bob) was killed
December 17th. Bob was killed near a farmer's field several miles from his residence.
He was shot three times with a .22 caliber weapon. On the day of his death, Bob
received a $1000 loan which was given to him in cash but not found on his body.

In preparing for this interview the investigator would want to elicit answers to the
following questions:

Did you see Bob at all on December 17th?

Were you present when Bob was shot?

Did you steal Bob's money?

Did you shoot Bob?

Was Bob inside your car on December 17th?

Did you meet with Bob outside of town?

On December 17th were you near the farmer's field?

Were you present when a gun was fired on December 17th?

212
Do you have access to a .22 caliber gun?

Did you fire a .22 caliber gun on December 17th?

However, if the questions are asked in the order presented, the investigator is setting
himself up for failure. In the above example, if the investigator starts by asking the
suspect, "Did you see Bob at all on December 17th?" and the suspect answers "No",
he is committed to deny the next four questions on the list. In fact, given this denial to
the first broad question, an investigator would not even ask the remaining questions
within this area of inquiry. Consequently, the investigator is relying on a single
assessment of the suspect's behavior relative to his commission of the crime; and
that assessment is to a broad question which, as previously stated, is the easiest
type of question to lie to.

As previously stated, an investigator is much more likely to detect deception if

multiple questions are asked relative to the suspect's possible involvement in a crime
or act of wrong-doing. The guideline to follow is that these questions should be
arranged from the most narrow inquires to the broadest inquires. With this in mind,
the following question syntax presents itself in this homicide case:

Did you shoot Bob?

Were you present when Bob was shot?

Did you steal Bob's money?

Did you meet with Bob outside of town?

Was Bob inside your car on December 17th

Did you see Bob at all on December 17th?

On December 17th were you near the farmer's field?

Did you fire a .22 caliber gun on December 17th?

Were you present when a gun was fired on December 17th?

Do you have access to a .22 caliber gun?

A suspect questioned about this homicide can answer "No" to each of these question
without committing himself to a denial to the subsequent questions. This greatly
increases the investigator's ability to elicit significant behavior symptoms of guilt or
innocence for two reasons. First, it permits the asking of specific questions which are
more psychologically difficult to lie to than broadly worded questions. Second, there
is an accumulative effect of increased anxiety when a deceptive suspect has lied to
several questions within a particular area. By the time the investigator asks broader
questions, such as "Did you see Bob at all on December 17th?" or, "Do you have
access to a .22 caliber gun?" the suspect is more likely to tell the truth. These

213
acknowledgments, of course, provide important information about the suspect's
opportunity and access to commit the crime.

During an actual interview, these questions would not be asked in this specific
sequence, but would be separated by the asking of less threatening questions to gain
general background information or clarification. The point being made here is that the
sequence in which key investigative questions are asked during the course of an
interview is critical, and requires preparation.

Question Formulation Guidelines: Part II February, 2001

This web tip offers a continuation of the January tip. The emphasis of this information
is that how a question is asked often dictates the ease at which a deceptive subject
can lie to the question. Obviously, the investigator should ask interview questions in
such a way as to not invite deception.

Do not predicate a question based on information submitted earlier by the

subject

In many investigations, the subject will have previously offered information, either in
writing or verbally. This type of information may be the subject's earlier stated alibi, an
earlier statement of events or simply a stated position of denial. It is a prime mistake
for the investigator to refer to the subject's earlier statement when asking a question
as the following examples illustrate:

"I see you are presently unemployed (in reference to an employment application),
why did you leave your last employer?"

"In your deposition you stated that you were never alone with Ms. Kelly, is that
correct?"

"The other night you told the officer that you arrived home around 8:00 that evening.
Where were you before 8:00?"

By incorporating a subject's earlier statement within the question the investigator, in

essence, is accepting the truthfulness of that statement. A subject who is told that he
earlier testified that he was never alone with the victim of the crime is unlikely to
state, "Actually I lied during that deposition. In truth I was alone with her for about 15
minutes." In addition, by predicating a question based on information earlier
submitted by a subject reminds that person of what their earlier response was and
this decreases the likelihood of detecting inconsistencies between the two accounts.
This concept naturally leads to the next guideline.

Do not reveal incriminating evidence until first asking the subject about it

It is an axiom of interviewing that a subject who lies about small things is probably
lying about the issue under investigation. On the other hand, a person innocent of a
particular crime is inclined to tell the truth about past acts for the simple reason that
they came prepared to tell the truth during the interview. Consider a rape suspect
who is known to have been questioned before about a rape similar to the one being

214
investigated. It would be improper to ask this suspect, "I know you were a suspect in
a previous rape allegation, what happened there?" A much more productive question
to ask would be, "Have you ever been questioned concerning an allegation of rape
before?" This question allows the truthful subject to acknowledge the earlier
investigation and places the deceptive suspect in a dilemma. He must decide
whether to reveal that he was previously investigated or lie to the question. Many
guilty suspects will deny being questioned about such previous accusations.

Do not suggest a possible answer within the question

Because investigators routinely conduct interviews, they often form an expectation of

what a person's answer will be to an interview question. To elicit this answer more
efficiently, there is a tendency to provide the expected response within the question.
When the expected answer is less than the truth, however, the investigator has made
it very easy for the deceptive subject to lie to him as the following examples illustrate:

Q: "After you left work last night, did you drive straight home?"

A: "That's right."

Q: "Did you return to work at all that night, or did you just stay in your apartment?"

A: "I stayed in my apartment."

Q: "So you heard your neighbors arguing last night. What were they arguing about,
money problems or something?"

A: "Yeah, it was something like that."

Had the investigator's question not suggested a response, much more meaningful
and accurate information may have been learned:

Q: " Where did you go after you left work last night?"

A: "Well, I stopped off to talk to a friend and eventually drove home."

Q: "Did you return to work at all that night?"

A: "As I recall, I spent most the night in my apartment."

Q: "So you heard your neighbors arguing last night. What were they arguing about?"

A: "It's pretty common knowledge that they had marital problems. From what I heard
it sounded like she was going to leave him."

Do not tag a question

Tagging a question refers to adding unnecessary information to an already asked

question. Often the investigator asks the initial question and senses that the suspect

215
appears uncomfortable so, to relieve the suspect's discomfort, the investigator
continues talking. One reason for this guideline is that it makes the investigator's
question longer, thus allowing the deceptive suspect more time to formulate a more
credible response. The primary difficulty encountered when tagging a question is that
by doing so the question almost always becomes more specific and may invite
deception. The following tagged question allows a suspect guilty of committing a
burglary shortly after leaving school to answer the question without lying:

Q: "Where did you go after leaving school that day? Did you meet up with friends or
maybe go out for a soda or something?"

A: "No. I didn't get together with any friends." (The suspect did not meet up with
friends or go for a soda, he broke into a home)

Had this question been limited to, "Where did you go after leaving school that day?"
The suspect is forced to lie outright or engage in some form of evasion which may
elicit helpful behavior symptoms, e.g., "Where did I go? Well, I pretty much went
straight home." The following are examples of improperly tagged questions followed
by the properly formulated question:

IMPROPER: "Is there anyone you suspect of doing this. Now I realize that you may
not know people very well because you're new but maybe you've heard a rumor or
saw something unusual."

PROPER: "Is there anyone you suspect of doing this?"

IMPROPER: "Has anything like this ever happened to you before. Now, I'm not
suggesting that you hang around with people who do this sort of thing but sometimes
people get in circumstances out of their control and they might get questioned about
doing something or maybe even they were just questioned as a witness to what
someone else did. Has that happened?"

PROPER: "Has anything like this ever happened to you before?"

Avoid opinion questions when seeking specific information

Opinion and judgment questions form the basis for many of the behavior provoking
questions that make up the Behavior Analysis Interview and are of immense value
during an interview. However, when seeking specific information about a person's
behavior (what was done, what he said, what was heard, what was seen) an opinion
question is unlikely to elicit meaningful information. Opinions or judgements are not
fixed in time and, therefore, can be modified to fit a person's needs at any given point
in time. On the other hand, behaviors are fixed in time and cannot be altered or
changed through psychological manipulation -- either a person did or said something
or he did not.

Consider a homicide investigation where a husband is being interviewed concerning

the shooting death of his wife, Gloria. To explore possible motives for this crime an
investigator may ask the husband, "How did you get along with Gloria?" The guilty
suspect can easily respond to this opinion question by saying, "We had a really great

216
relationship, I can't believe she's gone." In the husband's mind 90% of the
relationship was great and he really is having a hard time believing that he lost his
temper and shot her. Proper questions to ask to explore the husband's motivations
should center around behavior as the following illustrate:

"The night your wife was killed did you have an argument with her?"

"The night your wife was killed did either of you raise your voice toward each other?"

"The night your wife was killed did you discuss a topic of disagreement?"

"The night your wife was killed did you learn something that upset you?"

The husband may, of course, lie to these questions but because they specifically
address behaviors, these questions are likely to elicit verbal and nonverbal
symptoms of deception.

A classic example of improper use of opinion questions is illustrated in the screening

process of employees considered for sensitive positions. Because of my position, I
have been interviewed on a number of occasions concerning past students or
acquaintances. During these security-screening interviews I was asked questions
similar to the following:

"Is this person considered trustworthy?"

"Does this person have a problem with alcohol?"

"Is this person addicted to any illegal drugs?"

"Has this person done anything to bring into question their loyalty to the United
States?"

"Does this person pose a threat to the national security of the United States?"

It would require an extremely forthright person (or perhaps one with a vengeance
motive) to volunteer adverse information when asked these opinion questions.

Avoid memory qualifiers

Memory qualifiers can be a good symptom of deception when the interviewer's

question is direct and does not require long-term recall. Consider the following
exchange:

Q: "Did your niece ever touch your bare penis?"

A: "As far as I recall she hasn't."

However, when asking a sensitive question it is common to include memory qualifiers

within the question to ease the stigma of the statement. An everyday example is
when answering the phone and it is clear that the person on the other end has dialed

217
the wrong number. We don't say to the caller "You've dialed the wrong number,"
rather, we say something like, "I believe you may have the wrong number." In
retrospect, this is a silly statement to make since there is absolutely no doubt that the
other person called the wrong number and yet we incorporate qualifying words (I
believe, may) to allow the caller to feel better about his mistake. Similarly, during an
interview, when a memory qualifier is included in the investigator's question, the
deceptive subject experiences less anxiety during their response. Examples include:

Q: "Do you recall if you signed your name on this check?"

A: "No I don't."

Q: "Do you remember having an argument at all with your wife last night?"

A: "Not at all."

Had the memory qualifier been omitted from these questions, the subject may reveal
significant behavior in his response:

Q: "Did you sign your name on this check?"

A: "I don't remember doing that."

Q: "Did you have an argument at all with your wife last night?"

A: "I wouldn't really call it an argument, it was more of a disagreement."

Do Not ask Negative questions

The final guideline appears very obvious and yet is frequently violated. A negative
question is one that expects agreement to a premise within the question. The
following examples each represent negative questions:

Q: "You don't know who did this, do you?"

Q: "No one ever gave you the combination to the safe, did they?"

Q: "You didn't leave your apartment for any reason, did you?"

The phraseology of each of these questions most certainly will elicit agreement from
the subject, regardless of the truthfulness of that agreement. Many times negative
questions are asked as an improper follow-up question to an evasive response, as
illustrated in the following dialogue:

Q: "Were you ever inside her apartment?"

A: "I hardly knew her so I've never had a reason to be in her apartment."

Q: "So you've never been inside her apartment?"

218
A: "That's right."

The proper follow-up question to ask in the above interview would have been, "I
understand that you hardly knew her but have you ever been inside her apartment?"

Conclusion

An investigator may be very skilled at covering all the relevant areas with a subject
during an interview. Yet, if these areas are addressed with improperly formulated
question the investigator may fail to elicit meaningful information. Furthermore,
improperly phrased questions may not stimulate behavior symptoms indicative of
deception. The end result is that a deceptive subject may escape detection.

Formulating proper interview questions is an acquired skill that takes practice. To

improve this skill it is beneficial to electronically record interviews. This allows the
investigator to go back and identify mistakes in question formulation. This evaluation
can also be done by a third party who is either present during the interview or
listening in an adjoining observation room.

Miranda, Article 31 and Constitutional Advisements December, 2000

During training seminars frequently the issue comes up as to the best time to advise
a suspect of his constitutional rights. There are both legal and psychological
considerations in answering this question. Legally, Miranda rights must be
administered prior to questioning a suspect who is in custody. Therefore, the
investigator must have probable cause to arrest a suspect, and actually place the
suspect in custody before the Miranda rights are required. The legal concept of
custody exists when a suspect perceives that he is not free to leave an immediate
area. The legal test, however, is different in the U.S. Military and in Canada. In those
jurisdictions, a focus of suspicion prompts the necessity of obtaining a waiver of
article 31 rights (military) or Constitutional Advisement (Canada). A focus of suspicion
is a much broader concept than custody. It exists when the investigator forms a
reasonable expectation of a suspect's possible involvement in an offense.

Psychologically, a suspect is much more likely to waive Miranda or other form of

constitutional rights if they are first brought up in a casual manner. The following is an
example of a casual introduction of Miranda rights: "Joe, I would like to ask you a few
questions about this charge against you, but before I do that, you should know that
you do have the right to remain silent; anything you say may be used against you;
you have the right to an attorney; and if you cannot afford a lawyer one will be
provided free." After an appropriate pause to permit the suspect to respond, he
should be told: "I would like for you to talk to me about this matter [specifying the
case under investigation], OK?" If the suspect expresses or otherwise indicates a
willingness to talk, even by an affirmative nod of his head, the investigator may
proceed with the questioning.

Following this verbal waiver, if a department policy requires written waivers, the
waiver document which specifies each of his constitutional rights would then be
executed. By first eliciting a verbal commitment to talk to the investigator, the suspect
is much more likely to sign the more intimidating formal Miranda waiver. This foot-in-

219
the-door approach to obtain a Miranda waiver in no way impacts on a knowing and
voluntary waiver of the suspect's rights since the formal document is ultimately
presented in court. However, it does greatly ease the stigma attached to the formal
waiver of rights.

The second psychological consideration is when to seek the waiver of Miranda or

constitutional rights. Very clearly, it is psychologically wrong to advise a suspect that
he has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney just before accusing him
of committing a crime. If rights are issued at that stage, once he is told that the
investigation clearly indicates that he committed the crime, he is likely to invoke his
constitutional rights. Therefore, the best time to issue the warnings is just prior to
conducting a non-accusatory interview, not an accusatory interrogation. With these
concepts in mind, consider the following scenarios course participants have related
to us:

Scenario 1: A non-custodial suspect that volunteers to be interviewed concerning a

crime. Because the suspect is not in custody, no Miranda waiver is required or
obtained. Following the interview the suspect is interrogated and eventually admits
that he did commit the crime. The suspect's incriminating statement provides
probable cause to effect an arrest. Is the investigator legally obligated to interrupt the
suspect's confession and advise him that he has the right to remain silent? Generally
the investigator is not. Even though probable cause may exist to arrest the suspect,
the environment and circumstances of the interrogation are still non-custodial. The
investigator can obtain full details of the confession without advising the suspect of
his Miranda rights because the suspect is still free to leave the room. This assumes,
of course, that the investigator did not imply custody through his actions or
statements, e.g., "You're not leaving here until we get this clarified", "With the
evidence we already have I could lock you up." A common practice is to have the
suspect's oral confession witnessed by a second investigator. Prior to making a
formal confession, therefore, the suspect would be advised of his Miranda rights, and
most likely waive them since he has told the truth in the presence of a witness. Some
departments have avoided this issue entirely by releasing the suspect after he has
signed a formal confession. Several hours later, the suspect is then arrested and
taken into custody. Obviously the suspect cannot later claim that he was not free to
leave during his interview or interrogation. A basic legal principle to keep in mind is
this: probable cause is required to make an arrest but establishing probable cause
does not require the investigator to arrest a suspect.

Scenario 2: A practice we have come across is for an investigator to Mirandize every

suspect prior to questioning. This includes, of course, a large number of suspects for
whom there is no probable cause to arrest. One rationale for this practice is that it
protects the investigator in court against ambiguous claims of whether or not a
Miranda waiver was required. However, the primary benefit is that by issuing the
Miranda warnings the investigator implies that he has probable cause to arrest the
suspect. This is an area of trickery and deceit which has not been addressed by the
courts and we can offer no guidelines in that respect. However, there is another
aspect of this practice for which we can express a clear opinion. Obviously, if an
investigator advises every suspect of his constitutional rights, many suspects will
take the investigator up on his offer and choose to remain silent. Under this
circumstance, the investigator simply tells the suspect that he is not under arrest and

220
continues to question the suspect as if no Miranda warnings were issued. Our
position is that once Miranda rights are given they must be honored. This would be
true even if the rights were prematurely given out of ignorance or under a
circumstance where the investigator knew that the issuance of such rights was
unnecessary.

Scenario 3: Consider a jurisdiction where focus of suspicion is the threshold to

require the advisement of rights. A crime was committed and a number of possible
suspects are interviewed. Based on deceptive behavior during one of the suspect's
interview, the investigator forms a suspicion that this is the suspect who may have
committed the crime. As a result of this suspicion the investigator must now advise
the suspect of his constitutional rights prior to conducting an interrogation. However,
as previously stated, advising a suspect of his constitutional rights just prior to
conducting an interrogation greatly increases the chance that the suspect will invoke
those rights. Under this situation it would be advantageous to advise the suspect of
his rights prior to conducting a formal interview. Therefore, in situations where there
is even the slightest chance that the suspect may subsequently be interrogated, we
recommend a premature advisement of constitutional rights prior to the interview. If
the rights are introduced at that stage, in a casual manner, most suspects will agree
to talk with the investigator.

Scenario 4: A suspect has been advised of, and waived, his Miranda or constitutional
rights. The suspect exhibits deceptive behavior during his interview but before
embarking on an immediate interrogation, the investigator wants to gather additional
information about the suspect or the crime. Five hours later the investigator initiates
an interrogation. Does the investigator have to re-advise the suspect of his
constitutional rights before starting the interrogation? The answer is that he does not.
A general guideline, at least in the United States, is that once a suspect has waived
his constitutional rights, they do not have to be refreshed for up to 24 hours.

The requirement of issuing constitutional rights to a suspect was not instituted to

prevent investigators from obtaining confessions from persons guilty of committing a
crime. Furthermore, courts provide latitude as to how the rights are introduced and it
is permissible to give them prematurely. Therefore, it is our recommendation to (1)
introduce constitutional rights in a non- threatening, casual manner; (2) to allow a
non-custodial suspect to fully confess prior to administering constitutional rights and,
(3) if circumstances may develop which require the issuance of the rights, it is much
preferable to advise the suspect of those rights prior to an interview as opposed to an
interrogation. As a caveat to this entire discussion, during our training experiences
throughout the United States we have encountered various interpretations and
applications of the Miranda decision. Consequently, this web tip merely offers our
recommendations and an investigator should check with his or her local
prosecutor to make certain that these guidelines are consistent with
departmental policies.

Creating A Temporary Interviewing Room November, 2000

In an ideal world, an interview or interrogation would always be conducted in a room

specifically designed for that purpose. Most businesses, however, do not have a
room set aside for interviewing job applicants or employees suspected of acts of

221
wrong-doing. Consequently, interviews may be conducted in an open cubical, a
business office, a conference room or even a storage facility. With a little preparation,
many of these spaces can be converted into a rather satisfactory interviewing room.

Importance of privacy: Any person who is motivated to withhold information should

be interviewed in private. This group includes job applicants, victims, witnesses and
employees suspected of wrongdoing. Privacy is necessary because people almost
always share sensitive information with only one person at a time. Therefore, the
most critical aspect to assure a sense of privacy is to conduct interviews one on one.
That is, there should only be two people in the room, the interviewer and the subject.
If this is not feasible, the interviewer should sit about 4ð - 5 feet in front of the subject,
while the 2nd party (another investigator) should sit off to the side.

It is important that the interview room have a door that can be closed so the subject
will not be concerned about someone outside of the room overhearing what is being
discussed. For much the same reason, it is important to keep electronic recording
devices, such as a tape recorder or camcorder, inconspicuous. This is not to suggest
that all electronic recording must be surreptitious. In fact, many states require two-
party consent to electronically record a conversation. However, it is a pivotal
misunderstanding of human behavior to believe that a subject would candidly make
admissions against self interest while staring at a camcorder or looking down at a
tape recorder placed in plain view on top of a desk. Therefore, a camcorder should
be placed off to the side of the subject and a tape recorder on the floor or other place
which is concealed from the subject's constant view.

Distractions: Controlling auditory distractions is more important than visual

distractions within a temporary interview room. If a subject can hear outside voices
behind a closed door, he or she may be concerned that those on the outside may
also be able to overhear the interview. Even in the most basic interview environment,
internal auditory distractions can easily be eliminated. This simply requires
disconnecting a desk phone, turning off a beeper or cell phone.

Size considerations: If an interview room is too small (6' x 7') it is likely to cause
unwanted apprehension, and perhaps even a feeling of claustrophobia. This is
undesirable both from a psychological and legal perspective (coercion). Conversely,
interviewing in a room that is too large (20' x 15') creates a different problem in that it
is difficult to achieve a one-on-one relationship with another person in such a vast
space. This can usually be remedied by arranging the furniture in such a way that the
interview takes place in a corner of the room, creating the psychological impression
of an 10' x 10' space. Generally, this arrangement is achieved by putting the
interviewer's chair near a back wall and the subject's chair about 5 feet in front of the
subject's chair. A conference table or desk positioned off to the subject's side
completes the effect.

Eliminate barriers: A barrier is any physical object placed between the interviewer
and subject. In many office environments this will represent a desk or table. Barriers
are undesirable for a number of reasons, but primarily they offer a psychological
shield behind which a deceptive subject will hide. A person is much more likely to tell
the truth if their entire body is exposed to the interviewer. Consequently, the room
should be arranged in such a way that the chairs in which the interviewer and subject

222
sit are placed to the side of, or away from a desk or table. For example, if a vice-
president of operations calls an employee into his office to be interviewed concerning
possible fraudulent activities, two chairs could be positioned facing each other to the
side or in front of the vice-president's desk. The vice-president can politely ask the
employee to have a seat in one of the chairs while he sits directly in front of the
employee in the other. During an interview, the distance between the chairs should
be about 4 ð - 5 feet apart. This represents a natural distance in which two people
feel comfortable interacting. If the distance is shortened, say to three feet, the
interviewer will be perceived as authoritative and condescending. This is obviously
not desirable if the goal is to allow the person being interviewed to feel comfortable
telling the truth.

Location: Suppose an employee embezzled $15,000 and could choose between

confessing at her place of employment or in our office located in down-town
Chicago? Ten out of ten guilty suspects, if given the choice, would choose to confess
in our office. The reason is simple. No employee wants to confess guilt only to leave
the room to face co-workers and supervisors who are undoubtedly aware of the
investigation and who will express resentment for the problems the employee has
caused. This common sense lesson teaches the following important rule: interview or
interrogate suspected employees away from co-workers and supervisors. A guideline
we follow is that if the guilty employee cannot leave the interview room without being
seen by co-workers, it is not a proper room in which to conduct the interview.
Frequently, under this circumstance, we will arrange to conduct
interviews/interrogations at a nearby hotel. Most hotels have small meeting rooms
which afford privacy and the furniture can be arranged in such a way as to create a
desirable interviewing environment.

Conclusion: Many of the investigations conducted by staff members of John E. Reid

and Associates occur outside of our office. Furthermore, we are often successful in
resolving those cases with a confession. A contributing factor to our success is
establishing the correct environment in which to conduct the interview/interrogation.
Once we visit a client's location we survey the premises looking for a suitable room in
which to conduct the interviews. If one is found we will modify that room to suit our
needs. If none is found, rather than hoping that we might be successful in solving the
case with the interviewing space that is available, we will suggest that the interviews
be conduced at a nearby hotel. By conducting interviews/interrogations within a hotel
conference or meeting room, our staff has obtained countless confessions that
otherwise may never have been obtained on the client's premises.

Behavior Provoking Questions: The Punishment Question October, 2000

The Behavior Analysis Interview is a structured interview, developed by John E. Reid

and Associates, designed to elicit behavior symptoms indicative of truthfulness or
deception. The core of the interview consists of asking a series of behavior provoking
questions. These questions tend to elicit different responses from a suspect who is
innocent of a crime than from a suspect who is guilty of a crime. Research has been
conducted on these questions to develop models which define common
characteristics of a truthful or deceptive response. This web tip will present a
behavior provoking question called "The Punishment Question."

223
The punishment question is generically phrased, "What do you think should happen
to the person who (did crime?)" It is important that the punishment question
specifically address the issue under investigation. In a homicide case, for example,
the suspect would be asked, "What do you think should happen to the person who
killed Jeff Johnson?" If the issue under investigation was the theft of $2500 from a
vault, the punishment question would be phrased, "What do you think should happen
to the person who took that $2500?" If a claimant was being interviewed concerning
a possible fraudulent auto theft claim, the question would be worded, "What do you
think should happen to a person who would lie about having his car stolen?"

When an innocent suspect is asked to cast judgment against the person guilty of the
crime he has little difficulty expressing a harsh punishment. After all, it is because of
someone else's crime that the suspect is being questioned. Typical innocent
responses to the punishment question include, "He should be prosecuted and sent to
jail!"; "For killing that clerk I hope he gets life in prison!"; or, "He should be fired and
probably prosecuted. Stealing $2500 is not petty theft!"

A key response to listen for from the innocent suspect to the punishment question is
whether the suspect is talking about the guilty person as being someone else. Actual
examples of this from verified innocent suspects we have interviewed include, "Well,
I'd like to have a shot at him first!"; "After what he's put me through I hope they throw
him in jail"; and, "To do that to a girl this guy's got to be really sick." A very religious
suspect who was verified as innocent responded to the punishment question as
follows: "It's against my beliefs to judge anyone harshly, but after you find out who did
this I would like to sit down with him and do a little preaching because his soul needs
saving."

Innocent suspects offer a personal opinion in their response to the punishment

question. The suspect has been asked specifically what do you think should happen
to the person who committed the crime. In all of the above examples, the response
reflects a personal opinion.

In addition to the above verbal responses, the innocent suspect's response to the
punishment question is often accompanied by characteristic nonverbal and
paralinguistic cues. Nonverbally, the suspect will offer direct eye contact and perhaps
lean forward in his chair. Because the question may stimulate an emotional
response, the suspect may use illustrators (hands moving away from the body).
Within the paralinguistic channel, innocent suspects offer longer, more thoughtful
responses than deceptive suspects; after all, they are speculating about someone
else's crime. Most typically, innocent suspects will ponder the punishment question
before answering it because it is a reflective question and, therefore, a delay of
thoughtful deliberation is not uncommon. The volume and strength of conviction,
however, will remain steady throughout the suspect's response.

When a deceptive suspect is asked the punishment question he is being asked to

judge himself. Applying the axiom that guilty suspects believe that their crime was
somewhat justified, it is not surprising that one of the models defining the guilty
suspect's response to the punishment question is to offer a lenient punishment.
Examples of this include, "Well, I think probation may be appropriate"; "Maybe pay
back the money"; "Perhaps some type of psychological treatment would be best"; or,

224
"Since no one was really hurt, I think supervision would be sufficient."

Deceptive responses to the punishment question may fail to talk about the guilty
person as being someone else. Often, the deceptive suspect may insert some sort of
conditional language within his response so as to excuse his own situation. A suspect
guilty of molesting a young boy responded to the punishment question, "Well, if a
person has done this to dozens of children I think that has to be taken seriously." A
suspect who eventually confessed to stealing $1000 answered the punishment
question as follows: "I wouldn't take it to court unless they had actual physical
evidence to show that the person took the money." A suspect who murdered his
mother-in-law responded, "Gee, that's a tough one. What happened certainly wasn't
good -- I mean it was terrible. Certainly the matter should go to court."

A deceptive suspect may evade a direct response to the punishment question and
not offer a personal opinion. The most common form of evasion is for the suspect not
to take any position at all, e.g., "I don't know. That will be up to a judge." Other
evasive responses to the punishment question include, "I'm sure he will prosecuted
and sent to prison" and, "It is company policy to fire anyone who steals." As these
last two examples illustrate, when a suspect's response to the punishment question
includes a harsh judgment it is important to determine if the suspect is offering his
own personal judgement. If he does not, he is evading the question.

A deceptive suspect may engage in significant nonverbal behaviors when responding

to the punishment question. He may avoid direct eye contact, cross or uncross his
legs or engage in various grooming behaviors. Within paralinguistic evaluations,
deceptive responses to the punishment question tend to be shorter and more
guarded. The deceptive suspect may answer this question too quickly, without giving
it adequate thought or attempt to disguise the anxiety the question caused by
repeating the question before answering it (for the purpose of buying time to think up
the best possible response.) Finally, the deceptive suspect may lose interest in his
response where he begins his response at a normal volume and rate, but by the time
he finishes the response, both his volume and rate decrease significantly. In this
instance, even though the suspect may suggest a harsh punishment for the guilty
person, he does not really believe his answer.

It is important to remember that the punishment question is one of many behavior

provoking questions that should be asked during a properly conducted Behavior
Analysis Interview. It would most certainly be improper to assess a suspect's guilt or
innocence based on a response to a single behavior provoking question. For
information on interpreting other behavior provoking questions, see our text The
Investigator Anthology.

Assessing Attitudes: The Victim Mentality September, 2000

A suspect guilty of a crime often displays attitudes during an interview which are
typically quite different from those attitudes exhibited by an innocent person. During
an investigation, an investigator may note that one subject appeared spontaneous,
open and confident, while a second subject may be described as being unconcerned,
guarded and unhelpful. Each of these general characteristics represent the subject's
attitude. One of the attitudes commonly associated with the deceptive suspect is

225
referred to as assuming a "victim mentality." Under this circumstance, the guilty
suspect, either overtly or subtly, alleges that he is a victim within the investigation.

Assuming the role of being a victim is a very natural position to take when a person is
questioned about an act of wrong-doing for which he is responsible. In various
circumstances, my children have tried to reverse their role from being the perpetrator
to that of the victim. Examples include, "I was minding my own business when Ben,
for no reason, hit me"; "Ryan, or someone else spilled that soda in my room. I
shouldn't have to clean it up"; or, "Dad, you always believe Collin just because he's
younger than me." Each of these statements are designed to convince me, the
parent/investigator, of my child's innocence. In truth, however, each statement
provides a symptom of the child's probable involvement in the act of wrong-doing -- in
each instance, the child is portraying a victim mentality.

One common example of the victim mentality is for a guilty suspect to argue that he
is being set up or framed. The suggested perpetrator of this alleged frame may be
the a fictitious guilty suspect, the victim of the crime or the police. When a suspect
states, "I'm being framed for this thing. Someone planted that cocaine in my
apartment" the probability is high that the suspect knew that the cocaine was there all
along. We have interviewed a number of verified innocent suspects who, in fact, were
implicated through evidence planted by the guilty party. It is of interest to note that
none of those innocent subjects claimed that they were being set up or framed.
Rather, they simply maintained their innocence and cast no blame on anyone else for
making them appear guilty.

Another example of the victim mentality is the guilty suspect who makes an
unwarranted attack against the investigator claiming some form of prejudice. The
allegation may involve race, gender, religion or other affiliation, e.g., "The only reason
you think I did this is because I'm a Latin King!" Especially when this type of
allegation is made spontaneously, seemingly out of no where, it is likely emanating
from a guilty suspect. Our experience indicates that an innocent suspect who
represents a minority group will state their innocence without any reference
whatsoever to their affiliation. It is the guilty suspect who desperately wants to believe
that the investigator is prejudiced (so as to reduce the suspect's own guilt feelings)
who makes these types of unwarranted accusations.

Finally, consider the suspect who spontaneously mentions during an interview that he
was victimized in the past. The child molester may explain that he was molested as a
youth; the thief may relate that someone once stole money from him; or a suspect
who was correctly identified by the victim may bring up the fact that years ago he was
wrongly accused for something he did not do. In the first two examples perhaps the
implied message is that because the suspect was himself a victim he would never
victimize someone else. In the latter case, the suspect may bring up his past
victimization in an effort to impeach the victim's identification. Regardless of the
cause, suspects who appear anxious to interject information that they have been
victimized at some time in the past are often guilty. An important key to evaluating
this behavior, of course, is that the suspect volunteers this information. On the other
hand, if the information is developed in response to the investigator's specific
question addressing past similar incidents, little meaning should be attached to it.

226
From a psychological perspective, it makes perfect sense that a guilty suspect would
try to portray himself as a victim during the course of an interview. A suspect who
believes that his crime was morally justified feels that it is wrong that he be harshly
punished for his act. In his mind, he truly believes that he is a victim (of the criminal
justice system or society in general). This distorted thought process naturally invites
such claims that the suspect was set up or framed, that the investigator is prejudiced
or may be revealed by the suspect's compelling need to tell the investigator of a past
incident where the suspect was victimized. As with all behavioral observations, it is
important that the investigator consider any statement suggesting a victim mentality
in the context of the conversation and that all of the subject's attitudes must be taken
into consideration when formulating an opinion of the person's truthfulness.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE EMPLOYMENT APPLICATION August, 2000

It is often impractical for an employer to personally interview every person applying

for a particular position. For this reason, most job applicants are initially screened by
reviewing a written summary of the candidate's background. This information will
typically be provided through either an employment application or a resume. While
employment applications are customary for individuals applying for hourly positions,
for professional positions, a resume is frequently accepted in lieu of an employment
application. It is our recommendation that, regardless of the position being filled, the
employer require each applicant complete a standardized employment application.

An employment application is superior to the personal resume for a number of

reasons. A resume is not standardized for all candidates applying for a particular
position and therefore may invite claims of discrimination if, for example, hiring
information is available from some candidates but not for others. For example,
consider a resume that contains a photograph of the applicant which depicts a black
male 45 to 50 years old. After receiving this resume, the employer may decide, for
vague reasons, not to offer the applicant an interview. Under this circumstance, the
employer may be legally challenged that the reason the applicant was not offered an
interview was based on race or age bias. Had the candidate completed a legally
acceptable employment application, potentially discriminatory information would not
have been developed and the candidate would have no grounds upon which to
challenge the employer's decision.

The primary reason for requiring all candidates to complete an application, however,
is that resumes are notoriously inaccurate. Because the candidate chooses what
information to include (or omit) within a resume, it is designed in such a way as to
present the candidate in the most favorable light. A Congressional study found that
between one/half and two/thirds of all resumes contained misleading information or
outright lies. There are dozens of subtle ways to misrepresent one's background on a
resume. Consider, for example, an applicant who does not want to list the fact that
she was fired from an employer a year ago. Under the employment section she will
simply not list that job. However, on a job application which requires her to "list all
employers" that you have had in the last 5 years, it becomes more difficult to conceal
such information

The easiest lie to tell is one based on opinions or beliefs. Because these statements
represent a personal assessment their veracity is impossible to disprove. Not

227
surprisingly, many resumes contain opinion information. Consider the following
statement:

"I am a highly motivated individual, seeking a challenging position that will

take advantage of my interpersonal and organizational skills in a team-oriented
business climate. I complete tasks in a timely fashion and have always been
willing to take on additional personal responsibility."

This may sound like the perfect candidate for a position. The only problem is that this
description represents the candidate's self-assessment. It is merely a personal
opinion and, therefore, the candidate cannot be held accountable for providing
misinformation if the characterization turns out to be the furthest thing from the truth.

On the other hand, an employment application requests the same information from
all applicants applying for a position. Making initial screening decisions based on
uniform information greatly enhances the employer's objectivity. Because the
application develops relevant and meaningful information about each candidate, the
accuracy of the pre-screening process is greatly enhanced.

At a minimum, an application should require that the candidate list every employer
the candidate has worked for over the last five years, their position, the reason for
leaving the job and why they are looking for a new job. It should elicit objective
information relevant to the position being applied for. Examples of objective questions
include, "Do you have a college degree from an accredited university?","Are you
licensed or certified in (field)?", "Has your practitioner's license been suspended or
revoked?", "Have you been discharged from a previous employer?", "Have you
received disciplinary action at a job in the last 5 years", "In the last 7 years have you
been convicted of a crime?", "Are you currently using any illegal drugs?" etc. The
employment application should conclude with a signed statement attesting to the
truthfulness of the information supplied within the application.

Certainly an unqualified applicant could lie on an employment application and be

erroneously hired. This is most likely to occur in companies who fail to verify
information on an application through a face-to-face interview. As a saving grace,
however, because the application represents a company document, the employer
may have grounds to discharge a newly hired employee if it is learned that the
application was falsified. This is not necessarily the case with a resume because their
creative design often makes proving intentional falsification difficult.

Just because an individual is applying for a professional position such as a physician

assistant, accountant, paralegal or office administrator offers no guarantee that the
person does not present a risk if hired. Yet, when seeking to fill these types of
positions, employers frequently rely solely on a resume and never have candidates
complete an employment application. This practice makes pre-screening of potential
candidates much more subjective, invites unqualified candidates to hide their
weaknesses and may eliminate solid grounds upon which to discharge an unqualified
employee who should not have been hired in the first place. Of paramount
importance, however, is to remember that the employment application is an
instrument designed to facilitate pre-screening. A final hiring decision should be made

228
only after the information within the application has been verified through a face to
face interview and appropriate background checks.

The Use of Follow-up Questions to Elicit Admissions July, 2000

An earlier web tip offered guidelines to interpret a subject's verbal behavior (Sept.
1999). In addition to assessing the truthfulness of a response, verbal behavior also
provides insight for asking follow-up questions. The fact that the subject's initial
response to a question contains an identifiable behavior symptom often indicates that
the subject is not comfortable telling an out-right lie. Under this circumstance, asking
a follow-up question frequently results in an admission or further meaningful
information.

Evasion

Many times a deceptive subject avoids an out-right lie to the interviewer's question
through evasion. An evasive response relies on the interviewer making an
unwarranted assumption as to what the subject meant to say within his response.
Once a question is asked, there is a natural tendency to fit the response into a
preconceived expectation of an answer. If the response does not directly answer the
question, our mind fills in the gap and places the answer into a "yes" or "no" category,
even though the subject's response merely implies a definitive position

As a young parent I asked my kids a series of questions just before they left for
school. One of them was, "Have you brushed your teeth?" Invariably, I received an
affirmative answer, which was the literal truth. However, over the years I have learned
to follow-up that "yes" answer with the question, "Have you brushed your teeth
today?" Oftentimes, this follow-up question resulted in the child rushing up to the
bathroom to brush his teeth. There are numerous examples of evasive responses,
but the following dialogue illustrates the basic formula for asking a follow-up question
to an evasive response. That is, agree with the subject's initial statement but re-ask
the question in its original form.

Q: "Did you have sexual contact with your step-daughter?"

A: "I consider her the same as a natural daughter. I can't believe she would say such a
thing."
Q: "I understand, but what I was wondering is whether or not you had sexual contact with
your step-daughter?"
A: "Sexual contact? No. I wouldn't consider it sexual contact."

A common mistake interviewers make in asking a follow-up question, under this

circumstance, is to modify the initial question, often making it more specific. It is
important to remember that it was the original wording of the question that caused
the subject's behavior, and it is that question which should be re-asked. To illustrate
this, consider the following interview of a father who sexually molested his step-
daughter by rubbing his bare penis against her vagina:

229
Q: "Did you have sexual contact with your step-daughter?"
A: "I consider her the same as a natural daughter. I can't believe she would say such a
thing."
Q: "I understand, but did you put your finger in her vagina or fondle her breasts at all?"
A: "Absolutely not! I can't believe that anyone would think that I'm a child molester!"

Memory Qualifiers

When a subject's response contains a memory qualifier such as, "I believe," "To the
best of my knowledge," or, "At this point in time" it is often productive for the
interviewer to re-phrase the original question as a hypothetical one. The following
dialogue illustrates this:

Q: "Did you leave your house at all last Friday night?"

A: "Not as far as I remember."
Q: "Is it possible you may have left your house last Friday night?"
A: "Well maybe for just a short time. That's right. I did go to the store around 7:00."

Interviewers who have received training in asking a bait question should consider the
subject's use of a memory qualifier as a good indication that if a bait question is
asked addressing that activity, that the subject will acknowledge the activity. Subject's
who incorporate memory qualifiers within their response are basically telling the
interviewer, "If you can produce evidence that I did this, then I will acknowledge it."

Addressing Specific Denials

A response that contains a specific denial addresses only a narrow aspect of the
interviewer's question. For example, if a job applicant was asked, "Have you ever
been asked to leave a job?" a specific denial would be, "I've never been fired from
any full-time employer." The interviewer needs to recognize what the applicant is not
denying. In this instance, the applicant may have been asked to leave a position
under a mutual agreement, which is paramount to being fired. A second possibility is
that the applicant may have been fired from a part-time employer. It is, therefore,
important to ask follow-up questions which address both of these possibilities. The
following is an example of this, where the investigator wants to establish the subject's
access to a handgun:

Q: "Do you have any handguns in your home?"

A: "I've never purchased a handgun in my life."
Q: "Have you received a handgun as a gift?"
A: "No."

230
Q: "Have you received a handgun in trade for something else?"
A: "No."
Q: "Are there any handguns in your house that belong to someone else?"
A: "Well, my dad has an old .45 from the army that he keeps here."

Clarifying Estimation Phrases

As the name implies, an estimation phrase offers a personal opinion usually as to

length of time or how often something occurred. Often, deceptive subjects will use an
estimation phrase to hide incriminating information. When a subject's response
includes an estimation phrase, the interviewer should ask a follow-up question which
suggests a more incriminating answer as the following examples demonstrate.

Q: "When is the last time you've experimented with an illegal drug?"

A: "It's been a long time."
Q: "Have you used any this week?"
A: "Oh gosh no. It's been 4 or 5 weeks -- ever since I started looking for a job."

Q: "How often did you and your wife fight?"

A: "Not that often."
Q: "Would it be maybe three or four times a week?"
A: "No. Maybe twice a week."

Q: "When is the last time you saw Linda?"

A: "It's been quite a while."
Q: "Did you see her at all yesterday?"
A: "No. I think it was two days ago."

This same follow-up technique can be used effectively when a suspect delays his
answer to a direct question. A delay before answering a direct question often
indicates that the subject is debating whether to tell part of the truth, or a complete
fabrication. By suggesting an incriminating response before the subject verbalizes his
answer, it becomes much easier for the suspect to tell part of the truth as the
following dialogue illustrates:

Q: "During your meeting, did your hand come in contact with your secretary's thigh?"
A: "Um..."
Q: "Were you massaging her thigh with your hand?"
A: "Oh no. It was really just kind of a light touch and I didn't mean anything sexual by it."

231
Q: "How long would you say your hand was on her thigh?"
A: "Let's see ..."
Q: "Was your hand on her thigh during most of the meeting?"
A: "Oh gosh no. Ten, maybe 15 seconds at the most."

Subjective Terminology

An interview question should be phrased in such a way as to transmit a single, clear

meaning. Therefore, it would be improper to ask a subject, "Did you engage in
internal espionage against the United States." This is an ambiguous question
because it requires (or assumes) that the subject knows what espionage is and that
he can differentiate between internal and external espionage. Consequently, a
subject who sold classified information to a foreign company may experience little
anxiety when denying this ambiguous question.

Similarly, when a subject's response contains ambiguous terminology, the interviewer

must not assume that the subject is attaching the same meaning to words as the
interviewer. Therefore, when a subject incorporates subjective, technical or legal
terminology within a response, the interviewer should either have the subject define
the meaning of the word, or pursue the area with questions that transmit a single,
clear meaning.

Returning to the examples under Evasive Responses, the first dialogue concluded
with the following statement by the subject, "Sexual contact? No. I wouldn't consider
it sexual contact." This response contains subjective terminology (sexual contact)
and requires clarification. Because the response implies some contact, an
appropriate follow-up question to ask at this point may be, "Tell me about the contact
you have had with your step-daughter's vaginal area?"

In the second example, within this same section, the subject responded, "Absolutely
not! I can't believe that anyone would think that I'm a child molester!" The term "child
molester" is obviously subjective and will be defined quite differently by a Child
Protective Service investigator than a father who is having sexual contact with his
step-daughter. When a subject uses descriptive or legal language within a response
it is often productive, as a follow-up question, to have the subject define the term. In
this instance, the subject may describe a child molester as a person who abducts
children and forces them to engage in perverted sexual acts. Conveniently, of course,
this definition does not apply to the compliant, non-invasive sexual contact the
subject had with his step-daughter.

The Universal Follow-up Question

The easiest lie to tell is one that is based on a partial truth. This is especially effective
if the truth is somewhat incriminating. Too often, once an interviewer hears the
subject make an admission against self interest, the answer is accepted as the whole
truth. This is rarely the case. Consequently, our final suggested follow-up question is
what we call the universal follow-up because it applies to many possible responses
during an interview. Very simply, once a subject makes an admission against self

232
interest, the investigator should ask the same question excluding the admission, e.g.,
"Besides for that...", as the following dialogue illustrates:

Q: "Has your driver's license ever been suspended?"

A: "Unfortunately, yes it was. Back when I was 17, I had too many speeding tickets and it
was suspended for three months."
Q: "Besides for having it suspended when you were 17 has your license been suspended
any other time?"
A: "Actually, there was another incident which is kind of complicated because it involved a
DUI where it was suspended for six months. But I have it back now and everything is
straightened out."
Q: "Besides for those two occasions, has your license been suspended any other time?"
A: "There was just one other time, again for a DUI, and that one was for 12 months. I just
got my license renewed last month, which is why I'm applying for a driving position."

Many suspects who lie during an interview escape detection by offering minor
admissions which the interviewer accepts as the whole truth. Returning to some
earlier examples, under Memory Qualifiers, the universal follow-up question to ask in
this dialogue would be, "Besides for going to the store, did you leave your house any
other time that night?" Within the dialogue for Specific Denials, an appropriate follow-
up question to ask is, "Besides for that .45, do you have any other handguns in your
home?" The rule, simply stated, is that anytime a subject's response to an interview
question contains an admission, no matter how insignificant, the universal follow-up
question should be asked.

In summary, when a subject's verbal response contains a behavior symptom

indicating possible deception, the interviewer should pursue the area with follow-up
questions in an effort to learn more of the truth. Through experience, we have found
that the follow-up questions suggested in this web tip are often beneficial in
developing admissions or more meaningful information.

The Use of Trickery and Deceit During Interrogation June, 2000

During an interrogation, an investigator attempts to persuade a suspect to tell the

truth, oftentimes to provide incriminating evidence that will be used in a subsequent
prosecution. Further, interrogations are generally conducted in situations where there
is insufficient evidence to assure a conviction and, in many cases, the suspect's
actual guilt may not be 100% certain. If an investigator was required to be completely
truthful with a suspect, the interrogation would sound like this: "Joe, I am not sure you
committed this crime and we do not have enough evidence to prosecute you for it.
Therefore, I would like you to confess to me so that we can convict you and send you
to prison." Obviously, under this circumstance, no suspect would ever confess. Out of
necessity, therefore, interrogation relies extensively on duplicity and pretense.

An Investigator may exaggerate his confidence in the suspect's guilt, establish a

misleading reason for the interrogation, such as needing to establish the

233
circumstances that led up to the crime, display feelings of sympathy and compassion
toward the suspect that are far from genuine, and, in some cases, falsely tell the
suspect that evidence exists which links him to the crime. Trickery and deceit during
an interrogation, therefore, occurs on a continuum. It is the latter extreme (lying to a
suspect about evidence) that raises most questions.

In 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a confession obtained by the use of trickery
where a homicide suspect was falsely told that his accomplice had already confessed
(Frazier v. Cupp). Since then, numerous other Federal and State courts have
similarly upheld confessions obtained through the use of substantial deceit by the
investigator. However, courts have also imposed limits on the use of trickery and
deceit. For example, an investigator cannot use a tactic that would "shock the
conscience of the community," such as the investigator introducing himself as the
suspect's court appointed lawyer and obtaining a confession under the pretense of
needing to know the truth to best defend the suspect. Similarly, a Federal court ruled
that it is improper to manufacture fictitious evidence against the suspect and using
the "evidence" during an interrogation. The general guideline is that false verbal
assertions are permissible, e.g., "The crime lab identified your DNA on the victim" but
creating false evidence (typing up a fictitious crime lab report) is not.1

Courts recognize that falsely telling a suspect that his fingerprints were found inside
the victim's home, for example, would not be apt to cause an innocent suspect to
confess.2 A person of normal intelligence and mental capacity would certainly not
place greater confidence in the investigator's statement than his own knowledge that
he was not in the victim's home. The tactic of falsely telling a suspect that evidence
links him to the crime scene has played an instrumental role in persuading many
guilty suspects to confess who otherwise may not have done so. It is, however, a
risky interrogation practice, and one that should be used with caution.

The inherent danger of lying to a suspect about the existence of fictitious evidence is
when the suspect does not believe the investigator's statement. Under this
circumstance, the investigator's credibility may be irreparably damaged. This is
especially true when the suspect calls the investigator's bluff and demands to see the
evidence (as frequently happens with more street-wise suspects). Once the
investigator loses the suspect's trust, the suspect may dismiss the investigator's
apparent confidence in his guilt, question the investigator's sympathetic demeanor,
and challenge the entire pretense for the interrogation. In other words, the suspect
may realize that the investigator is only interested in obtaining evidence to be used in
an effort to punish him for his crime.

With this in mind, the following recommendation is offered: introduce fictitious

evidence during an interrogation only as a last resort effort to stop persistent, but
weak, denials or to maintain the attention of a suspect who exhibits clear signs of
psychologically withdrawing. Certainly, presenting fictitious evidence against a
suspect early during an interrogation should be avoided as it often results in
unwanted denials.

Because of the previously mentioned hazard, only rarely does our staff out-right lie to
a suspect about the existence of evidence linking him to the crime. Rather, they infer
that such evidence exists. Examples of these statements include, "I wouldn't be

234
talking to you this way unless I had proof that you were with her that night!", or, "I've
seen the evidence and there's no doubt you were inside that home!" Similarly, the
investigator may simply state, "We know that she got into your car right outside the
school yard and we know that you drove down University Avenue with her in your
car!"

Central to each of these statements, is that the investigator does not identify the
specific evidence that links the suspect to the crime scene, e.g., fingerprints, eye
witnesses, DNA, etc. Rather, the specific form of evidence is left unsaid. This
approach minimizes the inevitable challenge by the suspect of, "Who is your
witness?", or "Let me see that crime lab report."

Another approach, that has a similar safeguard, is to refer to the evidence in the
future tense. This was used successfully in a case where it was known that the
perpetrator left a wad of gum at the crime scene. The investigator stated, "We
recovered the gum and are in the process of having the saliva within the gum
analyzed for DNA markers. We both know that when we get those results back it's
going to show that you were the person who chewed that gum and left it in the
basket."

In summary, investigators are legally granted wide latitude with respect to the use
trickery and deceit during an interrogation. While out-right lies concerning the
existence of evidence that links a suspect to a crime scene or victim can be very
persuasive, there is always a risk that the statement may not be believed or that the
suspect will insist on seeing proof of the evidence. Therefore, it is often
advantageous to merely imply the existence of such evidence, or make reference to
the fact that the evidence will shortly establish the suspect's presence at the crime
scene.

The Role of Eye Contact During Interpersonal Communication May, 2000

When average people are asked about nonverbal communication, most will mention
eye contact. The eyes are considered "the windows of the soul" and The Eagles
warned that, "you can't hide your lying eyes." When Judge Judy detects possible
deception, she admonishes the witness to look her in the eyes. Effective
communicators learn not only how to read the meaning of another person's eye
contact, but also to use their own eye contact to influence other people. This field of
study is referred to as gaze and mutual gaze. Interestingly, of all possible nonverbal
behaviors studied, eye contact is generally least influenced through
psychophysiological processes, but rather is a learned response depending on
societal rules. Furthermore, not all societies teach the same rules. The following
discussion applies generally to western culture.

Breaks of Gaze

Consider that you are attending a seminar and the instructor asks for a volunteer to
come to the front of the class to demonstrate a principle. If you do not want to be
called upon, your eyes will immediately go down to the table top. This unconscious
drop of gaze sends the message of shame, guilt or embarrassment. In other
situations, for example when a clergyman expresses his condolences at the passing

235
of a loved one, a drop of gaze signals sympathy and compassion. Neurolinguistically,
a downward break of gaze indicates that emotional centers of the brain are being
accessed.

Obviously, when an investigator is interviewing a suspect, victim or witness,

unconscious downward breaks of gaze may send the unwanted message, "I am
uncomfortable asking you these questions." To instill confidence and credibility, it is
important that a speaker maintain eye contact when addressing another person.
However, during an interrogation when the investigator is displaying sympathy and
compassion toward the suspect's unfortunate situation, a downward break of gaze
may greatly enhance the investigator's sincerity. Similarly, during an interrogation, the
suspect whose eyes drop downward often means that the suspect is experiencing
remorse and guilt. This can be a key behavior that the suspect is on the verge of
confessing.

A different meaning is attached when the eyes break gaze to the side or upward.
Under this circumstance, the subject may be recalling factual information, forming an
opinion, editing unnecessary information from a response or fabricating an answer.
Such breaks of gaze should be expected from a truthful suspect who is asked a
hypothetical question, or one that requires long term memory. As an example,
consider two suspects who were asked the following question concerning an alibi
where they both claimed that two weeks ago they were home alone on the night of
the crime. "Did you receive any telephone calls that evening?" The first suspect,
without breaking gaze responds, "No one called at all." The second suspect, after
breaking gaze and delaying slightly, responds, "No one called at all." Even though
their verbal responses were the same, the second suspect's response is more
credible because the question requires accessing memory and, thus, a break of gaze
would be appropriate.

Mutual Gaze

When two people are conversing about a topic of mutual interest the normal level of
eye-to-eye contact is between 30 - 60% of the time. This is referred to as mutual
gaze. When interacting with a speaker, the listener's eyes generally focus on the
speaker's mouth. A conscientious communicator will recognize when the other
person raises his gaze slightly to make direct eye-to-eye contact. When the gaze is
held it is a signal that the other person wants to say something. Consider a
committee meeting where you strongly disagree with a proposal a speaker is making.
In an effort to be recognized and voice your disapproval, you will attempt to make
direct eye contact with the speaker. Nonverbally, you are asking permission to be
called upon to speak.

During an interrogation a suspect who has been quietly listening to the investigator's
theme may try to establish mutual gaze to seek permission to speak. Invariably, if this
permission is granted, the suspect will offer a denial. Whether the denial is truthful or
deceptive will require further assessment, but the societal rule remains: Prior to
interrupting a speaker, often an attempt will be made to establish mutual gaze with
that speaker.

Mutual gaze by an investigator can be used during an interview to encourage a

236
subject to continue to talk. Assume that you have asked a subject the question, "Tell
me about your relationship with (the victim)?" and the suspect offers a shallow
response. By establishing mutual gaze with the suspect following his response sends
the nonverbal message, "I want you to tell me more." Under this circumstance simply
by looking at the suspect's eyes, and perhaps nodding your head, most suspects will
continue to talk.

Nature of Eye Contact

Eye contact can be generally described as cold, hard, penetrating, warm or soft.
Quantifying these descriptions can be difficult, but they refer to pupillary dilation and
related muscles affecting the opening of the eye lids and contraction of the eye
brows. A cold, hard stare may signify defiance, anger or authority. As an example,
with the proper stare a parent can send the nonverbal message to a child, "Don't do
that!" A suspect who displays this type of eye contact may be legitimately angry,
which is more often associated with truthfulness. If the stare is forced and
inconsistent with other nonverbal behaviors, it may reflect defiance which is more
often associated with deception.

During an interview, an investigator should avoid a cold hard stare since it signifies
an emotional detachment from the suspect, which is undesirable. Rather, warm and
soft eye contact should be used. This type of eye contact encourages open
communication since it is associated with openness, trust and liking. Innocent
suspects, who are not overly nervous, often display warm and soft eye contact during
an interview. Conversely, a deceptive suspect's eyes are often described as shifty,
unfocused or averting.

Factors Influencing Eye Contact

In addition to culture, a subject's eye contact may be influenced by their personality,

general nervous tension, their emotional state and various medical conditions. It is
important, therefore, that an investigator establish a baseline of normal eye contact
for each subject before attaching significance to this behavior. Of equal importance,
an investigator should be aware of his or her own eye contact when communicating
with others. Some people simply have atypical eye contact. They may engage in a
penetrating, cold hard stare when conversing about even insignificant topics. Others,
may exhibit generally poor eye contact when talking to a trusted friend about a topic
of mutual interest. Such deviations from societal norms may cause difficulties for an
investigator whose success is so closely associated with effective communication.

ELICITING AND EVALUATING AN ALIBI April, 2000

One of the most efficient means to eliminate a possible suspect in a crime is if his
alibi proves to be correct. This is only true, however, when the investigator is
absolutely certain of the time of the offense and when there are independent
witnesses to corroborate the alibi. Unfortunately, in many situations, an investigator
must make an immediate decision following an interview whether or not to interrogate
a suspect, without the benefit of being able to verify an alleged alibi.

237
There are a number of behavioral characteristics which tend to support or refute the
validity of an alibi. To take advantage of these, the investigator must elicit an alibi in a
manner which provides the most meaningful of information. Consider a home
invasion where a jeweler was robbed by a man last Friday night at 7:30. The
traditional interview question asked to elicit this suspect's alibi would be, "Where
were you last Friday night at 7:30?" The suspect may respond, "I was shopping at K-
Mart for a birthday present for my nephew." Follow-up questions may reveal that the
suspect purchased a football, for which he paid $25.00 cash, but he did not keep his
receipt. Furthermore, the suspect denies encountering anyone he knew during his
shopping trip. Is this alibi true or false? Given this limited information it is impossible
to tell. Suppose, however, that the suspect was asked the following question to elicit
his alibi: "Tell me everything you did last Friday night from 6:00 until 9:00." This
question offers the potential for much more meaningful information. Because it does
not reveal the time of the crime (7:30), the innocent suspect's detail and recollections
of his activities should be similar before and after the commission of the crime. The
deceptive suspect, however, knows when he committed the crime and this guilty
knowledge may influence his recounting of events. He may offer sketchy information
prior to and after the commission of the crime, but very specific details at the time of
the crime (a rehearsed alibi). On the other hand, the guilty suspect may tell the truth
about his general activities before and after the crime, which includes a fair amount
of detail, but he conveniently glosses over the details of his whereabouts at the time
the crime was committed (an unprepared alibi). Some crimes involve incriminating
activities before and after the actual commission of the crime. Under this
circumstance, the guilty suspect must fabricate most of his account, where the entire
account tends to be vague. Consider the following two responses to the question,
"Tell me everything you did last Friday night between 6:00 and 9:00."

SUBJECT 1: "At 6:00 I had just arrived home from work and I took a shower because
I knew I was going to go out for pizza. I had already arranged with a friend from work,
Rick Johnson, to meet at the Pizza Hut on Sunset Ave. We were going to meet there
at 8:00. Rick was bringing a date and I wanted to bring one too but I didn't get a
chance during the day to call anyone. Around 6:30 I called Betsy King, a girl I dated
in high school and occasionally go out with, but there was no answer so I ended up
going alone. On Saturday my brother was having a birthday party for my nephew
Paul and I hadn't yet gotten him a present. There is a K-Mart right across the street
from the Pizza Hut so I left my apartment at around 7:00 and got to the K-Mart at
maybe 7:15. I knew I was going to get him a football so I picked one out and then, to
kill time, I looked at camping stoves and lanterns. Next month I'm going to go with
some friends on a camping trip up North and I still need some basic equipment. At
any rate, I only bought the football and that would have been around 7:45 or so. I
went right from the K-Mart down the street to the Pizza Hut and arrived before Rick
and Gloria. I ordered a beer while I waited for them and they arrived a little after 8:00.
We ordered a pizza and a pitcher of beer and we were there until after 9:00. We left
together and I didn't get home until about 9:30."

238
SUBJECT 2: "At 6:00 I was just hanging in my apartment and I needed to buy a
present for my nephew's birthday so I went to the K-Mart on Sunset and bought him
a football. At 7:30 I was inside K-Mart buying the football. I paid $25.00 cash for it in
the express lane. Eventually, I left and went out for pizza at Pizza Hut. I think I was
still at the Pizza Hut at 9:00 because I didn't get home that night until later."

In analyzing these two alibis, the first appears to be much more credible than the
second. In addition to the details offered within the first statement, other indications of
truthfulness include: 1. Specific information with respect to time, people's names and
locations; 2. The account contains unnecessary information (thoughts, things that
were not done); 3. The account follows the suspect's normal behavior, e.g., he has
gone out with these friends for dinner in the past and often dines in at this Pizza Hut.
On the other hand, the second alibi is sketchy except for the time period of the crime.
It contains the following deceptive criteria:

1. Vague information with respect to time, people's names and locations;

2. The absence of unnecessary information — the account focuses on behaviors to
connect one event to the other;
3. "Time-gap" phrases that indicate something is being left out of the account, e.g.,
"after a while", "eventually", "the next thing I knew";
4. The account may not represent the suspect's normal behavior, e.g., this is only the
second time in 10 years that the suspect has eaten at this particular Pizza Hut — he
almost always orders a pizza for delivery. A key in eliciting a meaningful alibi in this
manner is to instruct the suspect to tell you everything that he did between two time
periods (generally a couple of hours before and after the crime). A question such as,
"Tell me what you did last Friday night," will often result in a general accounting of
events from both the truthful and deceptive suspects.

THE ROLE OF DEFENSE MECHANISMS IN DETECTING DECEPTION March,

2000

The act of committing a crime is always associated with an emotional state. Most
criminals experience some level of shame, guilt or loss of self-esteem. Others
primarily experience a fear of being caught. A very few (the psychopath) will
experience excitement and thrill. Because shame, anxiety and fear are all
undesirable emotional states, the mind will attempt to reduce these negative feelings
by using defense mechanisms. A defense mechanism is a habitually employed
adjustive reaction designed to reduce unwanted feelings by distorting or denying the
truth.

We all use defense mechanisms to cope with everyday guilt and anxiety. If I am late
in writing the monthly Web Tip, and consequently experienced guilt or shame, it
would not sooth those feelings by acknowledging that I procrastinated and was
poorly organized. To reduce my guilt and shame I may utilize any number of defense
mechanisms. I may blame my boss for assigning me too many other tasks which did
not leave me enough time to write the Web Tip. I may reduce guilt by contrasting
what I did to something much worse, e.g., it was only a couple days late, not a whole
month. I may forgive my tardiness by forming a belief that others engage in the same

239
behaviors as I do and, therefore, I am no different than anyone else. There are many
other possible defense mechanisms, but these illustrate the concept— they all
reduce unwanted feelings and are habitually employed. A person does not
consciously distort or deny the truth. The mind does it unconsciously.

During an interview, when an investigator questions a guilty suspect about the crime
he committed, it can be safely assumed that the suspect has already employed one
or more defense mechanisms to help him cope with his crime. The innocent suspect,
on the other hand, has no need to reduce guilt or shame associated with the crime
under investigation. Therefore, when defense mechanisms are identified during an
interview, they should be associated with a guilty suspect. Consider the following
examples of responses to interview questions:

Q: Have you ever just thought about forcing a woman to have sex with you?
A: Well, sure. Every guy thinks about that but that doesn't mean I'd follow
through with it.

This illustrates the defense mechanism of identification. With identification a subject

forms a false belief that others share his attitudes. A suspect guilty of committing a
crime would like to believe that he is no different than the majority of the population.
The above suspect could be asked, "What percentage of men do you think, at some
point in their life, have forced a woman to have sex with them?" A guilty suspect often
relates a very high percentage.

Q: Why do you think some people do file a false insurance claim?

A: Maybe to get back at the insurance company for charging such high
premiums.

This response suggests the defense mechanism of projection. It can be defined as

placing blame away from ourselves and onto someone or something else. The
homicide suspect may blame the victim for getting him angry; a burglar may blame
an accomplice for talking him into breaking into the home; a robber may blame his
addiction to drugs for causing him to have to steal money. Because projection is such
a common defense mechanism, the investigator should actively seek information
during an interview to help identify who or what the guilty suspect may have blamed
for his crime.

Q: What do you think should happen to the person who took this $2000?
A: Well, I definitely think that there should be disciplinary action but I don't
think they should go so far as to have the person put in jail unless it was for a
very large amount.

When a suspect contrasts his crime to something much worse he is using the
defense mechanism of minimization. We all experience some level of relief knowing
that something bad could have been much worse. In the guilty suspect's mind, a rape
or robbery was not that bad because the victim was not killed. Drug dealers minimize
their crime by contrasting the relatively minor drugs they sell to something much
harder like heroine. A computer hacker may minimize his crime by contrasting the
mere disruption of a commercial web site to breaking into a national security
computer and selling information to the highest bidder.

240
Q: Did you start that fire?
A: No, but I was smoking in the area where the fire started and I have this
strange feeling that maybe my cigarette may have accidentally started the fire.

This is a possible example of rationalization wherein a person re-describes the

intentions behind his act. Whenever, during an interview, a suspect accepts possible
responsibility for the crime in a way that removes criminal intent, rationalization
should be suspected. Actual interview examples we have heard from suspects who
later confessed include being the person who may have unknowingly thrown away a
missing money from an evidence room, a suspect who said he possibly had
inadvertent contact with a step-daughter's bare breast when tucking her into bed and
a suspect in a hit and run accident who told us he had a vague recollection of maybe
hitting something with his car. In each of these cases the guilty suspect reduced
considerable guilt associated with his or her crime by accepting possible physical
(but not legal) responsibility for it.

Obviously, there are cases in which a suspect may be telling the truth when
acknowledging that an act occurred accidentally or inadvertently. A guideline to
consider is that the deceptive subject often introduces his responsibility for the crime
as a mere possibility. The guilty suspect generally does not come out and say, "It
must have been my cigarette that started that fire because it started right where I was
smoking and it couldn't have been anything else."

Q: How do you feel about being interviewed concerning this forged check?
A: I feel like I'm being framed for this thing. I don't know why you're talking to
me about this. It could have been anybody. Why would I need to forge
someone's check when I have my own checking account — tell me that?

The defense mechanism involved in this response is displacement. An emotional

tirade, especially when it comes out of nowhere and is not accompanied with
supporting nonverbal behaviors, is often emanating from a deceptive suspect. A
person who feels guilt or loss of esteem because of something he or she did may
reduce that feeling by displacing it with anger directed toward the interviewer. Anger
is a much easier emotion for the suspect to deal with than guilt because anger is
directed away from the suspect toward someone or something else. Guilt or shame,
on the other hand, are directed inward and the best way to deal with them is to
acknowledge the truth — something most suspects do not want to do.

In summary, almost every suspect who has committed a crime will reduce unwanted
feelings associated with their crime through the use of defense mechanisms. On the
other hand, a suspect innocent of committing a crime has no need to reduce feelings
of guilt, anxiety, shame or fear of being caught. Therefore, when a suspect's
response to an interview question reveals the use of a defense mechanism, it
supports the opinion of deception. As with any behavior symptom, it is important to
evaluate the totality of the subject's behaviors throughout the entire interview to look
for trends and patterns before a final opinion of truth or deception can be rendered
with confidence.

241
VERIFYING AN EMPLOYMENT HISTORY DURING A PREEMPLOYMENT
INTERVIEW February, 2000

It is well established that the best predictor of a job applicant's future behavior is that
person's recent past behavior. This is particularly true with respect to their
employment history. Has the applicant demonstrated good reliability with past
employers? Do the applicant's past job duties and responsibilities qualify as the type
of experience needed for the present position? Has the applicant been discharged
from a previous employer, or resigned under pressure?

Unfortunately, it is not possible to answer these questions by merely reviewing a job

application or resume. A number of studies have shown that up to 1/3 of job
applications are inaccurate or contain false information. Within the employment
section, the three most common areas of misrepresentations are failing to list
employers, the reason for leaving a job, and the job position. A smaller percentage of
job applicants will falsify their salary or dates of employment while the smallest
percent will list fictitious employers. This explains why employer references, who will
typically only verify an applicant's employment and dates of employment, often reveal
very little falsified information. In most situations, the only way to identify inaccurate
information about an applicant's employment history is by conducting a face to face
interview with the applicant.

Consider the following information from a job application you must interview today.
The job application listed this information about their most recent employer:

Employer: First National Bank

Position: Assistant operations manager
Salary $35,000
Dates of employment: June, 1997 — November, 1999
Reason for leaving: Career advancement

Many interviewers would question this applicant along the following lines:

Q: I see your last job was at the First National Bank.

A: That's right.
Q: I assume that was a full time position?
A: Yes, I worked 40 hours a week and only called in sick three days during the two
years I worked there.
Q: That is quite impressive. What were your duties as an assistant operations
manager?
A: I was in charge of teller scheduling and working with tellers when there were
balancing or procedural problems. I also was involved in training new tellers. I made
presentations during our monthly meetings and assisted the operations manager in
some of her duties.
Q: It sounds as though they gave you a lot of responsibility.
A: Yes they did and I handled it very well. My performance reviews were always
positive.
Q: Now you left the bank in November for career advancement. What do you see
yourself doing 3 years from now?
A: I believe I have the experience and potential to become an operations manager at

242
a larger facility, which is why I applied here. Three years from now I would hope to be
working at or near that level.

If all job applications were completed truthfully, this interviewing approach may be
quite adequate. But what if this was one of the 33% of job applicants who falsified
their application? The nature of the interviewer's questions almost guarantees that
the misinformation will go undetected. The reason for this is that the interviewer's
questions are all predicated on information already submitted by the applicant. In
effect, the interviewer may already be buying into the applicant's lies and is merely
giving the applicant an opportunity to expand on them and make the misinformation
appear more credible.

For this reason we recommend that the human resource interviewer have the
employment application out of sight during an interview, and work with the applicant
to develop a fresh employment history. In other words, interview an applicant as
though you have no knowledge, whatsoever, about the person's background. There
are a number of advantages to this approach. As already mentioned, it eliminates the
possibility that the interviewer will support pre-existing misinformation on the
employment application. It also forces the applicant to re-construct, from their own
memory, their employment history. Using this guideline, here is how the previously
job applicant would be interviewed:

Q: Are you presently employed?

A: Well, I'm a part-time waitress but it's just to carry me over until I find full-time
employment.
Q: I understand. What is the name of that employer?
A: It's the Golden Gate restaurant. I didn't put it down on the application because it's
not really relevant.
Q: That's fine. When did you start working for the Golden Gate restaurant?
A: December 2, 1999.
Q: And where did you work before that?
A: The First National Bank.
Q: What were your starting and ending dates for working at the bank?
A: I started right after graduation so that would be June of 1997 and I left in
November of 1999.
Q: What was your position at the bank when you left?
A: Well I was hired as a teller, but I also did some administration type duties.
Q: Tell me about those.
A: I helped the operations manager train new tellers and helped younger tellers
balance their drawers and stuff. I attended monthly operational meetings and had
input in those.
Q: When you left, what was your title?
A: I guess a teller. They really didn't have a job description for what I did.
Q: In November, before you left, what percentage of your time was spent working as
a teller?
A: I don't know. Maybe 90%.
Q: Okay. Why did you leave that job?
A: Why did I leave? Well, its kind of hard to explain. You see some new accounts that
I had opened came up short and because of those discrepancies they had, like an
internal investigation and stuff. Well, there seemed to be a misunderstanding and I

243
didn't want to be, you know, caught up in the middle of it so I decided to leave. It's
really too complicated to explain.
Q: Did they ask you to leave the job?
A: Well... I would consider it sort of mutual, if you know I what mean.

While this interview example was created, it is typical of the job applicants we screen
everyday. Consistent with national research, about 33% of job applicants we
interview have falsified their job applications to the extent that the employer (our
client) considers the applicant an unsuitable risk if hired. Re-creating an employment
history from scratch during a preemployment interview certainly takes more time than
feeding the applicant questions derived from their existing application. However, the
extra time spent in the pre-screening process more than compensates for the costs
of increased liability, decreased moral and productivity from hiring one undesirable
employee.

BUILDING RAPPORT DURING AN INTERVIEW January, 2000

Interviews in the popular television show Dragnet were often preceded with the
admonition, "Just the facts ma'am." The emotional detachment displayed by Sgt.
Friday, however, is generally not conducive to eliciting meaningful information from a
subject. People are more comfortable telling the truth to someone whom they trust
and can relate to. This is precisely why an investigator should spend the first several
minutes of an interview developing a rapport with the subject. For the purposes of an
investigative interview, rapport can be defined as "a relationship marked by
conformity." If proper rapport has been established, a subject should feel comfortable
discussing the issue under investigation in a question and answer format. Questions
addressing the issue under investigation should not be asked until the subject's
behavior reflects this relationship. Some behavior symptoms that indicate rapport are
an uncrossing of the arms, a forward lean or comfortable posture in the chair, longer,
more detailed responses and head nodding in agreement with the investigator's
statements.

Identifying the purpose for the interview

Upon first meeting a subject the investigator needs to identify the issue under
investigation. While the following introduction accomplishes this goal, it may create
other problems: "Because of the prevalence of insurance fraud and the suspicious
nature of this fire I need to question you to find out if you had anything to do with
starting it." A truthful claimant would likely be offended by this very direct approach
whereas the deceptive claimant would predictably become guarded. A more tactful
way of introducing the purpose for the interview would be, "I'm really sorry about your
loss and I want to process this claim as quickly as possible. As part of that process I
must ask you some questions concerning the fire. Is this a convenient time to or
would you like to schedule a time to come in to see me?" This approach is much
more likely to set the stage to develop rapport for several reasons. First, there is no
implication of involvement on the part of the subject -- the interview is perceived as a
required formality in processing the claim. In this regard, an investigator should avoid
using the phrase "I need to ask you some routine questions" when introducing an
interview because it arouses suspicion in many subjects. Substitute phrases to
consider using include, "to clarify circumstances", " to assist in our investigation" or

244
"to help process your claim." The stated purpose for the interview should be
perceived as either beneficial to the subject (to help resolve the subject's status) or
as a required act by someone other than the investigator, e.g., "before we can close
this case the department requires us to interview anyone with possible information."

As a second point, the proper introduction offered the subject a choice of being
interviewed now or later. All innocent subjects, and the majority of guilty ones, will
agree to be interviewed at the present time (a suspect who puts off the interview
without good reason should be viewed suspiciously). The principle of offering the
subject this choice is that it diminishes the investigator's perceived control over the
subject. Rapport is difficult to establish if a subject believes that he has no choice but
to answer an investigator's questions. Psychologically, by offering this choice, the
investigator is delegating some power to the subject, which is an essential element of
rapport.

Asking introductory questions

Once the purpose for the interview has been identified, it would be the unusual
subject who would immediately feel comfortable responding to questions concerning
the investigation. Therefore, the the investigator should proceed by asking non-
threatening questions. As previously stated, the purpose in doing so is to get the
subject accustomed to the question/answer format of the interview. This will also
provide the subject an opportunity to assess the investigator's personality and
demeanor. Subjects will feel most comfortable talking to someone who appears
pleasant, organized and non-threatening. At the same time, the investigator should
make assessments of the subject. These would include the subject's normal level of
eye contact, his communication skills, intelligence and general nervous tension.
Introductory questions should appear to have some relevant purpose. For example, it
may be suggested by the investigator that he needs to establish some basic
information about the subject. From that point the following questions may be
appropriate:

"How long have you lived at this address"

"What is your marital status"
"Do you have any children"
"Where do you presently work"
"What do you do at work"

These questions are actually topical areas designed to spawn further conversation.
When appropriate, the investigator should ask sincere follow-up questions to draw
out the subject's response. Using a few of the above questions, the dialogue may go
as follows:

Q: "How long have you lived at this address?"

A: "We've been here for almost 15 years now."
Q: " This is a nice place. Did you build it?"
A: "No. I think it was about 5 years old when we bought it."

245
Q: "And you are presently married?"
A: "Yes."
Q: "What is your wife's name?"
A: "Barbara."
Q: "She's not here now?"
A: "No. She works second shift at Johnson Controls so she won't be home until about
11:00."

This conversation should continue for a minute or two until the investigator
recognizes that the subject is comfortable with the interviewing process. It is
recommended that the investigator avoids asking introductory questions which do not
appear to have any relevant bearing on the investigation. Under that circumstance
the suspect may become suspicious that the investigator is attempting to force
rapport. Examples of these questions would be, "What kind of movies do you like?"
"Who is your favorite author?" or, "Who do you like for the super-bowl this year?" The
suspect, after all, knows that the investigator wants to discuss a crime with him and it
is inappropriate to get into these unrelated areas.

THE USE OF THE ACCIDENT SCENARIO DURING AN INTERROGATION

December, 1999

Richard Ofshe, a prolific defense witness who champions the belief that police
routinely elicit false confessions, recently testified that the major criticism of the Reid
Technique is its use of the "accident scenario" during an interrogation. If investigators
look for the accident scenario within the index of any of the three editions of Criminal
Interrogation and Confessions, they will not find it. However, what Ofshe is referring
to can be found on p. 103 of the 3rd edition of that text. Ofshe states that through the
use of the accident scenario, the Reid Technique teaches investigators how to elicit a
false confession. This web tip addresses this statement as well as the appropriate
time during an interrogation to suggest a more morally acceptable motive for an
offense other than what is known or presumed.

The interrogation technique Ofshe refers to is a two-part process. If the investigator is

unable to persuade the suspect to tell the truth through the use of standard
interrogation themes, it may be suggested to the suspect that the crime was
committed accidentally or inadvertently (a gun went off accidentally during a robbery,
a fire was inadvertently started when the suspect was playing with matches). In the
case of a theft, the suggestion may be that the suspect merely intended to borrow the
money and was unable to return it. If the suspect acknowledges physical
responsibility for the crime, the investigator would then initiate the second part of the
technique which is to point out inconsistencies between the suspect's version of
events and what actually happened in an effort to learn the true circumstances
behind the act. It is clearly our position that an innocent suspect would not be more
apt to admit killing another person accidentally, for example, than on purpose. This
statement assumes, of course, that the suspect was not offered any promise of
leniency or threatened in any way. For example, it would be clearly improper to tell a
suspect, "If you were just showing your friend the new gun and you pulled the trigger,
not realizing that it was loaded, that's an accidental shooting. If that's what happened
tell me about it and you can walk out of here and sleep in your own bed tonight. On
the other hand if we leave this thing as it stands, all of the evidence indicates that you

246
killed this guy and if you sit there and say nothing all you're doing is buying more time
in jail."

Richard Ofshe has frequently stated that the accident scenario is designed to elicit a
false confession. If properly used, this statement is certainly not accurate. The
technique is not designed to, nor is it apt to cause an innocent person to falsely
accept responsibility for a crime he or she did not commit. At most, it allows a guilty
suspect to accept physical responsibility for committing his crime coupled with a false
intention behind his act. A suspect who originally stated that he was working at the
time his girlfriend was shot to death and, who through the use of this technique, now
states that he did accidentally shoot his girlfriend when he was cleaning his gun has
not offered a false confession. Rather, he has, in all probability, offered an incorrect
circumstance surrounding a factual statement that he is responsible for shooting his
girlfriend. If the investigator is unable to elicit the necessary criminal intention behind
the shooting, it will be up to a jury to make that determination. However, the
investigator's efforts to learn the truth by suggesting an accidental shooting hardly
supports the claim that the suspect's claim that he is responsible for his girlfriend's
death is false.

Suggesting a more morally acceptable motive for the suspect's offense often
provides a legal defense for the suspect should he maintain that position, which is
clearly undesirable. For this reason, this interrogation technique should be reserved
for those situations in which physical or circumstantial evidence is available to
contradict the suspect's stated motive -- it must be remembered that this is a
stepping stone approach to learning the truth and if the suspect does not walk the
entire pathway with the investigator, all that has been accomplished is that the
suspect, at most, has offered a possible admission of guilt. When physical or
circumstantial evidence pointing to the suspect's true intent is absent, this
interrogation approach should be avoided. An example would be a child molesting
case where the child reports that her Uncle touched her bare vagina. With a lack of
physical evidence supporting the child's claim, it would be inappropriate to suggests
that the suspect may have inadvertently touched his niece's vagina while wrestling
with her. In contrast, consider an embezzlement case where it is known that the
embezzler stole funds over a period of 18 months. In this case it would be
appropriate to suggest that the suspect's original intention was just to borrow the
funds and was unable to repay them.

ARRANGING A NON-CUSTODIAL INTERVIEW November, 1999

During our training seminars we advocate that if the option is available it is preferable
to conduct a non-custodial interview rather than a custodial interview. To persuade a
guilty subject to voluntarily agree to present himself at the investigator's location for
an interview requires that the interview be introduced in the proper manner. A past
case clearly illustrates an improper approach:

A business owner suffered a theft of $2000 from a deposit bag that was left in a back
office. Seven employees had access to the stolen money. The owner called a
meeting of these employees and announced that if the person who stole the money
came forward by Monday there would be no prosecution. On the other hand, if no
one came forward all employees would be subjected to lie-detector tests and when

247
the guilty person was identified, he would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Needless to say, no one came forward and confessed. When the polygraph
examinations were scheduled several of the employees refused to take the
examination, which was their legal right, and the case was never solved. Because of
a general lack of insight to human behavior, the business owner unknowingly created
a situation which almost guaranteed that the employee who stole the $2000 would
not be detected.

The following guidelines are offered to assist an investigator, or business owner, to

encourage suspects of a crime to voluntarily agree to be interviewed:

Guideline #1: Never threaten a subject with possible consequences if he is involved

in the crime, or if he does not show up for the interview. It is psychologically wrong to
remind a subject that if he cooperates with the investigation he may well be convicted
and go to prison. Most people who commit crimes are chance-takers. They will
generally accept the risk of cooperating with an investigation unless the presented
stakes are so high (threatened prosecution) that they out-weigh the risk of
cooperation. Secondly, it is legally improper to threaten the subject with possible
arrest, or some similar tangible consequence, if he fails to agree to be interviewed. A
subject who presents himself for an interview in order to avoid being arrested (or
keep his job) is hardly answering questions voluntarily.

Guideline #2: Present the interview in a positive light. To understand this guideline it
is appropriate to ask, "Why would any person guilty of a crime agree to take a
polygraph examination or agree to be interviewed by the police?" There are two basic
reasons. One is that the person is afraid that his refusal to cooperate will make his
guilt more apparent. A second reason, and one that applies to many guilty suspects,
is a need to maintain full personal control of one's destiny; this translates to the guilty
suspect's drive to "beat" the polygraph or to lie convincingly during an interview. To
feed this belief the investigator should present the interview as a means by which the
subject can be cleared from suspicion. Most certainly, during an invitation to be
interviewed a subject should not be told that there is strong evidence implicating him
in the crime. To the contrary, the intimation should be that the subject's name came
up peripherally during the investigation. In some situations an altruistic appeal may
be effective, where the subject is told that because he knows some of the people in
the investigation his insight would be very helpful. In the previously mentioned
employee theft case, a much different outcome may have resulted had the employer
stated, "I realize that it is unlikely that any of you took the money but to obtain
reimbursement from my insurance company they are asking that you all take a
polygraph examination."

Guideline #3: Imply that others also have been, or will be interviewed and avoid
discussing specific evidence against the suspect. A guilty suspect is unlikely to
appear voluntarily for an interview if he believes that he is the prime suspect and,
therefore, the only person to be interviewed on the case. Under that circumstance, in
his mind, the proposed interview is nothing more than a ruse designed to elicit a
confession. Similarly, the phrase, "We would like you to come downtown to answer
routine questions" should be avoided. If the questions were routine, they could be
asked at the present time.

248
On the other hand, by stating that others also will be or have been interviewed allows
the guilty suspect to feel comfortable cooperating with the interview procedure
because he is surrounded by other possible suspects. Avoiding any mention of
evidence pointing to the subject permits the guilty subject to believe that there is no
solid evidence against him and that the interview is a mere formality of the
investigation.

Guideline #4: Be prepared to explain why the interview must be conducted at your
location. Given a choice, most subjects would prefer to be interviewed in a familiar
surrounding such as their home or place of business. This environment, of course, is
often not conducive for the investigator. One way around this dilemma is to contact
the subject by phone to set up the interview in the investigator's office. However,
telephonic communication does not have the same persuasive effect of talking with
the suspect directly. During a face to face invitation for the interview the investigator
should have a prepared response to offer when the subject suggests that the
interview be conducted at the present time. Some excuses to consider for scheduling
the interview in the investigator's office may be that your partner needs to be present,
you do not have the case file with you, or that a departmental policy requires that
investigative interviews be conducted in your office.

The following dialogue incorporates these guidelines and is designed to obtain the
cooperation from the subject to show up at a scheduled time for a non-custodial
interview:

I: "Rick, we are looking into the incident last week where that school girl was shot by
someone in a car. During the course of our investigation, we have developed a
number of leads and people's names. Yours was one of them."
S: "Alright."
I: "What we have done is to schedule these people for interviews to eliminate them
as possible suspects. In fact, everyone who has come in for their interview so far
we've been able to eliminate. What we're hoping is that one of these people will have
seen or heard something that can help us out. Would you mind coming to our office
for an interview?"
S: "Well, I don't know. Why don't you just ask your questions now because I don't
know anything about that."
I: "When we have direct evidence pointing to a person we will interview them in their
home. But we're at an early stage of the investigation so all I'm doing today is
arranging interview times. I've got three people to schedule after you. Now you work
until 4:00 is that right?
S: Yeah.
I: "I'm wondering if you could make it by 4:30 tomorrow afternoon."
S: "How long will it take?"
I: "The other interviews have lasted less than an hour."
S: "Sure. I'll be there by 4:30."
I: "Great, we'll see you then."

As a legal consideration, it is certainly preferable for the subject to arrange his own
transportation to the investigator's office. A subject who is transported to the office by
the investigator is somewhat limited in his ability to freely leave the office area. If the
subject is transported to the office by an investigator it will be important for that

249
investigator to remind the subject that he is there voluntarily and is free to leave at
any time.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE INVESTIGATOR'S DEMEANOR ON A SUBJECT'S

BEHAVIOR October, 1999

One of the principles of behavior symptom analysis taught in the Reid Technique is
that the investigator's demeanor has a significant influence on the subject's behavior.
For example, an investigator who becomes accusatory, authoritative and demeaning
during an interview will predictably cause a subject, regardless of his innocence, to
exhibit symptoms of fear, anxiety or resentment It is precisely because of this that we
emphasize the importance of conducting an interview in a non-accusatory tone and
to assume a compassionate and understanding demeanor during an interrogation.

When an interview or interrogation boils down to a session where the suspect is

simply accused of lying and asked to re-tell his story, the ability to detect deception
through analysis of the subject's verbal and nonverbal behavior is greatly reduced.
Under this circumstance the investigator is left to evaluate information such as
inconsistencies in a subject's story or unintentional verbal slip-ups. Furthermore,
because of the subject's emotional state, the investigator has no way of knowing if
the inconsistencies in the subject's story are coming from a confused deceptive
subject or a frustrated and anxious truthful one.

In truth, we do not know what an innocent or guilty subject's behavioral responses

might be during accusatory questioning because that has never been a practice of
the Reid Technique -- our interviews are always conducted in a non-accusatory
fashion and our interrogations, while they start out with a clear statement of
involvement, quickly become a compassionate endeavor in an attempt to understand
why the suspect committed the crime. During an interview we have never accused a
suspect of lying to us. Similarly, during an interrogation we would never admonish a
subject for lying to us and make him go through his account again. Perhaps these
techniques do result in confessions and are used successfully by other investigators.
However, they do not represent techniques advocated or used by John E. Reid and
Associates and, therefore, we do not have any guidelines to offer with respect to how
a guilty or innocent subject may respond to them.

A recent laboratory study conducted by Kassin and Fong support our teachings in
this area.(1) Video-taped interviews of students who were assigned either guilty or
innocent roles in committing a mock crime were analyzed by student observers.
These interviews consisted of eliciting an initial statement from the student but then
the investigator became angry and said, "Dammit, stop lying to me! We caught you
cold. Now tell the truth." The subject was then told to restate his alibi. The average
interview lasted less than five minutes.

Half of the student observers who reviewed the video-taped interviews were
"untrained" and relied on common sense (inconsistencies in accounts, verbal slip-
ups, general nervousness) to formulate opinions of the subject's truthfulness and the
other half were "trained" in behavior analysis by watching a 30 minute video
describing some of the behavior symptoms used to evaluate a subject during a non-
accusatory interview. The study produced two predictable findings: first, neither the

250
trained nor untrained student observers were able to identify truthful or deceptive
subjects above chance levels. Second, the trained students, who relied upon
behavior symptoms elicited during a non-accusatory interview, performed statistically
poorer than the untrained students.

In conclusion, a subject's behavior during the course of an interview or interrogation

can be influenced by many factors such as the environment in which the behavior
was elicited, the subject's intelligence or age, the subject's emotional state and, of
course, the investigator's demeanor. Each of these variables need to be considered
when deciding how much weight to afford behavioral observations. To the extent
possible, the investigator should eliminate or minimize the effects of these variables.
For example, an investigator should try to conduct an interview in an environment
free from outside or internal distractions, a subject who appears angry or upset
should be calmed down before an attempt is made to elicit specific behaviors of truth
or deception. Most certainly, the investigator should not do or say anything during an
interview that would place the suspect on the defensive or cause unnecessary
anxiety or apprehension.

INTERPRETING VERBAL PHRASES September, 1999

During an interview a subject freely chooses which words or phrases to use when
responding to the investigator's question. This choice is not random or haphazard; it
is carefully selected to offer either the most accurate response possible or to avoid
the anxiety telling less than the truth would cause. Consider the following homicide
example where Bob was found stabbed to death at 7:00:

Q: "When did you last see Bob?"

R(1) "Right around 4:00 Tuesday afternoon."

R(2) "I believe it was sometime on Tuesday."
R(3) "As far as I remember it was earlier this week."
R(4) "Its been quite awhile."
R(5) "I really can't say."

From these responses alone, it is not possible to say which ones suggest deception.
Some variables that influence this assessment include how long ago the subject did,
in fact, see Bob, the subject's frequency of seeing Bob and the likelihood that the
subject would specifically remember the last time he saw Bob. What can be stated
with confidence is that each response, starting with R(1) through R(5), accepts less
and less personable responsibility.

The anxiety a subject avoids by selecting certain phrases in his response may be the
result of uncertainty, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem or the fear of having a lie
detected. To help identify possible deception, the context in which a statement is
made is a key consideration. As an example, consider the subject who is asked, "At
any time did you touch Katie's bare vagina?" and his response is, "I don't believe that
has ever happened" or, "I would have to say that I did not." Both responses reflect a
lack of certainty concerning the alleged behavior. If the subject was a grade school
teacher he has no legitimate reason to be uncertain about contact with her vaginal
area, and deception should be suspected. On the other hand, if the subject was a

251
physician who gave Katie a sport's physical the uncertainty may be understandable.

The following list of phrases and their interpretations should primarily be used to
stimulate follow-up questions during an interview, rather than as a clear indication of
deception. Some of the guidelines list as (1), the most typical interpretation and (2), a
secondary consideration. A good exercise is to monitor your own use of these
phrases. After you have used one of them, ask yourself why you chose to use it and
what another person could have asked you at that point during a conversation to
learn more about your answer. As with all behavior symptoms, it should be
remembered that there are no universal words or phrases that are always associated
with truthfulness or deception and that the context in which a phrase is used is a
critical assessment.

Phrase = Interpretation
"As far as I can
remember..."
(1) I am not 100% certain of what I am saying.
"To the best of my
knowledge..."
(2) I am blaming my poor memory for not telling you the
complete truth.
"If I recall correctly..."

"At this point in time..."

"The next thing I knew..."

(1) I am leaving something out of my account.
"Before I knew it..."
(2) This happened very quickly
"Eventually..."

"To be honest with you..."

I have not been completely honest (truthful) with you up to
this point (usually through omission).
"To tell you the truth..."

"Quite frankly..."
What I am about to tell you is only part of the truth.
"Quite honestly..."

"As crazy as it sounds..."

"Not to evade your

I want you to accept my response even though it is crazy, is
question, but..."
evasive or is not believable.
"You probably won't
believe this..."

252
"As I told the other
investigator..."

"Like I wrote in my
(1) I don't want to lie twice about this.
statement..."
(2) I am frustrated having to go through this again.
"Earlier I told you..."

"As I previously
testified..."

"I swear..."
(1)You shouldn't believe what I am about to say.
"As God is my witness..."
(2) You probably won't believe what I am about to say.
"You've got to believe
me..."

"I can't remember" (1) It is not in my best interest to remember, to tell you, or
to help you out.
"I can't tell you..."
(2) Because of some intrinsic reason (embarrassment, fear,
"I can't help you out." anger) I don't want to talk about this.

"I probably..."

"Most likely I..." It is possible that something other than what I said in my
response really happened.
"It would be typical for
me to..."

"My answer would be..." (1) I am offering an estimation and don't know for certain.

"I would have to say..." (2) If I tell you what happened I would incriminate myself.

"I feel..."
I am offering an opinion, but have no specific proof to back
"I believe..."
up my position.
"I think..."

"I know..." I am telling you something that I personally witnessed.

253
"I remember..."

"I heard..."

"I saw..."

(1) The subject has no knowledge or memory of the event.

"I don't know"
(2) The subject is being guarded and does not want to
"I don't remember"
expand on his answer.

"There's no doubt in my
mind..."
(1) The subject is accepting full responsibility for his
"I'm absolutely sure..."
response and is confident in it.
"I'm certain..."
(2) The subject is purposefully being too certain in his
response to fend off further questions.
"I'm positive..."

"Of course..."

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN ASKING AN ALTERNATIVE QUESTION

August, 1999

An investigator is asking a great deal from a guilty suspect to confess to a crime

which may potentially involve substantial punishment. For this reason, the suspect
must be allowed to make his first admission of guilt with as few words as possible
and also in a way that allows him to save face. In the Reid Nine Steps of
Interrogation, this is done by asking an alternative question.

An alternative question is one in which the suspect is offered two incriminating

choices concerning some aspect of the crime. As an example, in a theft case a
suspect may be asked the following alternative question;"Did you take that money
and blow it on drugs and booze or did you need it to help pay bills? It was to help pay
bills, wasn't it?" If the suspect nods his head in agreement with the investigator's
question, the ice has been broken to obtain a fully corroborated confession. Of
course, other than accepting the two alternative choices presented by the
investigator, every suspect has a third option which is to say that neither choice is
true.

There are a number of skills involved in presenting an alternative question during an

interrogation. These include selecting the proper question, asking the question at the
proper time, and asking it in the proper way. Of paramount importance, however, is
that the alternative question must be phrased in a legally acceptable manner. In

254
essence, a properly formulated alternative question must not offer a promise of
leniency to the suspect nor threaten the suspect with inevitable consequences. When
presenting an alternative question the following guidelines should be followed:

(1) The alternative question should not make any mention of legal charges

An alternative question that violates this guideline, and is therefore improper, is,"Did
you plan on killing her, in which case it will mean first degree murder and life in
prison, or did this just happen in the heat of passion which would just be
manslaughter?" This suspect is essentially being told that he will face reduced
charges if he confesses to manslaughter rather than first degree murder. A proper
alternative question to ask in this case is, "Did you plan on doing this since the day
you got married or did it pretty much happen on the spur of the moment because of
the fight you had?" With this latter question, no mention whatsoever of a possible
consequence is made.

(2) The alternative question should not threaten inevitable consequences

A suspect must be able to reject both sides of an alternative question without fear of
facing adverse real consequences because of that decision. During an interrogation
these negative consequences are often presented as a threat of inevitable
consequences, e.g., confess to me or suffer this negative consequence. An
improper alternative question that threatens inevitable consequences in a non-
custodial interrogation is, "Do you want to cooperate with me and confess or do you
want me to lock you in jail where you can sit for the next two or three days?" The
choice this suspect faces is to either confess or lose his freedom; he is not being
offered the choice of rejecting both sides of the alternative question without facing a
real negative consequences. A proper alternative question to consider in this case
may be, "Are you sorry this happened or don't you care?"

Another example of an improper alternative question that threatens an inevitable

consequence is, "If you don't tell me about the sexual contact you had with your
daughter your kids will be taken away and you will never see them again." One of the
guidelines governing confession admissibility is that the confession must be
essentially the product of the suspect's free will. When the impetus for confessing is
to avoid a jail cell or to be able to see one's children, the statement is clearly the
result of compulsion. A good rule to follow in this regard is to use alternative choices
that address some aspect of the crime, e.g., "Did you force your daughter to touch
your bare penis or did she do it on her own?"

(3) The alternative question should not offer a promise of leniency

255
Courts have consistently ruled that a confession obtained in conjunction with a
promise of leniency was improperly obtained. Therefore, the following alternative
question is improper: "If you've done this dozens of times before, that's one thing.
But, if this was just the first time it happened I can explain that to the prosecutor and
work out a deal for you." Not only is it psychologically improper to bring up legal
terminology during an interrogation (possible charges, the judge or prosecutor), but
the mere mention of legal issues may invite a claim of an actual or perceived promise
of leniency. A proper way to ask the previous alternative question is, "If you've done
this dozens of times before that's one thing. But if this was just the first time it
happened that would be important to establish."

In conclusion, the use of an alternative question to obtain the first admission of guilt
during an interrogation often makes the difference between a successful or
unsuccessful interrogation. However, an improperly asked alternative question may
also cause an otherwise voluntary confession to be challenged during a suppression
hearing. The choices presented to a suspect should not offer a promise of leniency in
exchange for a confession nor threaten inevitable consequences if the suspect
chooses not to confess. Furthermore, the alternative question should avoid mention
of legal consequences such as possible charges, length of sentence, or a jury's
perception of the suspect's crime.

PARALINGUISTIC COMMUNICATION July, 1999

The paralinguistic channel of communication is defined as speech characteristics

falling outside of the spoken word. Just as a subject's nonverbal behavior can
completely alter the meaning of words within a verbal response, paralinguistic
behaviors can modify the meaning behind words. Consider the following
conversation:

Joe: "Hey Mike, I've got to pick my kid up from baseball practice in a half an hour.
Would you mind staying late to write this report?"

Mike: "Oh sure. No problem."

To illustrate the significance of paralinguistic communication, read Mike's response

out-loud first in a sincere manner, where Mike does not mind writing the report at all.
Then read Mike's response in a sarcastic manner, where he expresses clear
resentment in being asked to write the report. If you are like most people, you altered
your voice inflection, as well as rate and pitch to send two different messages using
the same words. During an interview, monitoring a subject's paralinguistic behaviors
can offer great insight into the true meaning behind the words used in a response. A
number of paraliguistic clues have been identified that relate to a subject's
truthfulness or deception. The following discussion relates to only three of these.

Response Latency

Response latency is defined as the duration of time between the last word of the
investigator's question and the first word of the subject's response. Research reveals
that the average response latency for truthful subjects is .5 seconds, whereas the

256
average latency for deceptive subjects is 1.5 seconds. Especially when a subject is
asked a straight-forward question such as, "Last night did you see Jimmy at all?" a
denial that comes after a two or three second delay should be viewed as highly
suspicious.

An extended response latency is the result of the subject mentally deciding whether
to tell the whole truth, part of the truth, or a whole lie. Often a deceptive subject will
attempt to fill this period of silence by repeating the interviewer's question, e.g., "Did I
see Jimmy at all last night? No, I did not." Another common technique to stall for time
is for the subject to ask the investigator to clarify a question:

I: "Did you have sexual contact with your step-daughter?"

S: "What exactly do you mean?"

I" "At any time did you have sexual contact with your step-daughter?"

S: "Oh no. I would never do that."

An extended response latency is not always an indication of deception. Consider the

subject who is asked a hypothetical question that requires thought or a judgment. An
example is, "Who do you think may have had sexual contact with your step-
daughter?" Because this question calls for speculation, the investigator should be
suspicious of a response that is voiced too quickly, e.g., "I have no idea." On the
other hand, a subject innocent of the crime may very well take a couple of seconds
before offering the sincere response, "I have no idea."

Volume Changes

When someone is telling the truth, he wants to make certain that the investigator
understands exactly where he stands. Consequently, during an accusatory
interrogation, a truthful suspect's denial is often spoken loudly and distinctly, perhaps
with a emphasis on each word, e.g., Listen, I did not have anything to do with that
robbery! On the other hand, when these same words are spoken at a conversational
level, especially with the suspect looking down at the floor, they do not sound nearly
as convincing.

Increasing one's volume, of course, is a natural defensive response to guilt or

anxiety. Most investigators have encountered the deceptive suspect who engages in
a loud tantrum in the hope that the emotional outburst will fend off further questions.
The focus of this tirade is not centered around the suspect's non-involvement in the
crime, but rather, some threat against the investigator (law suit, letter to the editor of
the local paper, "I'll have your badge for this"). Consequently, an increase in a
suspect's volume must be considered in context with the questioning environment. A
suspect who loudly protests his innocence when being asked non-accusatory
interview questions is less credible than one who engages in the same behavior after
being accused of committing a crime.

257
A decrease in volume during the course of a response can be a very significant
behavior symptom of deception. This behavior is referred to as "losing interest in a
response." During our training seminar we show an interview of a deceptive suspect
who is asked, "How do you feel about being interviewed concerning this missing
$1000?" The words the suspect uses in her response to this question appear to be
more typical of the truthful. She answers, "Well, I certainly understand why I was
asked to go through this. It's a lot of money to come up missing and I'm willing to do
whatever it takes to get to the bottom of this." However, when listening to her
response, it is very evident that the last thing she wants is, "to do whatever it takes to
get to the bottom of this." During that portion of her response her volume drops
significantly to the point that the last portion of her response is barely audible. The
suspect had lost interest in her response -- she said the right words, but there was no
conviction or sincerity behind them.

Rate Changes

When a subject offers a spontaneous response, it should be free-flowing and the rate
of speaking should be maintained. When the account concerns an emotional event,
such as being the victim of a sexual assault or armed robbery, the truthful victim's
rate of speaking will increase, as true emotions are recalled.

Conversely, a decrease in rate often indicates that the subject is editing information
from the account, or fabricating information within the account. Both of these mental
activities (editing and fabrication) require time and to buy time, the subject slows
down his response rate. A caveat to this statement is the traumatized victim. A victim
interviewed shortly after an emotional event may exhibit a decreased rate when
speaking simply because he is presently dealing with the emotions of the event.
However, after a victim has been given a reasonable period of time to adjust to the
event, a decrease in response rate when relating the incident to an investigator
should warrant suspicion as to its truthfulness or completeness.

As with all of our investigator tips that address the interpretation of a subject's
behavior, the investigator must consider internal and external factors which influence
a person's behavior before attaching significance to a particular behavior symptom.

NOTE TAKING DURING AN INTERVIEW June, 1999

When participants see video-taped interviews at our seminars, it is obvious that our
interviewers take a written note following each response offered by a subject. The
Reid Technique advocates active note taking during a structured interview for three
reasons.

First, taking a written note following each response slows down the pace of
questioning. It is much easier to lie to a series of questions asked in quick succession
than the same questions asked five or seven seconds apart. The reason for this is
that when questions are asked rapidly, the deceptive subject does not have time to
internally respond to his lie; that is, once a lie is told, rather than having time to
experience a fear that the lie may be detected, the suspect's attention is immediately
directed to the investigator's next question. When questions are not separated by a

258
period of silence, the accompanying behavior symptoms of deception are greatly
reduced.

Innocent subjects are comfortable with the silence note taking creates. They realize
that the investigator is writing out their answer and they simply wait for the next
question to be asked. Deceptive subjects, on the other hand, are uncomfortable with
this period of silence. Because their original response to the question was less than
truthful, they may modify or qualify it during the time in which the investigator takes a
written note. This behavior, in and of itself, can be a good indication of deception.

Second, taking written notes helps the investigator focus on key aspects of the
subject's behavior during a response. In this regard, the notes following a response
should not be a verbatim record of the subject's answer. Rather, the essence of the
response should be documented, along with any significant behavior symptoms. This
is illustrated below, where the entire question and answer is first reproduced,
followed by the investigator's written notes:

I: "How do you feel about being interviewed concerning this allegation against you?"

S: "Well, it makes me scared, you know. I don't understand why everyone, well not
everyone, but the people at the agency, why they think that I would do this to my step
daughter." (Shift in the chair)

Attitude: It makes me scared. I don't understand why people at the agency would
think I'd do this to my step daughter. SIC

Notice that the investigator's question is underlined. It makes little sense to only
document the subject's responses during an interview -- the investigator's questions
must also be documented. In this example, a standard abbreviation for the question
is used. The SIC following the essence of the subject's response indicates a shift in
the chair. At the conclusion of this article are other suggested abbreviations to
document nonverbal behaviors.

Finally, by taking written notes during an interview, an investigator can review an

interview days or weeks after it was conducted and reconstruct the subject's
significant verbal and nonverbal responses during the interview. This is especially
beneficial when a number of possible suspects have been interviewed on the same
case in that the investigator can make intra-suspect comparisons to help identify who
can, or can not, be eliminated as a suspect.

As a caveat to this entire discussion it is important to emphasize that if written notes

are taken during an interview, they need to be taken following every response.

259
 Conversely, if sporadic notes are taken following only selected responses, this will
have the effect of causing the subject to be guarded and hesitant in offering further
information. Sporadic note taking alerts the subject as to the apparent importance of
a particular response and results in less meaningful information.

Possible Note Taking Abbreviations for Nonverbal Behavior

=> Break of gaze to the right

CT Clear throat
DB Deep breath or sigh
... Delayed response
DII Direct eye to eye contact
e Early response
Grm Grooming behavior
Ill Illustrators
! Loud or emphasized
Lgh Laugh (erasure)
SIC Shift in chair

EVALUATING A SUBJECT'S POSTURE DURING AN INTERVIEW May, 1999

The foundation of a subject's nonverbal communication is his posture. How a

person's body is positioned in a chair often dictates arm and leg movements and, in
some cases, even eye contact. Three inferences can be drawn from a subject's
posture: the person's level of interest, their emotional involvement and their level of
confidence.

A SUBJECT'S POSTURE REFLECTS INTERNAL THOUGHTS

260
Dynamic vs. Static

An important assessment of a subject's posture is the extent of change within the

posture over the period of a 30 or 40 minute interview. For a number of reasons, a
truthful subject will exhibit a variety of different postures throughout the course of an
interview. These postures will be appropriate given the content of conversation during
the interview.

A deceptive subject, on the other hand, may assume an initial posture and never
significantly deviate from that posture. It is theorized that the deceptive subject is
exerting so much thought and energy to generate verbal responses to the
interviewer's question, that nonverbal communication becomes frozen. A static
posture clearly reflects a lack of confidence within the subject.

A forward vs. retracted posture

When a subject leans forward in the chair during a response, he is nonverbally

reinforcing the verbal content of his response. This is frequently seen in truthful
subjects during early portions of the interview, when key questions are asked. As the
interview progresses, the truthful subject will assume a more relaxed and comfortable
posture in the chair. Some deceptive subjects will lean forward in the chair
throughout the entire interview. This is a challenging behavior, similar to the
deceptive subject who stares at the investigator throughout the interview.

A retracted posture describes one in which the subject's feet or hands are restricted
in some manner. This is most typical of the deceptive subject. The subject's feet may
be pulled up under the chair, or tucked behind the front legs of the chair. In unusual
cases, a subject may actually tuck a foot under his thigh, so as to partially sit on his
foot. As can be visualized, when the subject's feet are retracted in this manner, it
prevents the body from leaning forward to reinforce the strength of a verbal
response. With respect to hands, the deceptive subject may sit on his hands or keep
his hands wedged between the knees. This posture effectively prevents the hands
from becoming involved during conversation to reinforce a verbal response.

261
Frontal alignment

A truthful subject exhibits high levels of interest and emotional involvement during an
interview. To fully communicate with the interviewer he will align his body with that of
the interviewer. The subject's entire body, the head, shoulders and hips, are all
directly facing the interviewer. On the other hand, a deceptive subject may turn his
legs and hips away from the interviewer. This posture reflects a lack of interest or
emotional detachment.

…………… Non-frontal alignment

Evaluation of Barriers

Within a posture, barriers represent crossed arms or legs. While crossed arms can
be a comfortable posture while standing and talking to a friend, considering the high
level of motivation associated with an investigative interview, it is inappropriate for a
truthful subject to cross his arms. This behavior reflects either a challenge (generally
feigned anger) or a protective gesture reflecting lack of confidence. In addition, of
course, when the arms are crossed the subject's hands are restricted from movement
which is also more typical of the deceptive subject.

Crossing of the legs is common in both truthful and deceptive postures. While
seated, especially for an extended period of time, it is comfortable to occasionally
cross, or re-cross the legs. However, there are some significant differences between
the leg crossing behaviors of truthful and deceptive subjects. At the outset of an
interview, when anxiety levels are highest and key questions are being asked, most
truthful subjects will have their feet flat on the floor. As the interview progresses, and
the subject realizes that the investigator is not accusatory in his questioning, it is
common for the truthful subject to assume a more relaxed posture, including crossed
legs. On the other hand, a subject who starts out the interview with crossed legs is
more typical of the deceptive. This is a defensive posture, as though the subject
wants to remain emotionally distant from the investigator.

A truthful subject's leg cross appears comfortable and relaxed. Whether it is an ankle-
knee cross or knee-knee cross, the subject's muscles are non-contracted and loose.

262
On the other hand, the deceptive subject's leg cross is often tight and restricted,
where muscles are contracted. A good example of this is the leg cross in which the
subject actually grabs the ankle to bring it up higher on the thigh.

.....Truthful relaxed posture posture

barriers

Changes in Posture

As previously mentioned, a truthful subject will display a number of different postures

during the course of an interview. The timing of these posture changes will be natural.
Conversely, it is highly indicative of deception when posture changes occur on cue to
a question, such as the crossing or re-crossing of the legs, or a shift in the chair
where a subject often uses his hands to momentarily lift or move his body within the
chair. The investigator should look for these shifts during two significant time frames.
The first is just before the subject answers a question:

Q: "Did you leave your house at all that night?"

S: (Shift in chair) "No, I really had nowhere to go so I stayed home."

The second significant timing is during the subject's verbal response:

Q: "Were you experiencing any financial difficulties last month?"

S: "Nothing out of the ordinary. (Shift in chair) That I can recall."

In conclusion, a subject's posture can offer meaningful information during an

interview. As with all of the behavioral assessments that we teach at our course,
there are factors other than truth or deception that may influence a subject's behavior
and must be considered.

TAKING A STATEMENT FROM A VICTIM OR COMPLAINANT April, 1999

Many investigations begin with an interview of a victim or complainant. The success

of the investigation, and subsequent prosecution of a suspect, will often depend on
the accuracy and credibility of the victim's original statement. A victim's statement that

263
contains inaccurate or misleading information may significantly decrease the
likelihood of detecting the perpetrator's deception during an interview. The
perpetrator, knowing precisely what was done during the crime, immediately
recognizes the investigator's flawed questions and can appear quite truthful in his
responses. In this regard, the statement, whether written out by the victim or the
investigator, should only be reduced to writing after a thorough interview is
conducted. A statement that is written contemporaneously while questioning a victim
or complainant will invariably be less complete, and often even less accurate than
one written after a properly conducted, in-depth interview.

The statement should confine itself to reported facts. Especially when an

account is fabricated or contains omission, a victim will use vague words to describe
the offense. The statement, "Mr. Johnson has sexually harassed me for many months
and has created a hostile work environment by making unwanted sexual advances
toward me," offers no substance whatsoever. The employee is merely expressing a
series of opinions which may, or may not be based on fact. Similarly, phrases such as
"molested", "assaulted" or, "tortured" are fairly meaningless in a victim's statement
because they describe a wide range of possible activities. Rather, the statement
should be limited to specific behaviors; in other words, what was verbally said or
physically done. If emotional states are an important element of the offense, e.g.,
fear, humiliation, shame, etc., the investigator should attempt to incorporate, within
the statement, behavioral elements to support the emotional state (avoidance of a
particular person, not answering the telephone, seeking psychological counselling).

The statement should not be unnecessarily detailed. A defense attorney will look
for information to impeach a victim's credibility on the witness stand. This effort will
start with the victim's original statement. Because of the intense emotional states
associated with many offenses against a person, actual victims often (unknowingly)
exaggerate elements of it. Common areas of exaggeration are the length of time
spent with the assailant, the size of a weapon, or the physical closeness between the
victim and assailant. These types of details are often unnecessary to support the
elements of the offense but, if included in a statement, do open doors for later cross
examination, e.g., "You initially told the police that the man who raped you was 6' 4".
My client is only 6' feet tall!" During an interview with a victim it is wise to ask
questions that check for perceptual distortions. For example, if the assailant stood
against a particular wall, the witness could be asked to identify a spot on the wall that
marked the top of his head. To elicit the length of a knife blade, the investigator could
hold a pen at different lengths to better allow the witness to compare the length of the
pen to that of the knife blade. Unless the victim or complainant is able to confidently
substantiate such details within a statement, it may be prudent to qualify the written
statement. Examples of qualifying language include, "the knife used was
approximately 6 inches long" or, "the man said, cooperate with me or your kids will
die, or words to that effect."

The victim's statement should reflect his or her own language. Imagine the
embarrassment for the prosecution when the defense attorney asks the victim to
define a word contained within his or her statement and the victim is unable to do so,
or defines it improperly. Especially when dealing with younger victims or individuals
with little education, the language of their statement should reflect their age, level of
education, and cultural background. In sex cases it is often beneficial to establish, at

264
the outset of the interview, the victim's own terminology for sexual behavior. It is
important that the investigator clarify with the victim the meaning of any specific
terminology used. We learned this lesson from years of conducting paternity
polygraph examinations where the central issue concerns the term "sexual
intercourse". An amazing number of women offered a faulty definition of sexual
intercourse. To some, sexual intercourse involved any physical contact with a man's
penis; others believed that sexual intercourse did not occur if the man wore a
condom.

The victim or complainant should validate the statement as accurate. After the
statement has been reduced to writing, the victim or complainant should be asked to
write the following sentence: "Everything in this statement is true and accurate." The
primary purpose for this is to create an incentive and opportunity for the victim or
complainant to review the statement one more time to make any necessary changes
before accepting full responsibility for its validity. Not uncommonly, a person who has
fabricated or exaggerated elements of a claim will modify portions of their statement
before validating its authenticity. The inclusion of such a statement may also be
beneficial in later prosecuting or disciplining a victim or complainant if the alleged
incident turns out to be false.

THE IMPORTANCE OF PURSUING COMMUNICATION WITH OTHERS WHEN

MENTIONED DURING AN INTERVIEW March, 1999

Frequently, when an investigator asks a subject to recount the events of a particular

date, the subject will include a telephone call, personal conversation or letter
received. These communications can be gold mines of information in resolving an
investigation. As such, they should always be pursued during an interview.
Communications brought up by the subject during an interview provide:

1. A possible witness to verify the subject's alibi

2. A possible accomplice

3. A possible motive for committing the crime

4. Possible indications of deception, when no such communication really took place.

Perhaps because acknowledgment of a communication does not appear

incriminating, we find that deceptive subjects will often include reference to
communications within their accounts. For example, in a case involving a tavern that
was burned down to collect insurance money, we asked the suspect to relate
everything he did during a six hour time period which incorporated the time in which
the fire was set. In his response he mentioned receiving a telephone call
approximately three hours before the fire started. Following up on this telephone
conversation revealed that it was from the owner of the tavern that was burned.
While it was known that the two were friends, the close proximity between the call
and the fire was suspicious. Later during the interview the subject was asked about
his reaction to being a suspect in the investigation. His response included another
telephone conversation with the tavern owner that occurred shortly after the owner
was questioned by the police. When asked about that conversation, the subject said

265
that the owner asked him, "We didn't do it did we? to which the subject responded,
"Remember, I didn't even see you that night." By the end of the investigation, the
subject confessed that the owner promised him a portion of the insurance money if
he started the fire, which he acknowledged doing.

When a subject's response includes communication with others, whether it be

telephonic, personal, an electronic message, or written communication, a door has
been opened for further insight to the subject's possible guilt, or innocence in the
crime. Too often, however, an investigator will simply note that the communication
took place and perhaps the time of the communication but not pursue its contents. At
a minimum, the subject should be asked who the communication was with, and what
was said. In a recent consultation involving a possibly fabricated crime, the husband,
who discovered the crime, called his wife before reporting it to the police.
Unfortunately, the investigator did not pursue this conversation. Obvious interview
questions would have been, "What did you tell your wife?"; "What was her reaction?"
"How long did the conversation last" and, "Why did you call your wife before the
police?".

As a final example of the importance of pursuing conversations, consider the

common situation in which an individual, who becomes a suspect, is close to the
crime ( a victim, the person who reported the crime, an individual who was initially
questioned at the scene). When that person returns home he has a choice of either
sharing his experience with family members and friends or keeping it a secret. When
this subject is subsequently interviewed, the investigator should ask, "Who did you
tell about (incident)?" Considering that it is human nature to share emotional events
with loved ones, it is very suspicious if the subject states that he told no one about
the incident. It is rare for us to interview an innocent person who has not shared the
crime experience with a loved one. Keeping the crime a secret is much more often
observed from the guilty subject, usually accompanied by some excuse, "I didn't want
to upset my wife", "My parents are real busy and I didn't want to bother them with
this", "I figured this is my problem and I should handle it on my own."

Sometimes, however, a guilty subject, out of necessity, will tell loved ones about his
predicament. When the subject acknowledges telling a loved one about the crime,
that conversation should be pursued: "When you told (loved one) about this, what
was his/her reaction?" or another similar question to draw out the content of the
conversation. We have found that innocent suspects speak in depth and openly to
loved ones about the investigation and that it is obvious from their conversations that
they freely discussed the issue and impact it could have on their life. The deceptive
subject, on the other hand, is much more likely to describe the conversations in a
shallow, unconcerned matter. For example, "When you told your wife about this sex
abuse allegation, what was her reaction?". "Not much, really. She was curious about
what was said and everything. But we really haven't discussed it that much."

EVALUATING HAND BEHAVIOR DURING AN INTERVIEW February, 1999

Nonverbal communication often provides information about the sincerity or

truthfulness of a person's verbal statement. In this context, hand activity is important
for an investigator to evaluate during a subject's response to an interview question.

266
To introduce this topic it may be useful to identify common examples illustrating how
closely linked hand behaviors are to a person's emotions, intentions and thoughts.
The hand shake is a customary nonverbal behavior to express non-threatening
intentions (originally a sign that neither party were holding weapons). The hand
salute expresses respect or recognition, the index finger held to the lips universally
signifies silence whereas when it points outward toward another person the message
reflects a challenge or defiance.

Hand behaviors have been used for decades to assist in identifying law breakers.
People in loss prevention are correctly taught that potential shoplifters often keep
their hands in their coat or pants pocket while walking around in the store. Hiding of
the hands in this manner is often an indication of guilt or uncertainty. Similarly,
surveillance video of a robbery will often show the robber entering the store and
lingering for a while with his hands in his pockets. Long before police had radar to
detect speeders, police would watch the passing motorist's reaction once their police
car was spotted. Drivers who knew they were speeding would bring their hand in
contact with their facial area, perhaps to rub their nose, scratch their brow or
straighten their hair.

During a response to an interview question a subject's hands can do one of three

things. The hands can remain uninvolved and remain in the subject's lap or perhaps
resting on a table top. The hands may move away from the body, in which case it is
called "illustrating", or the hands can come in contact with the body, which is termed
adaptor behavior. As a general guideline, illustrator behavior is associated with
truthfulness whereas adaptor behavior is more closely associated with deception.

When a subject is expressing strong and sincere emotions it is expected that his
hands will become involved in communicating that message. Similarly, when a
subject relates physical activity in his account, (that actually occurred) it is common
for his hands to recreate that described activity. During our training seminars we
show the video taped interview of a suspect who told the police that two men robbed
him of a $8600 deposit. Throughout his entire emotional description of the robbery,
including a physical encounter with one of the robbers, his hands remain passively in
his lap. He later confessed to making up the whole story to cover his own theft.

Adaptor behavior indicates that a person is uncomfortable with the topic under
discussion, or perhaps with his answer. These behaviors, in and of themselves, tell
the investigator very little unless they are considered in context with the subject's
response to a question. Consider two subjects who both engaged in the following
adaptor behaviors during their response to an interview question: They rubbed their
neck, dusted their pants and pulled up a sock. Following, are the questions and the
subject's response:

Q(1) "Have you ever been questioned before about stealing a car?"

R(1) "Yea, when I was 16 years old a so-called buddy of mine grabbed a car that was
left running in a parking lot. He picked me up and we took it for a joy ride. After about
30 minutes the police stopped us and I got a 2 year suspension for that."

267
Q(2) "Once we complete our entire investigation how do you think it will come out on
you?"

R(2) "Well, I hope it comes out all right because, like I told you before, I'm innocent of
this thing."

When adaptor behavior is considered in context with the subject's response, it is

apparent that the first subject is probably telling the truth in his response. The adaptor
behavior occurred because it is an uncomfortable topic for the suspect to discuss. On
the other hand, the adaptor behavior occurring during the second suspect's response
is not consistent with his verbal response. The correct interpretation is that the
subject may not be very confident that the investigation will exonerate him.

Importance of Privacy During an Interview January, 1999

We have all had the experience where a person tells us something in private that he
never would have told us in a public setting. It is well accepted that it is easier to talk
about sensitive matters with only a single person present. Yet, how many times are
victims interviewed in the presence of a family member, or a witness is asked
questions in front of other possible witnesses? Frequently, suspects are questioned
with two or more investigators in the room. Each of these situations violates the
person's privacy and will result in less truthful information being learned.

The lesson is clear. If we want someone to be open and candid with us, we must
create an environment which affords that person privacy. Too often we assume that
privacy is not an important issue. Consider an employee who confidentially reports to
a supervisor that two co-workers are using marijuana during lunch break. The
supervisor may wrongly assume that because the employee initially came forward
with the information that he or she will be willing to repeat it in the presence of the
people being accused. Retractions of allegations under this circumstance generally
are not the result of a fabricated charge, but rather the psychological difficulty of
having to repeat allegations in front of the person accused. In the above scenario, the
supervisor should have taken a detailed statement from the employee (dates, times,
other witnesses, etc.) and requested that the named co-workers come in for separate
private interviews.

Whenever feasible, an investigator should arrange to elicit information in a private

environment. This is especially important when questioning witnesses or a victim.
Frequently, these individuals will have discussed the event with others before being
interviewed. If those individuals are present during an interview of the witness or
victim, the information developed will be perfectly consistent with what was
previously reported to friends or family members. However, if the witness or victim is
interviewed in private, much more accurate information is learned. At a crime scene
this may mean separating a witness from friends or family members, taking a solitary
walk with a victim, or talking to a suspect in the back seat of a squad car. Whatever
the environment, the investigator should create a sense of privacy.

268
The ideal interview environment, of course, is one conducted at the investigator's
place of business in a room designed specifically for that purpose. Such a room
should have two chairs facing each other, perhaps 4 feet apart, without any physical
barrier such as a desk or coffee table between them. The environment itself should
afford privacy. That is, the door should be closed and recording or monitoring devices
should not be conspicuously displayed. If a third person must be present in the room,
e.g., a witness, this individual should be seated in a remote corner of the room, out of
the subject's sight, and remain totally silent and uninvolved during the course of the
interview.

Distinguishing Between Admissions and Confessions December, 1998

An admission represents a statement that tends toward proving guilt. On the other
hand, a confession is a fully corroborated statement during which the suspect
accepts personal responsibility for committing a crime. This distinction is important for
legal and procedural reasons. For example, a theft suspect who agrees to reimburse
the victim for the $1000 stolen has offered an admission, not a confession. While a
willingness to pay back an amount of money stolen is very typical of the guilty
suspect, we have had at least one occurrence of a verified innocent person who
agreed to do this also. The principle to keep in mind is that an admission does not
accept personal responsibility for committing the crime.

In a second example, a suspect who was questioned concerned the death of his
infant child acknowledged picking the child up in a manner that was somewhat
consistent with the probable cause of death. However, the father maintained that
when he put the child back down the child was alive and not in distress. Based
primarily on this admission, the father was charged with homicide. During the trial,
when the prosecutor was unable to present any further evidence of the father's guilt,
a motion was granted to dismiss the charge.

Many interrogations result in admissions, rather than a confession. A homicide

suspect who states, "I'm sorry about what I did" has offered an admission; the child
molester who states, "If I did touch her bare vagina, it would have been for just a few
seconds" has similarly offered merely an admission. So too has the suspect who,
after hours of interrogation, acknowledges for the first time that he was present
during a drive-by shooting. Under these circumstances the investigator needs to
pursue the issue further during the interrogation in an attempt to see if the suspect
will accept personal responsibility for committing the crime.

There are suspects, of course, who refuse to go beyond the admission stage --
regardless of the investigator's efforts, the suspect simply will not accept personal
responsibility for committing the crime. Under that circumstance the investigator must
consider the possibility that the suspect may be innocent of the crime and pursue
other investigative techniques to resolve the suspect's status. In the case of the
earlier mentioned suspect who agreed to pay back stolen money, but did not admit
stealing it, we decided to interview the only other suspect on the case. The second
suspect displayed deceptive behavior symptoms and was interrogated. The
subsequent interrogation resulted in a full acknowledgment of the theft including
corroborative details of how the money was spent.

269
Many suspects who make admissions during an interview or interrogation (admitting
that proper procedures were not followed, lying about an alibi, or acknowledging the
possibility that they may have committed the crime) are, in fact, guilty of the crime
under investigation. However, to use such an admission as grounds for dismissal or
as the linchpin of a prosecution may result in a wrongful discharge suit or an
unsuccessful prosecution.

270