WK3 DISCUSSION INTERVIEW OR INTERROGATION?

Hffiffimffirffiffiffiffififfiffiffi ffiffi#

ffiffiffiffmffiffifimffiTffi

Michael Matthews -Police lmages/Alamy Stock Photo

After reading this chapter you will be able to:

. Define interrogation and explain

how it differs from an interview.

. Discuss the controversy associated with interrogation methods.

o ldentify the prerequisites of a prod uctive i nterrogation.

. Compare and contrast the Reid

Technique of interrogations with the PEACE model.

Discuss how the use of deception by investigators

in interrogatrons can be

problematic and how it can be

useful.

Explain why suspects confess.

Explain why suspects falsely confess and discuss what can be done to prevent false

confessions.

****#@g$ffi**fr mms ffi fu#w* ffi fr cm$e's

mm$#, w#xm ffi#ww# m* ffi$m*$m's

ffi#ffis#.

TANGE: Phil, what do you think? May-

be we can just recount last night . . .

VANNATTER: Yeah. When WaS the last time you saw Nicole?

SIMPSON: We were leaving a

dance recital. She took off and I

was talking to her parents.

VANNATTER: Where WaS the dance

recital?

Discuss the general theory

underlying the detection of deception and ldentify the nonverbal and verbal behaviors

that tend to indicate deception.

Discuss the methods of conducting a polygraph

examination and explain the value of the results.

be the perpetrator (e.g., blood drops found at the crime scene indicated that the perpetrator was bleeding, blood was found on Simpson's Bronco and at his house, and a bloody glove found at the crime scene matched one found on Simpson's property). Detectives Lange

and Vannatter spent thirty-two minutes questioning

simpson about his possible role in the double homicide. This transcript provides a good example of what was, by most accounts, a poorly conducted interrogation and is illustrative for this purpose. The transcript presented here has been edited for length. It begins;

after Simpson has been read his wliranda warnings and

agrees to waive them. The asterisks indicate a break in the sequencing of questions.

ffi ##ff# *ffi #rn#ffifi#ffi #flffiH $ffi ffiffi

The following are excerpts from the interrogation of O. J. Simpson by Los Angeles Police Department detectives Tom Lange and Philip Vannatter during the early afternoon of June 13, 1994, approximately fourteen hours after Simpson's ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, were murdered outside her home in Brentwood, Los Angeles (see Chapter 5).This is the only time detectives were able to ask questions of Simpson. Never was this interrogation brought up during the trial.

Recall from Chapter 5 that as a result of the initial investigation and at the time this interrogation was conducted, there was reason to believe Simpson might

F dffi ilH ffi' f tE

VANNATTER: Okay. All right, what we're gonna do is, we want to . . . we're investigating, obviously, the death of your ex-wife and another man.

*****ffiwm,m*#wmw mffimm* S$mpw*m

mm# ffi&s rm$m*$wrewffi&p w#*ffi

ffi$ew$m ffirmwm S*rmpwffiffiu &fue&r

#*wmrwm; mrc# &$em#r m*&wmxffi*s m&

trw#ffitr8ffi$ff$m*mmm.

*****Questions about a previous domestic violence incident between Simpson and Nicole.

SIMPSON: Paul Revere High School.

VANNATTER: ANd WAS thAt fOr ONE

of your children?

SIMPSON: Yeah, for my daughter Sydney.

VANNATTER: And what time WaS

that yesterday?

SIMPSON: lt ended about six-thirty, quarter to seven, something like

that, you know in the ballpark, right in that area. And they took off.

18il

VANNATTER: They?

SIMPSON; Her and her family, her mother and father, sisters, my kids,

you know.

VANNATTER: And then you went your own separate way?

SIMPSON: Yeah, actually she left, and then they came back and her mother got in a car with hef and the kids all plled into her sister's car, and they . . .

VANNATTER: Was Nicole driving?

SIMPSON: Yeah.

VANNATTER: What Kind of car WaS

she driving?

SIMPSON: Her black car, a Chero- kee, a Jeep Cherokee.

VANNATTER:What were you driving?

SIMPSON: My Rolls-Royce, my Bentley.

VANNATTER: Do you own that Ford

Bronco that sits outslde?

SIMPSON: Hertz owns it, and Hertz

lets me use it.

VANNATTER: So that's your vehi-

cle, the one that was parked there on the street?

SIMPSON: Mmm hmm.

VANNATTER: And it,s actually owned by Hertz?

SIMPSON: Hertz, yeah.

VANNATTER: Who's the primary

driver on that? You?

SIMPSON: I drive it, the house- keeper drives it, you know it's kind

of a...

VANNATTER: All-purpose type ve-

hicle?

SIMPSON: All purpose, yeah. lt's the only one that my insurance will allow me to let anyone else drive.

VANNATTER: Okay.

LANGE: When you drive it, where do you park it at home? Where

it is now it was in the street or something?

SIMPSON: I always park in the

street.

LANGE: You never take it in the . . . ?

SIMPSON: Oh, rarely. I mean, l'll bring it in and switch the stuft you

know and stuff like that. I did that yesterday, you know.

LANGE: When did you last drive it?

SIMPSON: Yesterday.

VANNATTER: What time yesterd ay?

SIMPSON: ln the morning, in the afternoon.

VANNATTER: Okay, you left hen you're saying, about six-thirty or seven, or she left the recital?

SIMPSON: Yeah.

VANNATTER: And you spoke with her parents?

SIMPSON: Yeah.

VANNATTER: Okay, what time did you leave the recital?

SIMPSON: Right about that time. We were all leaving. We were all

Ieaving then. Her mother said

something about me joining them for dinneL and I said no thanks.

VANNATTER: Where did you go

from there, O. J.?

SIMPSON: Ah, home, home for a

while, got my car for a while, tried to find my girlfriend for a while, came back to the house.

VANNATTER: Who WaS home when you got home?

SIMPSON: Kato.

VANNATTER: Kato? Anybody else? Was your daughter there, Arnelle?

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

SIMPSON: Arnelle, yeah.

VANNATTER: So what time do you

think you got back home, actually physically got home?

SIMPSON : Seven-something.

VAN NATTER: Seven-somethi ng? And

then you left, and . . .

SIMPSON: Yeah, l'm trying to think, did I leave? you know t'm always . . . I had to run and get my daughter some flowers. I was ac- tually doing the recital, so I rushed and got her some flowers, and I

came home, and then I called pau-

la as I was going to her house, and Paula wasn't home.

VANNATTER: Paula is your girlfriend?

SIMPSON: Girlfriend, yeah.

***Bk*&www*$mmg mkmwt trmg^*&m-

eh# mpe$$frmrffi ffi# &xmr $xffix,ffie- mrs#

ffiwr m##ress.

*****&rumst$mffHm mfumw* w*?y $xe

w&s $ffiffiffiffisw# *m ffiw $m mtu#ffiffiffiffi

etuffi* wmwrm$mg {*m ffi&ffiy *sr ffi

*ffimrfr&y ffiw$S *mwrmmmwsx*3.

VANNAITER: Oh, okay. What time did you leave last night, leave the house?

SIMPSON: To go to the airport?

VANNATTER: Mmm hmm.

SIMPSON: About . . . the limo was supposed to be there at ten for-

ty-five. Normally, they get there a

little earlier. I was rushing around,

somewhere between there and

eleven.

VANNATTER: So approximately ten forty-five to eleven.

SIMPSON: Eleven o'clock, yeah,

somewhere in that area.

VANNATTER: And you went by

limo?

SIMPSON: Yeah.

VANNATTER: Who,s the |imo

service?

f;hapter 7 ,$ lnterrogations and Confessions

SIMPSON: Ah, you have to ask my office.

VANNATTER: Did you converse with the driver at all? Did you talk to himZ

SIMPSON: No, he was a new driv- er. Normally, I have a regular driver I drive with and converse. No, just about rushing to the airport, about how I live my life on airplanes, and

hotels, that type of thing.

*****ms$#s*#ffimm mffimru* ffiHg S#$ffiffi*

*# ffiffif;#&ffiffi.

LANGE: So yesterday you did drive the white Bronco?

SIMPSON: Mmm hmm.

LANGE: And where did you park it when you brought it home?

SIMPSON: Ah, the first time prob-

ably by the mailbox. l'm trying to think, or did I bring it in the drive- way? Normally, I will park it by the mailbox,sometimes...

LANGE: On Ashford, or Ashland?

SIMPSON: On Ashford, yeah.

LANGE: Where did you park yes-

terday for the last time, do you

remember?

SIMPSON: Right where it is.

LANGE: Where is it now?

SIMPSON: Yeah.

LANGE: Where, on . . .?

SIMPSON: Right on the street there.

LANGE: On Ashford?

SIMPSON: No, on Rockingham.

LANGE: You parked it there?

SIMPSON: YES.

LANGE: About what time was that?

SIMPSON: Eight-something, sev-

en...eight, nine o'clock, ldon't know right in that area.

LANGE: Did you take it to the recital?

SIMPSON: No.

LANGE: What time was the recital?

SIMPSON: Over at about six-thirty. Like I said, I came home, I got my car,l was going to see my girlfriend. I was calling her; and she wasn't around.

LANGE: So you drove the . . .you came home in the Rolls and then you got in the Bronco?

SIMPSON: ln the Bronco , cause

my phone was in the Bronco. And

because it's a Bronco. lt's a Bron- co, it's what I drive, you know. l'd rather drive it than any other car.

And, you know as I was going

over there, I called her a couple of times, and she wasn't there, and I

left a message, and then I checked my messages, and there were no

new messages. She wasn't there,

and she may have to leave town. Then I came back and ended up sit- ting with Kato.

LANGE: Okay. What time was this again that you parked the Bronco?

SIMPSON: Eight-something, may-

be. He hadn't done a Jacuzzi, we had . . . went and got a burgel and

l'd come home and kind of leisurely got ready to go. I mean, we'd done

a few things . . .

LANGE: You weren't in a hurry when you came back with the Bronco?

SIMPSON: No,

LANGE: The reason I ask you, the car was parked kind of at a funny angle, stuck out in the street.

SIMPSON: Well, it's parked be-

cause . . . I don't know if it's a funny angle or what. lt's parked because

when I was hustling at the end of the day to get all my stuff, and I was getting my phone and everything

1ffi1

off it, when I just pulled it out of the gate there, it's like, it's a tight turn.

LANGE: So you had it inside the compound, then?

SIMPSON: YEAh.

LANGE: Oh, okay.

SIMPSON: I brought it inside the compound to get my stuff out of it, and then I put it out, and l'd run

back inside the gate before the gate closes.

****ffiffiwm*fimmw mffimm* *PBffi &ffiffiffi-

pffimmm rxwmffimr #mr ffi- #,*s #ffifimw.

VANNATTER: How did you get the injury on your hand?

SIMPSON: I don't know. The first time, when I was in Chicago and all,

but at the house I was just running around.

VANNATTER: How did you do it in Chicago?

SIMPSON: I broke a glass. One of you guys had just called me, and I

was in the bathroom, and I just kind

of went bonkers for a little bit.

LANGE: Is that how you cut it?

SIMPSON: Mmm, it was cut before,

but I think ljust opened it again. I'm

not sure.

LANGE: Do you recall bleeding at all in your truck, in the Bronco?

SIMPSON: I recall bleeding at my

house, and then I went to the Bron-

co. The last thing I did before I left,

when I was rushing, was went and got my phone out of the Bronco.

LANGE: Mmm hmm. Where's the phone now?

SIMPSON: ln my bag.

LANGE: You have it?

SIMPSON: ln that black bag.

LANGE: You brought a bag with you

here?

d f.1 /Fa

tffic

SIMPSON: Yeah, it's . . ,

LANGE: So do you recall bleeding at all?

SIMPSON: Yeah, I mean, I knew I

was bleeding, but it was no big deal. I bleed all the time. r play golf and stuff, so there's always something, nicks and stuff, here and there.

LANGE: So did you do anything?

When did you put the Band-Aid on it?

SIMPSON: Actually, I asked the girl

this morning for it.

LANGE: And she got it?

SIMPSON: Yeah, 'cause last night with Kato, when I was leaving, he

was saying something to me, and I was rushing to get my phone,

and I put a little thing on it, and it stopped.

******ru%str# qa*ew*$wmm m&mmt

w$rw #rBwem t$xw ffirffi$xffi# mm#

mffiwm* ffiffimm$m.

VANNATTER: What were you wear- ing Iast night, O. J.?

SIMPSON: What did I wear on the golf course yesterday? Some of these kind of pants-some of these kind of pants, I mean I changed dif- ferent for whatever it was. ! just

had on some . . .

SIMPSON: They're hanging in my closet.

***** ffiffir# qmww€$mmg mkmrst $N*g

pmm*s mm# w$rumws. Q&x#w*$wmw

mffiwss* *$xe #Kffi#ffi*m# $*mffi*N *S ffi*s *r$p *w mfu$#ffiffiffi.

VANNATTER: O. J., we've got sort of a problem.

SIMPSON: Mmm hmm.

VANNATTER: We've got some blood on and in your car, we've got some blood at your house, and sort of a problem.

SIMPSON:Well, take my blood test.

LANGE: Well, we'd like to do that. We've got, of course, the cut on your finger that you aren't real clear on. Do [you] recall having that cut on your finger the last time you

were at Nicole's house?

SIMPSON: A week ago?

LANGE: Yeah.

SIMPSON: No. lt was last night.

LANGE: Okay, so last night you cut it?

VANNATTER: Somewhere after the recital?

SIMPSON: Somewhere when I was rushing to get out of my house.

VANNATTER: Okay, after the recit- al?

SIMPSON: YEAh.

VANNATTER: What do you think happened? Do you have any idea?

VANNATTER: WeII, We don,t Know a lot of the answers to these ques-

tions yet ourselves, O. J., okay?

SIMPSON: l've got a bunch of guns,

guns all over the place. You can take them, they're all there, I mean, you

CBIMINAL INVESTIGATION

can see them. I keep them in my car for an incident that happened a month ago that my in-laws, my wife, and everybody knows about that.

VANNATTER: What was that?

SIMPSON: Going down to . . . and cops down there know about it be- cause l've told two marshals about it. At a mall, I was going down for a christening, and I had just left and it was like three-thirty in the morning and l'm in a lane, and also the car in front of me is going real slow, and l'm slowing down 'cause I figure he sees a cop, 'cause we were all going pretty fast and t'm going to change lanes, but there's a car next to me, and I can't change lanes.

Then that goes for a while, and l'm going to slow down and go around him, but the car butts up to me, and l'm like caught between three cars.

They were Oriental guys, and they were not letting me go anywhere. And finally I went on the shoulden

and t sped up, and then I held my phone up so they could see the light part of it, you know 'cause I

have tinted windows, and they kind

of scattered, and I chased one of them for a while to make him think I was chasing him before I took off.

*****ffiWeW*$mmW

fimsff#em*.

mkww* **r*s

VANNATTER: Just these black SIMPSON: I have no idea, man. pants? You guys haven't told me anything. VANNATTER: Did Nicole mention

stMpsoN: Just these . . . thev,re I have no idea. when you said to that she'd been getting any threats

called Bugle Boy. 'J " ' L"u' 'v my daughter, who said something latelytoyou?Anythingshewascon-

to me today that somebody else cerned about or the kids'safety?

VANNATTER: These aren't the might have been involved, I have S|MPSON: To her?pants? absolutely no idea what happened.

stMpsoN: No. I don't know how why, or what. But VANNATTER: Yes'

you guys haven't told me anything. S;MpSON: From? VANNATTER: Where are the pants Every time I ask you guys, you say that you wore? you're going to teil me in a bit.

' VANNATTER: From anybody?

SIMPSON: No, not at all.

****#ffiweg*fimres mffimase secwr**y

ffirffiffiffiax*$wmw *m*sffiffi fu3n ffiEmffiB#'.

VANNATTER: Did you ever park in the rear when you go over [to Ni-

cole's house]?

f,hapter 7 ,$ii lnternogations and Confessions

SIMPSON: Most of the time.

VANNATTER; You do park in the rear?

SIMPSON: Most times when l'm taking the kids there, I come right

into the driveway, blow the horn,

and she, or a lot of times the house-

keeper, either the housekeeper

opens or they'll keep a garage door open up on the top of the thing, you

know but that's when l'm dropping the kids off, and l'm not going in,

and sometimes I go to the front be-

cause the kids have to hit the buzz-

er and stuff.

***** Qr^*est*ons ahox*t cemti m al t mg

attempts et res$ffiu*ilimtnsn

hefineeffi h*il? amd fi$ico*s.

VANNATTER: How long were you

together?

SIMPSON: Seventeen years.

VANNATTER: Seventeen years. Did

you ever hit her, O. J.?

SIMPSON: Ah, one night we had

a fight. We had a fight, and she hit me. And they never took my state- ment, they never wanted to hear

my side, and they never wanted to hear the housekeeper's side. Nicole

was drunk. She did her thing, she

started tearing up my house, you

know? I didn't punch her or any-

thing,but!...

VANNATTER: Slapped her a couple times?

SIMPSON: No, no, I wrestled hef is

what I did. I didn't slap her at all. I

mean, Nicole's a strong girl. She's

a . .. one of the most conditioned women. Since that period of time, she's hit me a few times, but l've

never touched her after that, and

l'm telling you, it's five, six years ago.

VANNATTER: WhAt,S hEr birth date?

SIMPSON: May 19th.

VANNATTER: Did you get together with her on her birthday?

SIMPSON: Yeah, her and I and the kids, I believe.

VANNATTER: Did you give her a gift?

StMPsoN: I gave her a gift.

***** Questiems m&omt the gfft, wheffi he $eve it tc her, and huw she gf;fiv& $t hac*q to It$utt.

LANGE: Did Mr. Weitzman, your at-

torney, talk to you anything about this polygraph we brought up be-

fore? What are your thoughts on

that?

SIMPSON: Should I talk about my

thoughts on that? l'm sure even-

tually l'll do it, but it's like l've got

some weird thoughts now. l've had

weird thoughts , . .you know when you've been with a person for sev-

enteen years, you think everything. l've got to understand what this thing is. lf it's true blue, I don't mind

doing it.

LANGE: Well, you're not compelled atall to take this thing, number one,

and number two, I don't know if Mr. Weitzman explained it to you- this goes to the exclusion of some- one as much as to the inclusion so

we can eliminate people. And just

to get things straight.

SIMPSON: But does it work for elimination?

LANGE: Oh, yes.We use it for elimi- nation more than anything.

SIMPSON: Well, l'!l talk to him

about it.

LANGE: Understand, the reason

we're talking to you is because you're the ex-husband.

SIMPSON: I know l'm the number one target, and now you tell me l've got blood all over the place.

LANGE: Well, there's blood in your

house and in the driveway, and

we've got a search warrant, and

we're going to go get the blood. We

ts3

found some in your house. ls that your blood that's there?

SIMPSON: lf it's dripped, it's what I dripped running around trying to leave.

LANGE: Last night?

SIMPSON: Yeah, and I wasn't

aware that it was . . . I was aware

that I . . . you know I was trying to get out of the house. I didn't even pay any attention to it. I saw it when I was in the kitchen and I grabbed a napkin or something, and that was it. I didn't think about it after that.

VANNATTER: That was last night after you got home from the recital when you were rushing?

SIMPSON: That was last night when I was . . . I don't know what I was, I was in the car getting my junk out of the car. I was in the house throwing hangers and stuff in my suitcase. I was doing my lit- tle crazy what I do . . . I mean, I do

it everywhere. Anybody who has

ever picked me up says that O. J.'s a

whirlwind. He's running, he's grab-

bing things, and that's what I was doing.

VANNATTER: Well, l'm going to step out and l'm going to get a pho-

tographer to come down and pho-

tograph your hand there. And then here pretty soon we're going to take you downstairs and get some blood from you. okay? l'll he right back.

LANGE: So it was about five days

ago you Iast saw Nicole? Was it at the house?

SIMPSON: Okay, the last time I saw Nicole, physically saw Nicole, I saw her obviously last night. The time before, l'fl'r trying to think. I went to Washington, D.C., so I didn't see hen

so l'm trying to think. I haven't seen

her since I went to Washington. I

went to Washington . . . what's the

date today?

I til+

lnterrogation: Any questis{"}ing or *thcr acti*r-r lntcnded tc eXicit incniminating inforrnati*n from a

subject when this inf*rnrati*n is intended t* be used ir: a cr!m!na! pr*sscL.rtion

"

Confession: A steL8ffi1*sit nnade hy a

subj*ct ttrret hs or slre *nrnmitted a *rlme.

LANGE: Today's Monday, the 13th

of June.

SIMPSON: Okay, I went to Washing-

ton on maybe Wednesday. Thurs-

day I think I was in...Thursday I was in Connecticut, then Long

lsland Thursday afternoon and all

of Friday. I got home Friday night, Friday afternoon, I played, you

know . . . Paula picked me up at the airport. I played golf Saturday, and when I came home I think my son was there. So I did something with

#msm #ffi rrs$#mrffit$ffi ffi ffi ffi ffi #

my son. I don't think I saw Nicole

at all then. And then I Went to a big

aff air with Paula Saturday night,

and I got up and played golf Sunday,

which pissed Paula off, and I saw Nicole at . . . it was about a week

before, I saw her at the . . .

LANGE: Okay, the last time you saw Nicole, was that at her house?

SIMPSON: I don't remember. I

wasn't in her house, so it couldn't have been at her house, so it was, you know I don't even physically

ffi#$ n:tm $mg" ffi $mtffi ffisfr mm +jij,,,,,.*

CBIMINAL INVESTIGATION

remember the last time t saw her.

I may have seen her even jogging

one day.

LANGE: Let me get this straight. You've never physically been inside

the house?

SIMPSON: Not in the last week.

*****A$d$tf;smmfi questfrmmg mhmrut

wfuere fim $amt sffiw zuf;#ete amd

Brwh#ffi he wns Hmmt mt $**r ffim*$sm.

LANGE: We're ready to terminate thls at 1 4:07,

1. What were the three most important questions/

issues that the detectives wanted answers to in this interrogation? Did the detectives get clear answers to these questions? Why or why not?

2. Based on this transcript, how truthful do you

think O. J. Simpson was in answering the critical questions of the detectives? Explain your reasons

for this assessment.

3. What do you think was the most significant mistake made by the detectives in conducting this interrogation?

4. lnvestigators can learn something from every investigation. What do you think should be the biggest lessons learned by the police as a result of this interrogation?

@#w lntennogabions Defined An interrogation can be defined as any questioning or other action intended to elicit incrim- inating information from a subject when this information is intended to be used in a crim- inal prosecution. Compared to an interview of a witness, which is designed to simply collect information, the approach of an interrogation is more directed to the collection of incrim- inating information, including a confession, and, as a result, may require a different approach. For example, in the homicide investigation of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, the police had evidence that led them to believe O. J. Simpson was possibly (or probably) responsible for the murders. In the interrogation of Simpson, the detectives attempted to test this evidence by asking him questions about when he last drove the Bronco (and where he parked it), how and when he injured his hand, and his activities the night of the murders.

Interrogations of subjects are usually conducted when the subject is in the custody of the police (i.e., custodial intenogation). Custody exists when the suspect is under the physical control of the police and is not free to leave. The police may also conduct a noncustodial interrogation of a suspect. In this situation the suspect is free to leave although the police do not legally have

to explicitly inform the suspect of this right. Although the Miranda requirement only applies

to custodial interrogations, as a matter of practice, police often advise all subjects who may provide incriminating statements of their constitutional rights prior to questioning.

p The Controvensy of lntemogation Methods Controversy has emerged in recent years regarding how interrogations are conducted, and even the tetm interrogation is now often avoided. Most concern relates to how the methods

185Chsptef 7 . lnterrogations and Confessions

used in interrogations may contribute to a false ooniession and ultimately a false convic- tion. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, as of 2017,242 out of 2,026 false

convictions had a false confession as a contributing cause;1 this was particularly true in

homicide cases where 20 percent of false convictions had a false confession as a contribut- ing cause ,2 Although false confessions pale in comparison to mistaken eyewitness identifi- cations (20 percent) and official misconduct (51 percent)3 as a contributing cause of false

convictions, this is nonetheless a serious issue. Of most concern has been the traditional approach to interrogations, referred to as the Reid Technique.a As discussed in more detail in the following discussion, this approach relies mostly on confrontation and stress to obtain confessions from suspects. It is the "convincing to confess" approach. This technique has been the predominate method of interrogation taught and used in U.S. police depart- ments since the 1950s and remains the most commonly trained approach today.s \(/hile the approach has come under ethical attack, it is still well supported legally. At the time it debuted, it was viewed as a major improvement over what existed before: beatings and torture. However, due to criticism of the Reid Technique, there are now calls for more neu-

tral and less confrontational approaches that may be less likely to elicit false confessions. The problem is that a new and arguably improved method of interrogation, the PEACE model, is not yet well developed nor has its effectiveness been well established in the United States. Although the PEACE model is used extensively in many other countries, it is accu- rate to say that the state of best practices in interrogations in the United States is in flux.

Howeveq at the very least, it is now commonly (but not universally) understood that the goal

of an interrogation is not necessarily a confession. Confession-seeking as a goal may encour-

age problematic conduct on the part of investigators (e.g., relentless persuasion). The prob- lem is that the individual believed to have committed the crime may not have actually done

so; thus, a confession would not be a desirable or appropriate outcome of the interrogation. An interrogation could still be considered productive and successful if the subject provides

admissions to investigators (e.g.,'oI was at Nicole's house last night but I didnt kill her"), or even if investigators can obtain from the subject a firm and detailed account of actions that may be related to the crime (e.g., "I cut my hand on my cell phone last night"). If the alibis

and explanations offered by the subject are checked against other known facts of the crime

and the story is consistent with those facts and constitutes a reasonable explanation, then the

subject's account may be truthful. If the subject's story is inconsistent with other facts devel-

oped in the investigation, if the subject provides contradictory or conflicting details, or if the

story just does not make sense, then the subject's lies may be evidence of guilt. The subject's

attempt to deceive may suggest she or he is hiding involvement in the crime or in some aspect

of it. Further questioning may then highlight the inconsistencies of the subject's story and

how it conflicts with the other facts of the investigation. Further questions may elicit incrim- inating statements from the subject. As discussed in more detail later in the chapter, it is very important to note that statements indicative of deception may not necessarily suggest involve- ment in the crime in question, even if accurately interpreted. Subjects may attempt to deceive

investigators for reasons unrelated to the crime under investigation, such as to hide other illegal or embarrassing actions. This possibility can make interrogations more complicated.

#4'& {ffi Prerequisites for a Productive lnterrogation In order for an interrogation to occur, the suspect must first be informed of the Miranda warnings and agree to waive those rights. If the suspect does not agree to answer the ques-

tions of the police, then an interrogation cannot occur. LegallS the police may not try to convince suspects to waive their rights. However, the police sometimes use strategies to minimize the importance of the Miranda warnings to suspects, such as telling the suspect

False confession: A stat*rnent rnad* hy n suhj*ct that he *r she eonrmitted a cnime

when in fact th* suhj*ct did nct comru":it the erime.

4 rtrl f c3ffi CBIMINAL INVESTIGATION

that he or she is not in custody or treating the Miranda warnings as a mere formality.5 One study of police interrogations showed that in most instances-7S percent to 85 percent of the time-suspects agree to answer questions without a lawyer.T Most suspects talk to the police because "every last [suspect] envisions himself parrying questions with the right combination of alibi and excusel every last one sees himself coming up with the right words, then crawling out the window to go home and sleep in his own bed."8 Other research has shown that of those suspects who waived their Miranda rights, approximately 44 percent provided a verbal or written confession, and an additional 24 percentprovided some fype of incriminating statement to investi gators.e The bottom line is that if suspects agree to talk, they will probably say something incriminating.

In the study of police interrogations mentioned above, the individuals who would not talk to the police were more likely to have a previous criminal history and were slightly less

likely to be convicted of the current offense. On the other hand, suspects who provided incriminating information as the result of the interrogation were more likely to be charged by prosecutors, more likely to be convicted, and more likely to receive harsher sentences

following their conviction.lo Most often confessions are viewed as the most powerful and persuasive form of evidence-even more powerful than eyewitness identifications or DNA matches. Consider the value of the confession in Case in Point 7.1 in establishing proof.

Provided that the suspect agrees to answer the questions of the police, several basic ingre- dients are necessary for a productive interrogation. Depending on the approach used in the interrogation, some of these features are emphasized more than others. The basic ingredi- ents consist of the following:

t A plan

. Adequate time

. Control of the interrogation

. An understanding of the facts of the case

o Famili artty with the suspect's

background . A good relationship with the suspect

. Famili arrty with various themes, approaches, and tactics

-P

=\J o C CO

I o_

O t (n E. LU F f LU E.

PHOTO 7.1: tnterrogations are usually conducted when a suspect is in the custody of the police.

thapter 7 ii+! lntennogations and Confessions 1ff7

L .:

First, a plan is critical to the success of an interrogation. As stated in one handbook on conducting interrogations, "[t]wo minutes of preparation can save hours of interroga- tion."11 In particular, prior to beginning the interrogation it must be determined what information is known and what information needs to be obtained. \(hat dimensions of the crime and of the evidence need to be tested with the suspect? It appears from the transcript provided in the introduction to this chapter that the detectives who interrogated O. J. Simpson were not well prepared for the interrogation. The most critical questions to be

rfi* CBIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Truisms About Confessionsl2

1"

) L-- . Fu lt confessions originate with small adm issions.

3. G u ilty suspects seldom tell everyth ing.

4. Most offenders are not prrri oi ,ne r,'u,o,.nce and I recogni:ze,thatr, it wbs wroilg. ,

5. Guilty suspects omit details that cast them in a harsh,

clr-itical light. I '' "

6" Offenders usually confess to obtain a position they

believe to be advantageous to them.

asked and answered were the following: (1)I7hen did Simpson last drive the Bronco? (2) What were his actions and activities the previous night (the night of the murders)? and (3) How did he cut his hand? These were basic but fundamentally important questions in the investigation, and, although the detectives asked these questions, there was no concerted effort on their part to obtain clear answers. Simpson only provided confusing, vague, and contradictory answers. As one of many examples, consider this exchange:

VANNAITER: How did you get the injury on your hand?

SIMPSON: I don't know. The first time, when I was in Chicago and all, but at the house I was just running around.

Inexplicably there was no follow-up for a clear answer. At the conclusion of the interroga- tion, the detectives had no clear explanation as to how or when Simpson cut his hand. Consider the exchange regarding when he last drove the Bronco:

LANGE: '!7hen did you last drive it?

SMPSON: Yesterday.

VANNATTER: 'What time yesterday?

SIMPSON: In the morning, in the afternoon.

Later in the interrogation Simpson stated that he last drove the vehicle "at eight-something,

seven, eight, nine o'clock." Again, there was no attempt to get a clear answer on this import- ant issue. At the conclusion of the interrogation, the detectives still did not know when

Simpson last drove the Bronco.

Regarding Simpson's activities the previous night, consider this exchange:

VANNAITER: That was last night after you got home from the recital when you were rushing?

That was last night when I was . . . I don't know what I was, I was

in the car getting my junk out of the car.I was in the house throwirrg hangers and stuff in my suitcase. I was doing my little qazy what I do, I mean, I do it everywhere. Anybody who has ever picked me up says that O.J.'s a whirlwind. FIe's running, he's grabbing things, and that's what I was doing.

\

SIMPSON:

Chapter 7 . lnterrogations and Confessions

Again, his answer to the question makes no sense, but little effort was made to ty clarify his activities or establish a timeline for those activities. In addition, it is clear that some of Simpson's answers were completely contradictory. One time he said that he "kind of leisurely got ready to go," and at another time he said that he was in a "whirlwind." This was a contradiction Simpson was never asked to clarify or explain.

Also with regard to a plan, if more than one investigator is to be involved in the questioning, the respective role of each investigator must be determined beforehand. The most basic issue is deciding who is going to be in charge and lead the questioning.It appears from the Simpson transcript that neither detective was in charge. A review of the transcript shows ,r-ooo, instances when one of the detectives interrupted the other or when one changed the line of questioning the other was pursuing. Having rwo detectives involved in the interrogation should work to the advantage of the police, but in the interrogation of Simpson it did not.

Second, adequate time needs to be spent in an interrogation to develop a rapport with the suspect, to persuade a suspect to confess, or, at the least, to get the suspect to commit to a certain version of events. One study found that interrogations that involved a conlession were six times more likely to have lasted more than an hour. The same study found that nearly 30 percent of interrogations lasted for more than one hour, and 35 percent lasted for less than a half hour (including those during which the suspect immediately invoked the Miranda warnings).13 In major investigations it is not uncommon for suspects to be interrogated over the course of many hours throughout several days. The interrogation of Simpson lasted just more than thirty minutes. The crime being investigated was a double homicide. Simpson was the prime suspect and he agreed to waive his Miranda rights. Given these circumstances, a thirty-minute interrogation is difficult to justify, regardless of the approach used.

Third, control is important in an interrogation. Investigators must control the topics of discussion during the interrogation. If investigators are determined to get factualiniorma- tion about the suspect and the crime, they need to direct the questioning. During the Simpson interrogation, it was sometimes difficult to determine who was questioning whom. Simpson was allowed to take the questioning off course. For instance, consider this exchange:

VANNAITER: 'What do you think happened? Do you have any idea?

SIMPSON: I have no ide a) man You guys haven't told me anything. I have no idea. \)7hen you said to my daughter, who said somethirg to me to- d^y that somebody else might have been involved, I have absolutely no idea what happened. I don't know horr, why, or what. But you guys haven't told me anything. Every time I ask you guys, you say you're going to tell me in a brt.

VANNATTER: \7ell, we don't know a lot of the answers to these questions yet our- selves, O. J., okay?

Following this exchange, Simpson told the detectives about an incident during which two "Oriental guys" harassed him on the highway and the detectives proceeded to ask ques- tions about this completely irrelevant incident. In short, it did not appear the detectives had control over the interrogation.

Another dimension of control in the interrogation setting is the physical environment in which the questioning takes place.la The room should be quiet and have no visual distrac- tions. There should not be a telephone in the room, nor should telephones be audible from outside the room. Locks should be removed from the door for safety reasons. The room should have proper lighting-not too dark or too bright. The room should contain rwo chairs of the same size so the questioner and suspect are at the same eye level. Ideally the room should be equipped with video or an adjacent observation room separated by a two- way mirror. This arrangement allows other investigators to observe the interrogation and to observe the suspect when he or she is alone in the room.

rss

1$il

Heid Technique: The traditional approach to criminal interrogations that relies heavily on stress, deception, and control.

CBIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Fourth, investigators involved in the interrogation must have a good understanding of the case in order to ask the right questions and to differentiate facts from other information. Information about the case is also important in establishing a plan for the interrogation. During the interrogation of Simpson, the detectives had an understanding of the case-they knew about the blood in the Bronco, the blood at Simpson's house, and the bloody glove found at Simpson's house that matched the one at the crime scene. They asked many of the right questions but failed to get clear answers.

Fifth, interrogators should have a familiarity with the suspect's background. In the question- ing of Simpson, the detectives knew he was not an experienced criminal and certainly was not a professional killer. They knew Simpson and Nicole had a turbulent relationship. They knew the police had been summoned to intervene in a domestic incident between Simpson and Nicole on at least one occasion. All this knowledge could have been used by the detec- tives in developing a plan on how best to interrogate their prime (and only) suspect.

Sixth, investigators should build a good relationship with the suspect. The suspect has to feel like he or she can trust the investigators and that the investigators are there to help. As noted eadier, building a relationship in an interrogation setting takes time. In the Simpson case, detectives simply did not spend the time necessary to establish rapport with him. Another part of rapport building is simply treating the suspect with some degree of respect

and making the suspect comfortable, which may make it easier for him or her to ffust the detectives and to be honest. Often, this takes the form of food, drinks, and cigarettes (see

Case in Point7.2).

@ {s #, Approaches to lnvesti gative Intenrogations As previously stated, the Reid Technique is the traditional and most commonly taught and

used approach to interrogations in the United States. Although there is much variation in how the technique is used across police departments, it has come under ethical attack due

to its heavy reliance on stress, deception, and control in eliciting confessions from suspects-sometimes perhaps even false confessions. It has been likened by some as the

psychological version of the third degree. An alternative method of investigative interview- ing, the PEACE model, is common in England and Canada and is being taught in some U.S.

police departments. Both approaches are discussed here.

THE REID TECHNIQUE: THE "CONVINCE TO CONFESS" APPROACH

As outlined in the book Criruinal lnterrogations and Confessions,ls the Reid Technigue

consists of three stages. First is the factual analysis of the case. During this stage the inves-

tigator reviews and considers the known facts of the case, the evidence available, and the

opportunity and motivation of the suspect to have commifted the crime. It is essentially the

planning that is necessary for a productive investigation. The second stage is gathering

information from the suspect. This is a nonaccusatorial process that involves discussions

with the suspect about his or her involvement in the crime. It allows for rapport building with the suspect and gets the suspect comfortable in talking with the investigator. The final stage consists of the nine steps of interrogation.

The first step of the nine is to confront the suspect directly with a statement indicating he

or she committed the crime (e.g., "O.J., the results of our investigation tell us you are

responsible for the deaths of Nicole and Ron") and then wait for a reaction. The nature of the denial may be revealing. \[hat would be a reasonable reaction to such an accusation?

"You're wrong! You are frickin' crazy if you think I killed Nicole!" or ".S7hy do you think I did it? Honestly, I didn't do it." The second denial is certainly more curious than the first. During the investigation of one kidnapping/murder, the suspect's repeated denial was

Chapter 7 r lnterrogations and Confessions

"As far as I'm concemed, I didn't do it." Not exactly a strong or convincing claim of inno- cence! The nature of the initial denial may give additional insight into the guilt of the sus-

pect. After the initial denial is made by the suspect, then the investigator should repeat the accusation. A statement should then be made showing the commitment to determining what really happened and who is responsible (e.g., "Okay, work with me O. J. and we're going to get this straightened out").

Second, the suspect should be classified by the investigator as either an omotional offender or a nonemotional offender. An emotional offender is one who is likely to experience con- siderable feelings of remorse regarding the crime. This judgment may be informed by an

understanding of the crime, the suspect's background, the suspecf's previous experience or involvement in similar crimes, and his or her body language. It is instructive to note that most suspects who waive their Miranda rights are best classified as emotional offenders. A nonemotional offendeq on the other hand, does not experience a troubled conscience, is

perhaps more sophisticated, and does not feel the need to answer the questions of the police. This classification is important in determining which themes to use in the interroga- tion.16 The following themes are most effectively used with emotional offenders:

1s',I

. Sympathtze with the suspect, saying that anyone else under similar circumstances would have done the same thing. Tell the suspect that you (the interrogator) have done or have

been tempted to do the same thing.

o Reduce the suspect's feelings of guilt by min tmtztng the seriousness of the offense (e.g., "This is really pretty normal, it happens all the time, a lot of people do this " ).

o Suggest to the suspect a less revolting and more acceptable motivation for the offense (e .g.r "It was an accidentr" "It was due to havirrg a few too many beersr" "It was due to the use of drugsr" "It was not planned").

o Sympa thtze with the suspect by condemning others (e.g., blame the

victim , afl accomplice, or someone else).

o Appeal to the suspect's pride through flattery (e.g., compliment the courage and skill it took to commit the crime or mention the good deeds the suspect has done in the past).

o Acknowledg e that the accuse r rnay have exaggerated the nature and seriousness of the crime (e.g. , "1 believe you had intercourse with her,

but I'm not so sure it was a tape" ) .

. Highlight the grave consequences of continued criminal behavior on the part of the suspect (e.g., "In the long run it is good that you got caught because now you can get the help that you really deserve " ).

The following themes would likely be effective with nonemotional offenders. It is reason- Emotionat offender: able to expect these themes would be effective with emotional offenders as well. An offender who is

r Attempt to obtain an admission is no point in denying involvemenr X[i;Yot!r?[?i''tt* about some incidental aspect of the in the crime (e.g., "The only reason feelings of remorse

crime (e.g., of being in the store at I'm talking to you is so that you can regarding the crime'

about thi time of the robbery). Such a explain any ci.cumstances that may fffi?X#jltfffl:t statement may be facilitated through make a difference"). more effective with this

the use of false evidence (e.g.r "We - rvrr-^- -t_^:_):--:)-_^tt^ ^-_^_^^-^r typeof offender.

have witnesses who saw you in the ' srhen the individual's suspected

store that day"),once this admission partner in the crime has also been Nonemotional

is made, further steps can be taken to t""tttd' one offender can be used ;fl:lt;tJi 'ffiii:'*

elrcrt a confesslon. against the other (e.g., "Your buddy in experience a troubled

the next room is blabbing away saying conscience or Suilt'

o Point out the futility of denials. you planned the whole thirrg. Yoo *"y certain interrogation

Convince the suspect that his or her as well be honest with me"). ffiil""3i[?}ffil,Xi** guilt has been established and there type ofoffender.

192 CBIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Other studies have also identified and discussed various themes, approaches, and tactics, including (1) minimizing the seriousness of the crime (e.g.,.,The homeowner says $1,000 was taken, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was only $1"00,,), (2) blaming the victim (e.g., "I agree with you. one has to ask why she was going for a walk by herself ," trt."ri nig_ht"), (3) decreasing the shamefulness of rhe act (e.g., asking,,,Tell me about the missing girl" without asking about the details of the suspecred sexual assault of the girl)] (4) increasing guilt feelings (e.g., "If you tell me whar happened, I'm sure the guilt that is eating you alive will go away"), and (5) appealing to the subject's hope for a positive out- come as a result of cooperation (e.g., :'Ill tell the prosecutor that you were helpful,,). The logic behind the use of these themes is that they lower the psychological hurdles necessary for a suspect to confess to actions for which there may be significant negative consequences.lT

Other authors speak of certain "magic" words and phrases that make it psychologically easier for suspects to confess.ls These words and phrases relate to three commonly used defense mechanisms: rationalization, projection, and minimlzation, or RpM. Rationalization "offers plausible explanations for suspects' actions that reflect favorably on them by pre- senting their actions in a positive light."tr It is intended that through the use of. rationaliza- tions, the suspect will believe the investigator sees the suspect's behavior as rational in nature, thereby making it easier to confess. For example, in a child abuse case, the investi- gator may speak to the suspect about the importance of "discipline" to control the "misbe- havior" of a child (e.g., "Discipline is necessary when a child misbehaves" ).withproiection, responsibility for the criminal behavior is given to someone else in an aftempt to convince the suspect that the action was really not his or her fault. Again, as a result, it may then be easier for the suspect to confess to the criminal behavior. For example, once more using a child abuse case, the investigator might state that if the child had behaved, she would not have been disciplined. Or that if the child's mother had been more responsible for taking care of the child, the abuse would not have happened. With rninimization the investigator reduces the suspect's role in the crime or the seriousness of the crime. The investigator may speak of the criminal act as an "accident" or as a "mistaker" but not as a "murder" or a "beating." Soft words are chosen over harsh words. Again, the point is that this may make it easier for the suspect to acknowledge his or her role in the crime.

Along with the effective use of RPM, it is also suggested investigators provide the suspect with reasons to confess.2o These reasons may vary by individual, by motivation, and by the nature of the crime. A good reason to confess from the perspective of the suspect might be to finally get help for a problem, to ease feelings of guilt, or to tell the other side of the story. Io be most effective, RPM and supplying reasons to confess should be delivered via a

"feather" approach versus a "sledgehammer" one. Consider the following illustrations:z1

SLEDGEHAMMER: Brad, you have lied to me from the beginning. You're not fool- ing me with the story, and I'm going to shove it down your throat. You'll be sorry.

FEATHER: Brad, I have some problems understanding your story. I've seen

this happen before and rcahze you are uncertain about what you can tell me. That's natural, but I'm really concerned with how you got into this mess. Let's keep it simple and honest. Let's not make this any worse than it is.

You strangled Valerie. \7hy don't you just say you did it?

Brad, my experience in similar cases is that the person sitting in your chair has a lot on his mind. He is asking himself, "$7hat is going to happen to me? \7ho is going to know that I did this thing? Am I better off telling the entire story and my version of how this thing started? " Let's handle these questions one at a time, keeping each concern in its proper perspective and not letting it run wild.

SLEDGEHAMMER:

FEATHER:Flationalization, projection, and minimization (RPM); Defense mechanisms that, when emphasized in an interrogation, rnfty lead perpetratcrs to confess.

Chapter 7 . lnterrogations and Confessions

The feather approach shows warmth, sincerity, and a commitment to get to the truth, all of which may go a long way in persuading a suspect to do what he or she really does not want to do. As such, in most cases the feather approach leads to a more productive interrogation. Indeed, research has shown that when interrogations are perceived as harsh and cruel by

suspects, suspects are more likely to offer denials. I7hen interrogations are perceived as

kinder and more friendly, suspects are more likely to provide admissions and confessions.22

The third step in the Reid Technique is to deal with continued denials. Denials beyond the initial one should be cut off. The suspect should not be allowed to reiterate denials. It should be pointed out, once again, that denials are pointless. Guilt has already been proved.

Fourth, a suspect who moves from denials to objections (e.g., "I couldn't have done that; I dont own a gun") is likely moving toward a confession but is not there yet. Objections may provide useful information for the development of themes. For instance, a suspect who says, "I couldn't have hurt that little girl; I love kids; I work with kids" might be susceptible to well-placed flattery or to the theme that the "thing" that happened was "an accident." In any case the interrogator should avoid getting into an argument with the suspect. The inter- rogator must move forward (e.g., "You don't own a gun? That tells me that this thing was not your idea . . . that your buddy got you involved in this").

Fifth, it must be continually clear to the suspect that the interrogator is interested in getting the truth, that the interrogator is not giving up, and that the interrogator will not stop until the truth is obtained. Eye contact should be maintained. The interrogator should move his or her chair closer to the suspect.

Sixth, theme development should continue. Statements should be made to convince the suspect that confessing is the best course of action. The need for repeated questioning is minimal at this point.

The seventh step in the Reid Technique is to present an alternative question to the suspect (e.g., "Did you plan this, or did it just happen by accident?"). The intent is to get the suspect to make a statement. Again, denials should be immediately cut off. A confession may be close at hand. A question that allows for a one-word confession should then be offered (e.g., "A11 you wanted was to scare her. You didn't mean to hurt her, right?").

The eighth step is to have the suspect orally relate the details of his or her involvement in the crime. Questions should be neutral (e.g., "Then what happened?" or "'$7hat happened next?"). As the confession is in full gea\ an inquiry into the details of the crime and the suspect's involvement in it should be made.

The final step is to turn the oral confession into a written one either in the form of responses to open-ended questions or a narrative written by the suspect.

Besides the general rules that should be followed to increase the chances of a productive interrogation, the Reid Technique includes other recommendations regarding the conduct of interrogations. These include the following:

. The investigator should not use paper or pencil in the interrogation setting.

o The investi gator should not be dressed in a uniform or be armed.

o The investi gator and suspect should remain seated throughout the questioning.

. Langu age easily understood by the suspect should be used.

o The status of a low-status subject should be elevated (e.g., referring to the suspect as "Mr."), whereas the status of a high-status subject should be lowered (e.g. , refercirrg to the subject by his first name).

o The suspect should be treated with respect and should not be handcuffed or shackled during the interrogation.

o Reactions to the suspect's lies should be concealed.

It is expected these factors will further create an environment in which suspects will find it easier to confess.

rfir1 lU.l

194 CBIMINAL INVESTIGATION

As described, the Reid Technique is really a process of guiding the suspect, step by step, to

a confession. Reasons are provided to make the suspect believe a confession is the best

course of action. The reasons and rationales basically pave the way toward a confession.

The suspect becomes convinced that denials and objections are pointless. Resistance is

futile: A confession is the only way out.

Getting someone to confess is a good thing, unless, of course, that person is not responsible

for the crime to which he or she confesses. Under deep psychological stress, it is possible

that certain individuals may falsely confess. It is for this reason that the PEACE model is

sometimes used as an alternative to methods such as the Reid Technique.

THE PEACE MODEL: THE ,,RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH,, APPROACH

PEACE is an acronym for the five stages involved in the interview of the suspect:

. P - Planning and preparation

. E - Engage and explain

. A - Account, cla rrfy, and challenge

o C - Closure

o E - Evaluation

The PEACE model is meant to be less coercive and manipulative than the Reid Technique.

The objective is to communicate effectively and respectfully with suspects with the intent of obtaining accurate information from them. The approach is supposed to be less accusa-

tory and emphasize the importance of rapport building to obtain critical information from suspects. Research has been supportive of the approach,23 but little of it has been conducted

in the United States2a with actual suspects. A recent survey of.340 FBI National Academy

students from across the country reveled that most received formal training in the Reid

Technique (56 percent), followed by training in the PEACE Model (8.2 percent). So while the PEACE model is taught (and used) in the United States, it is clearly still not even close

to the standard method of police interrogations.

As for the particular stages of the PEACE model, the planning stage (P) is similar to that in

the Reid Tichnique. The investigators should know the facts and evidence in the case and

how the suspect relates to the crime. If two investigators are to be involved in the process,

their respective roles should be clear.

The engage and explain (E) stage is critical to the success of the process. It is here that the

investigators begin to develop a rapport with the suspect. The investigators explain the

purpose of the session, the procedures that will be followed, and how long the interview

*ilfhrt, and they provide an overview of the issues that need to be addressed. The objective

is to create mutual understanding and a relaxed atmosphere so the subject will cooperate

with the investigators.

The account , clarify,and challenge (A) stage is when the investigators obtain the suspect's

version of events. Leading questions and accusations (e. g., "You then threw the gun in

sewer, didn't you?") are avoided, as is deception on the part of the investigators (e.9.,

"'S7e have video from the store and it's gonna show you committing the robbery" when

there is no video). Once the suspect's version is obtained, then investigators focus on

specific parts ofthat account by asking appropriate questions and seeking clarifications.

In the claflenge phase, suspects may be confronted with supportive or contradictory

evidence.

The closure of the interview (C) involves the investigators surnmarizing the interview with

the suspect and explaining what will happen next. The final evaluation stage (E) involves

,, "rr.-.r-.rrt

of th1 information obtained as a result of the interview and an evaluation of

the entire investigation in light of the interview. It is now that the investigators also evaluate

their own performance and whether the objectives of the interview were met.

PEACE model: An apprCIach tCI

interrogeti0ns that is intended to c0rfi rn u n i cate effective!y and rs$pectfully with $ilspects with the intent of ohtaining accllrate infornration from them"

Chaprer 7 * lnternogations and Confessions

lnterrogations lnvolve Bright Lights and Hot Roorns

ln the aftermath of September 1 1, 2AO1, and the interro-

gation of al-Qaeda operatives, many accounts of extreme

interrogation methods, including waterboarding, were

reported. On other occasions news stories have detailed

U.S. police using brutal methods and even torture to elicit

confessions from unwilling suspects.2s Howevel inter-

rogation methods and approaches such as these are

extraordinary and extremely uncommon. Nowadays, even

interrogations that are confrontational are usually quite

friendly, albeit in a stressful sort of way. Research has

shown that the "kind and gentle" approach to interroga-

tions is much more effective than the "harsh and cruel"

approa ch.26 This makes sense. Think about it this way:

Have you ever purchased a car? The process of buying

(and selling) a car has some similarities to an interroga-

tion. The investigator is trying to obtain a confession; the

salesperson is trying to sell a car (at the highest possi-

ble price). lf you have had the experience of buying a car,

chances are the salesperson seemed pretty friendly. lt is very unlikely the salesperson yelled or threatened you. He

or she might have brought you a soda, a coffee, or maybe

even a candy bar. The salesperson may have talked to you

about your "interesting" job, your "wonderful" family, and

your "great" taste in cars. He or she probably "worked

hard" to get you a great deal from the sales manager.

Just like in an interrogation, this sort of approach is much

more likely to lead to the desired outcome: selling a car

for more money . . . or getting a confession.

ii' iiriiifiiiitr-.iii'.i.;t:.,:ilifi

ln a recent case, Lathon was a suspect in the killing of a

liquor store clerk and was questioned at the police station.

According to the notes of the investigators, the interview

began at7.28 p.m. and ended at 3 .45 a.m. During the course

of the interrogation, four breaks were taken in which Lathon

accepted the following:

Six Newport cigarettes

Two cups of water

One bottle of water

One Natural Valley granola bar, maple brown sugar flavor

One bag of hot Cheetos

The Potential Problems With Police Deception in

The use of deception in investigations can be problematic. The PEACE model is about

honesty and respect, so there is little opportunity for police to use deception with this approach. Although deception is not a definitional element of the Reid Technique, this approach does not exclude deception as a tool by which to elicit a confession. Indeed,

deception is central to the traditional interrogation approach. IronicallS according to Richard A. Leo, the "police proclaim truth as the goal of interrogation, yet interrogators regularly rely on deception and sophisticated forms of trickery" to obtain it.27 Again, the problem is that not only may this practice be criticized on ethical grounds; it may also lead

to problematic outcomes (e.g., false confessionsl see Case in Point 7.3).

lntemogations

195

e

c

G

rsffi CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Why',are you'doi,ng thiS to',me?, lf 'l d,id this [':6l,gp'f

remember it. I don't remember a thing.

And you know what? That's possible.

ffien, t:he i nvestigatorS, usOo,,the, Com,Bute-f Voice Stress Ana-

lyzer to verify Michael's statements. The only problem is, as

diSCLlSSoO tater in this chapted researCh Show'S tnat tlre voice

Stress,anaVzerr is no better than a cOin flip ,in Oetermining

whether a statement is truthful or not.

MARTIN:', ,'l cah'tell yOu this instrument,hO,re" Okay, it is

rll a Computer Voice Stress Analyz'what they call a Computt

: ;, ,,, ,, , , ,,A,hd th,at's,What makes it suCh: a'$reat too,l'[e,rn-

phasis addedl.

MARTIN: What are some things we want to learn here, do

you think?

Mlcu*e,1' '1f'I knoW,Who did it, if I did'it.: ' ' '

nnnRfiN:, , 'OkaV; Wel.l,'let's do that, then. Do you know who,

e hapter 7 + lntennoga[ions and Confessions

No.

Okay, would that be a good, fair question?

Yes.

Do you know who took . . . do you know how

she died?

No.

Are you sitting down?

Yes.

Do you know who took Stephanie's life?

No.

ls today Thursday?

Yes.

rG 7iU/'

MARTIN: Did you take Stephanie's life?

MICHAEL: No.

MARTIN: Let me go over these charts and l'll lre back here

in a couple of minutes, okay?

MIGHAEL: Okay.

After a few minutes, Martin returned to the interroga'tion

room and told Michael that he failed the test and was lying

when answering the critical questions.

The day before the trialwas to begin, charges against Michael

and his two friends were dropped when it was determined

none of them had anything to do with the murder. On the

basis of DNA evidence, a homeless person with a history of

arrests and mental illness was arrested for the homicide.

MICHAEL:

MARTIN:

MICHAEL:

MARTIN:

MICHAEL:

MARTIN:

MICHAEL:

MARTIN:

MICHAEL:

MARTIN:

MICHAEL:

As shown in the Michael Crowe interrogation, when deception is used it is often with regard to the evidence in the case.28 Even without evidence that the suspect committed the offense,

the police may legally deceive the suspect into believing such evidence exists. This deception is limited to verbalization; it is not legally permissible to fabricate evidence even if just used

in the interrogation room. Telling the suspect that his or her fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, that the suspect has been identified by eyewitnesses, or that the victim stated that the suspect was the killer in a dying declaration are common tactics. Sometimes

the use of deception is taught and recommended. For instance, deceptive props can be used,

such as a thick folder filled with papers and with the suspect's name and "EVIDENCE" written on the cover.2e Another ploy is for the investigator conducting the interrogation to receive a "well-timed" phone call during the interrogation to alert the investigator to "new evidence" in the investigation. In general, this sort of deception is legally permissible.

Another deceptive tactic was also used in the interrogation of Michael Crowe: using tech- nology (in this case the Computer Voice Stress Analyzer) to detect deception and then overstating the technology's capability. Along the same line, in one case in Detroit, detec-

tives used a photocopy machine as a lie detector.3o The detectives loaded three pieces of paper in the Xerox machine. The first one read "TRLJTH," the second one read'TRUTH," and the third one read "LIE." The suspect was led into the room and told to put his hand on the side of the machine. He was first asked his name. After he answered, the copy button was pushed. The paper with "TRUTH" was printed. He was asked where he lived. 'TRUTH." He was asked if he shot the victim. He said no, and the paper with "LIE" on it was printed. "You flunked," he was told. "You might as well confess." In yet another exam- ple, a suspect in a murder investigation was asked the following:

Have you ever heard of scanning electron microscopy? It's a big old microscope, okay? And when people die, their images of what they see, like if you died right now and you saw him and I in your eyes.'!7hat happens is in the autopsy we take out the lens and we put it in the microscope and look at it, right before they die, that image is saved forever. . . . S7hen we get those at the autopsy and pull those lenses out, we aren't going to see you pointing the gun, right?31

Another common form of deception in interrogations is misrepresentation of the serious-

ness of the crime. For instance, the police may tell the suspect that the murder victim is still alive, is in good condition, and doesn't want to press charges so that the suspect can confess

/4 f1fllt;Jn

Shautd the Police Lie ta Get $uspects to Tett the Truth?

As a society we give the police extraordinary

power and authority to lnvestigate crimes

and apprehend perpetrators. We also expect

the police to abide by the law in carrying

out their mandate. Indeed, we expect the

police to be honorable, fai[ moral, and just

in their interactions with citizens. However;

crirninals often lie to avoid apprehension

and punishrnent. So, the questions are

as follows: Should the police be able to

Iegally lle to suspects in order to get them

to confess to their crimes? And should the

police be able to lie to judges and juries

in order to get suspects convicted of their

crlrnes? Why or why not?

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

with few perceived implications. fn a similar vein, the police may offer the suspect psychological excuses or moral justifications for his or her actions-again, in an

attempt to make confessing psychologically easier (e.g.,

the rape was an act of love, or the victim may have come on to him). \Thatever form the deception takes, the

use of it by the police in inte rcogation settings is a contro- versial tool in persuading suspects to confess.

However, the use of deception in an interrogation may not be all bad. Consider the well-documented case of Susan Smith, the woman who, on October 25,1,994, buckled her two young children in her car and let the cat roll into John D. Long Lake near Union, South Carolina. The children drowned. Susan summoned the police and told them that a black man around forty years old, wearing a dark knit cap, a dark shirt, jeans, and a plaid shirt, had carjacked her car while her kids were in the back seat. In the national media spotlight, she pleaded for the safe return of her children. Susan told the police that when her car was carjacked, she was stoppe d at a red light at a particular intersection and no other cars were at the intersection. Investigators found this suspicious because that particular light was

set always to be green unless a car on the cross street triggered the

light to switch. In order for the light to turn red, anothe r car had to be at the intersectiorl. Additional questioning revealed other incon- sistencies in her story. Susan agreed to a polygraph exam, and the

results indicated deception. Additional interrogations of Susan ensued. At one point Susan

was confronted with her lie about where the cariacking occurred. The police told her it could not have possibly occurred at that intersection because of the triggered light. Susan

then changed her storS claiming that the carjacking actually occurred at a different inter-

section in a different city, fifteen miles from where she originally stated. The police then told Susan that this intersection was under police surveillance for a drug investigation at the

time she said the carjacking occurred (which was not true) and that the police officers who were there did not see any carjacking. After the officer told Susan this, she reportedly began

to cry and said, "You don't understand . . . my children are not all right." Susan then con-

fessed. It was the ninth day after she had reported her children were taken.

Why Do Suspects Canfess? It is worthwhile to consider why suspects confess, especially since a confession is so valuable

in establishing proof of guilt. A confession is sometimes considered the crown jewel in an

investigation. Given that a confession substantially increases the likelihood of a conviction,

why would anyone want to confess? Depending on the offender and the crime, there are

many reasons for confessions. Some of the more common reasons include the following:32

o The suspect wishes to get help for his

or her problematic behaviors'

o The suspect is convinced by the inves ttgators to confess.

o The suspect confesses to one crime to avoid questions about another.

. The suspect confesses as a payback for respectful treatment by investigators.

. The suspect has feelings of guilt and

the need for forgiveness.

. The suspect believes his or her involvement in the crime can be

proven by the police.

. The suspect wishes to explain the

reasons for her or his actions, to justify those actions.

. The suspect confesses to enhance his

or her reputation as a criminal.

Chapter 7 o lnterrogations and Confessions

There are many more reasons why suspects confess, some of which relate more closely to why suspects falsely confess (see the next section). One study that directly examined the factors that influence whether offenders confess highlights the important role of evidence in eliciting a confession.33 Not surprisingly the authors found that a confession was most likely when the offender was faced with strong police evidence. They also found that offender age, ethnic group, education level, and marital status had no effect on the tendency to confess. Offenders who reported guilty feelings about their crime and who did not us! legal advice were also more likely to confess. Finally, offenders who had committed serious crimes were more likely to confess than those who had committed less serious crimes. Other studies have also examined the importance of offender characteristics and the nature of the crime in predicting confessions. For instance, among child molesters, being younger, feeling guilty and not having a criminal career were related to the decision ,o .""fJrr; among rapists, being introverted, not having a criminal career, and not knowing the victim were related to confessions.3a

ffii ffi 4s The lssue of False Confessions A false confession occurs when the subject is totally innocent but confesses to the crime, or when the subject was involved in the offense but overstates that involvemenr. If it is difficult to understand why a perpetrator would confess to a crime he or she actually did commit, it is truly confounding why anyone would confess to a crime they did aor commit. Three explanations for this phenomenon have been offered. The first is referred to as stress com- pliant false confession. 'With

this type of false confession, a confession is offered "to escape the punishing experience caused by the adverse-but not legally coercive-str.rro6 typi- cally present in accusatory interrogations."3s In this instance, the zealousness on the pait of the police elicits the confession from the individual. The confession is an attempttn the part of the individual simply to end the misery of the interrogation.

The second explanation for false confessions is referred to as a persuaded false confession. In cases such as this, the suspect has "been persuaded (by legally non-coercive techniques) that it is more likely than not that he committed the offense despite no memory of having done so."36 In essence, the police are so convincing that the subject believes his or her gui[ even though he or she has no memory of committing the crime. Numerous factors increase the likelihood of a persuaded false confession:37

1ftS

o The interrogator repeatedly states his or her belief in the suspec's guilr.

. The suspect is isolated from anyone who might conrradict the claims of the interro gatcir and is not told of other information that might lead one ro believe that he or she did not commir the crime.

. The interrogation is lengthy and emotionally charged.

o The interrogator repeatedly claims there is scientific proof of the suspect's guilt.

. The suspect is repeatedly reminded of previous instances of memory problems or blackouts. If these do not exist, then other factors are identified by the interrogator that could account for lack of memo ry of the incident.

o The interro gator demands that the suspect accept the interrogator's version of events and explanations for the crime.

o The interro gatclr induces fear in the suspect's mind about the consequences of repe ated denials.

It is interesting to note that many of these elements are present in the Reid Technique. It is also noteworthy that all of these factors were apparently present in the interrogation of Michael Crowe discussed earlier. Of course, not everyone is equally susceptible to the influence of these tactics. Research has shown that the individuals most likely to provide

Stress cornpliant false confession: A type *f faEs* r*nfessimn giv*n t* st*p th* misery *r:d str*ss *f th* !nterr*gnti*n

"

Fersuaded false confession: a type *f f*ls* **nf*ssi*er giv*n ms thc rssuBt *f h*inlg c*nvinc*# *f hmvir:g

**em r:": Etted the eru pry:e.

ptril

Voluntery fatrse canfesslon: A type *f fmlse c*nfsssi*n v*luntnrily giveffi fis the r*su[t *f *ther m*tivmt[*r:s.

CBIMINAL INVESTIGATION

this type of false confession typically have several characteristics in common: an extraordi- nary trust of people in authority a lack of self-confidence, and heightened suggestibiliry which may be due to factors such as young age or mental handicap.38 The fact that interro- gation methods used with juveniles are seldom different than those used with adults may perhaps compound this problem.3e Research has shown that the one factor that both stress compliant and persuaded false confessions have in common is that they are elicited after extremely long interrogation sessions, many of which last more than ten hours. Sometimes these interrogation sessions occur over the course of several days.ao At the same time, how- ever, sometimes this much time is necessary to obtain a true confession.

A third explanation for false confessions is known as voluntary false confession. In this instance an individual comes forward to the police and confesses to a crime that may not have even occurred.al There may be several reasons why an individual would take such an action: a morbid desire for fame, guilt about some other crime that was committed, mental illness (especially in cases such as schizophrenia when the individual cannot differentiate what is real from what is not), or to protect the person who actually committed the offense.

False confessions, for whatever reason they are given, are an important issue not only because of their association with convictions but also because once a confession is made, it is extremely difficult to recant it convincingly. Indeed, taking back a confession is like trying to un-ring a bell. Accordingly given a confession and the influence of that confession, one is able to understand how a (false) confession can lead to a plea bargain and, tragically then, to a minimal testing of the other evidence in the case. The bottom line is that psycho- logical methods of interrogation and persuasion may cause innocent suspects to confess.

UnfortunatelS the most significant legal procedure that relates to confessions, the Miranda warnings, has little impact on the likelihood of false confessions. As discussed in detail in Chapter 4, the Miranda requirement only focuses on the beginning of the interrogation, not on how the interrogation is conducted or the result of the questioning. Did the police inform the suspect of his or her rights? Were those rights voluntarily and knowingly waived by the subject? If these questions can be answered in the affirmative, then the requirements of Miranda are generally satisfied.

So what can be done about the issue? First, and foremost, the police must be mindful that, for a variety of reasons, some people may falsely confess. "Recognizing that false confes- sions exist is the first step in protecting against obtaining one."42

Second, as the PEACE model makes clear, a confession should not necessarily be the ulti- mate objective of an interrogation-factual and accurate information from a suspect should

be. This represents a shift in perspective as factual and accurate information may be in the

form of a confession.

Also, the police must realize that a person who appears deceptive and therefore guilty and

warranting of a more pressing interrogation may be deceptive not to cover involvement in the crime in question but to cover some other action that he.or she wishes to keep secret.

In addition, it is also important to note that the police are not immune from judgmental

errors about suspect truthfulness and deception. These initial assessments can then affect how much pressure interrogators apply to get a confession from a suspect. This sequence

may result in tragic consequences.

In addition, the police should, as a matter of policy, video-record (or at least audio-record) the entirety of all interrogations. Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation regarding the recording of custodial interrogations. State supreme courts haye taken action in Alaska, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and New Jersey. Approximately 1,000 juris-

dictions have voluntarily implemented recording policies.a3 The benefits of video-recording are many: It protects against unwarranted claims of illegal or coerced interrogations, it leads

Chapten 7 r lnterrogations and Confessi0ns

to improvements in how interrogations are conducted (and the use of less coercive meth- ods),4 and the recordings can be used for training purposes. To be of most value, interroga- tions should be recorded from the time Miranda warnings are given until the suspect leaves the room. In addition, to avoid possible bias resulting from camera angle, it is recommended that the camera provide an equal focus on the suspect and the interrogator (e.g., afocus on the suspect alone may lead to underestimating the pressure placed on the suspect by the questioner).45

Finally, the police and prosecutors should systematically evaluate the credibility of the con- fessions obtained. Is there independent evidence of the suspect's guilt? Do the details of the confession correspond to the details of the investigation? Is there internal corroboration for the confession? Specifically, for example, did the confession lead to the discovery of other evidence that indicates guilt, such as the location of the murder weapon? Did the confession include detailed information not known to the public, such as the nature of the wounds to the victim or how the victim was clothed? These questions can allow for a judgment of the credibility of the confession and help investigators take the necessary precautions to pre- vent against the receipt and use of false confessions.

ffi ffi ffi lnvestigative Tools in Flecognizi ng Deception Given the goals of a criminal investigation, there is much to be said for the abiliry of inyes- tigators to recognize what is truthful information and what is deceptive. Over time there have been many "tests" that have been used to detect deception, including the "spit a mouthful of rice" test, which was a common test in England from 800 to 1,200: A truthful subject could do so; a deceptive subject could not. The ability to deceive is a critical skill for criminals. Offenders have a great incentive to deceive investigators, for obvious reasons. Other people, such as victims and witnesses, may also wish to deceive the police to cover their own illegal or embarrassing actions. Therefore, the ability to detect deception is important when obtaining information from people. There are several methods commonly used today to recognize deception. These methods can be generally classified as either non- mechanical (e.g., recognizing verbal and nonverbal cues) or mechanical (e.g., polygraph, voice stress analyzer).

The basic theory underlying each of these methods relates to the fight-or-flight syndrome. '\il7hen confronted with a threat, such as being asked threatening questions and having to lie when answering them to avoid arrest, the human body prepares either to fight the threat or to flee from it. In doing so the body changes in physiological ways. The body increases the secretion of hormones, including adrenaline, which in turn causes increased blood pressure,

an increased heart rate, and rapid breathing, among other reactions. In an interrogation setting, physically fighting the threat (the investigator asking the questions) or fleeing the threat is not feasible. As a result, the individual must try to repress the fight-or-flight response. !7hen a person does this, physiological changes become apparent through body movement, posture, verbal behavior, heart rate, and so forth.

VERBAL AND NONVERBAL DETECTION OF DECEPTION

It must be realized that detecting deception from verbal and nonverbal cues is a difficult task and is subject to a high degree of error,a5 at least in part because verbal and nonverbal cues are not good indicators of deception.aT Most studies show accuracy rates of judgments

of deception based on such cues in the range of 50 percent to 58 percent (whereas 50 per- cent accuracy would be expected by chance).as Police officers are only slightly more accu- rate at detecting deception from verbal and nonverbal cues than are nonpolice, but this

401

EilA CHIMINAL INVESTIGATION

depends on the characteristics of each sample.ae Nevertheless, investigators may be quite confident in their erroneous judgments.so

The relative lack of accuracy in detecting deception through verbal and nonverbal cues is at least partly due to the variation that exists among the behaviors of people. Thus, in eval- uating the meaning of various nonverbal and verbal behaviors, several factors need to be

considered. First, no single behavior is always indicative of deception. Second, individual differences need to be considered. Individuals may differ in their verbal and nonverbal behaviors, degree of nervousness, ability to cope with nervousness, intelligence, medical condition, and so forth. Actions that appear to signal deception for one person may not for another. Third, gender and ethnidcultural differences need to be considered. For example, women tend to act, speak, and sit differently than men do.'Women tend to use "hedges" more commonly when speaking (e.g.r "kind ofr" "sort otr" "l feel"), and they tend to use more modal verbs (e.g., may, migbt, could, should).s1 Fourth, because verbal and nonverbal behaviors are largely situational, the situation and enyironment need to be considered when evaluating behaviors. For example, the amount of visible perspiration a subject might be displaying needs to be considered in relation to temperature and activities immediately preceding the questioning. Fifth, although single behaviors may not be meaningful, behav- ioral clusters may be. Several behavioral or verbal cues displayed at the same time are more indicative of deception than a single cue. Finally, the timing of the verbal and nonverbal cues needs to be considered. When was the cue displayed in relation to the questions asked? Timing may be an important consideration when inferring meaning from displayed behav- ioral cues.

The low accuracy rates in detecting deception through verbal and nonverbal cues might lead one to question if such cues should be used at all when forming judgments about the truthful- ness of subjects. An important tactor to keep in mind is that in the realm of criminal investi- gations, these cues are usually not interpreted independently of other information. Rather, the cues are considered in light of other iirformation and evidence available in an investigation. The simultaneous consideration of the evidence in the investigation and the verbal and non- verbal cues from the subjea may provide more accurate assessments of deception.s2

,\iotuyFfrBAl ln DrcArofts sF DEcEprrcru

For the reasons discussed earlier, caution is warranted when interpreting nonverbal behav- iors as indicators of deception. Much attention has been focused on the meaning of facial expressions and eye contact. In normal conversation with most people, eye contact is usu- ally in the range of 40 percent to 50 percent, although there is significant variation across

ethnic and social groups, individuals, and situations. Variation from the norm may or may not be indicative of deception.s3 Some discussions speak of the significance of a dry mouth or other actions involving the mouth (e.g., biting fingernails) and nose (e.g., rubbing the nose) as indicative of deception.sa

"The Best Way to Unsettle a Suspect"

It has been suggested that the best way to u nsettle a

suspect is to post signs in interrogation rooms that read,

" Behavior patterns that ind icate deception: U ncooperative,

Too Cooperative, Talks too Much, Talks too little, Gets his

Story Perfectly Straight, Fucks his Story Up, Blinks too

Much, Avoids Eye Contact, Doesn't Blink, Stares."ss

Chapter 7 r lnterrogations and Confessions

Additional cues relating to body positioning and posture may be indicative of deception. These include (1) moving the chair farther away fromthe questioner, (2) sitting sideways in the chair, (3) sitting in a straddle position on the chair with the back of the chair as a barrier of separation, (4) sitting so as to protect the abdominal region (e.g., slumping, extending feet and legs to provide distance between the subject and the questioner, crossing arms, sitting with knee over leg with the knee protecting the abdomen), (5) bouncing the legs

while in a sitting position, and (5) using the hands to cover mouth (either to muffle a decep-

tive answer or as an unconscious attempt to keep the mouth from making deceptive statements).

Gestures may also reveal attempts to deceive. Particularly significant are the use of manip- ulators, or created iobs, as an attempt to divert attention from the threatening questions being asked and the deceptive answers being provided. These created jobs are basically busywork for the hands and include such actions as checking jewelry cleaning fingernails, and smoothing hair. Other potentially revealing gestures may include coughing, yawning, throat clearing, sighing, and frequent swallowing (dry mouth and throat). Once again, however, it necessary to consider the characteristics of the subject, the circumstances of the interview, and the timing of these gestures in relation to the questions being asked of the subject.

V E RBA/ Ift'STCATOfrS CIF PECfP.rIO'V

There are numerous verbal cues that tend to indicate deception. However, in order for investigators to recognize deception from verbalization cues, obviously the suspect has to talk, and the more talking the better. Also, if additional cognitive demands are placed on the suspect, it may be more difficult for the suspect to convincingly deceive. As such, it has been recommended that suspects be asked to tell their story in reverse order, to provide their account while simultaneously carrying out another task (gripping an object), or by having the suspect repeat her or his story several times to different investigators. This approach has been referred to as the cognitive approach to lie detection, and its techniques are associated with more accurate recognition of deception.56

In general, deceptive subjects often offer vague and confusing answers. They tend to use

more generalized statements. Truthful subjects usually provide details because it is their desire to conuey meaning to the questioner. Deceptive subjects, however, only wish to con- uince.sT For example, consider the following exchanges in the interrogation of O. J. Simpson:

LANGE:

SIMPSON:

VANNATTER:

SIMPSON:

VANNATTER:

SIMPSON:

About what time was that [that you last parked your Bronco] ?

Eight-somethirg, seven . . . eight . . . nine o'clock, I don't know, right in that atea.

\7here did you go from there, O. J. ?

Ah, home, home for a while, got my car for a while, tried to find my girlfriend for a while, came back to the house.

How did you get the injury on your hand?

I don't know. The first time, when I was in Chicago and all, but at the house I was just running around.

til3

Deceptive subjects also often provide conflicting statements. For example, Simpson alter- nated between stating that he was in a hurry when he was getting ready to leave for the airport and that he was leisurely getting ready to go: f#"T:#,'r'.?,i;3t"tl3''

SIMPSoN: I'd come home and kind of leisurely got ready to go. :J?[::rtl1fl-,ll:"' SIMPSON: I was hustling at the end of the day. may be indicative of

deception; also known SIMPSON: I was rushing to get out of my house. as manipulators.

4fi4 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Or consider these exchanges about when he last parked the Bronco:

LANGE: '!7hen did you last drive it [the Bronco]?

SMPSON: Yesterday.

VANNATTER: rtr7hat time yesterday?

SIMPSON: In the morning, in the afternoon.

LANGE; Okay. \7hat time was this again that you parked the Bronco?

SIMPSON: Eight-something, maybe.

Deceptive subjects also have a tendency to provide explanations that do not make sense. For example, Simpson had difficulty remembering how and when he cut his hand. He first stated that he had cut his hand in Chicago earlier that day; then he stated he had cut it the previous night at his house when he was running around getting ready to leave for the airport. This cut was significant enough to drip blood. One could reasonably expect thar a person would remember the circumstances of such an injurS especially if it had just occurred within the last twenty-four hours.'When Simpson realized that the police had discovered drips of blood at his house and in his Bronco, he stated he had cut himself when he was rushing to get his cell phone.

'\tr7ith regard to the words used by subjects, deceptive individuals often use the present tense when describing a past occurrence (e.g., "He then goes to the store and buys some beer"). Deceptive subjects may also be more likely than truthful subjects to use modifiers in their speech (e.g., "sort ofr" "usuall5" "most of the time"), and thus generally lack conviction about their own assertions. Deceptive subjects tend to reduce or eliminate self-references (e.g., use of "I"), whereas second-person references (i.e., "you") are more likely to be used. Sentences indicative of deception are more likely to begin with verbs or with descriptions.

Deceptive subjects may also use sentences that are unusually short, unusually long, or unusually complicated. They may provide incomplete sentences in answering incriminating questions. The incomplete sentences are both the result of mental confusion about the lies

and how they may overlap and an attempt to avoid giving answers to threatening ques-

tions. The transcript of the Simpson interrogation shows repeated instances of Simpson using incomplete sentences. It bears repeating, however, that one must be cautious in infer- ring deception (and guilt) based on the use of incomplete sentences or any other verbal behavior.

Deceptive subjects may complain (e.g., about the weather, their health, their treatment), especially early during the interrogation. This could be interpreted as an attempt on the part of the subject to gain the investigator's sympathy. Deceptive subjects may offer premature excuses or explanations. They may focus on irrelevant points because they are likely to be

true and therefore easier to talk about.

There may be a tendency among deceptive subjects to delay in answering even basic ques-

tions (e.g., "Did you drive to work this morning?") because subjects who intend to be

deceptive must determine what they need to lie about and what they do not. Deceptive subjects may offer verbal filler when thinking of a response to a question ("Ummmm . . . "). Deceptive subjects may have a tendency to repeat the question that has been asked or to respond to a question with another question. All these are strategies that may be used to create additional time to think about the potential incriminating nature of the question and a deceptive response to it. Consider the following exchanges in the Simpson interrogation:

VANNATTER: So what time do you think you got back home, actually physically got home?

SIMPSON: Seven-something.

VANNAITER: Seven-something? And then you left, and . . .

SIMPSON: Yeah,I'm trying to think, did I leave? You know I'm always . . . I had to run and get my daughter some flowers . . .

ehapter 7 {ii lnterrogations and Confessions

Did Mr. \Teitzman, your attorneg talk to you anything about this polygraph we brought up before? SThat are your thoughrs on that?

Should I talk about my thoughts on that? I'm sure evenru ally I'll do it, but it's like I've got some weird thoughts now. I've had weird thoughts . ..

Similady, deceptive subjects may attempt to avoid answering the question posed. For example,

VANNATTER: \Vhar were you wearing last night, O. J.? SDTPSON: ril7hat did I wear on the golf course yesterday? Some of these kind of

pants-some of these kind of pants, I mean I changed different for whatever it was. I just had on some . . .

Deceptive subjects may also be overly helpful, excessively polite, or extremely respectful. They may talk softlg mumble, or talk through their hands. They may place extra and repeated emphasis on claims of truthfulness (e.g., "reallyr" "honestly', ,,to tell you the truth") and may invoke religious statements to that affect (e.g., "honest to Godr,, ..I swear on a stack of Bibles"). These actions are usually an affempt to be extra convincing when the subject knows he or she may not be convincing at all.

Deceptive subjects may claim to experience memory problems. They may have a selectively good memory or an extraordinary memory. In some instances a subject may offer an imme- diate response to a question that would normally require some thought or even clarification. For example, if a subject immediately answered, "I was working on my car" when asked, "U7hat were you doing last week on Tuesday?" it would be rather odd because the question is broad and the time referent is rather distant. A more reasonable response might be "Gee, that was six days ago. Let me think. Okay. What time on Tuesday are you talking about?"

Both guilty and innocent subjects typically deny their involvement in the crime in question; however, innocent subjects may present stronger denials as the questioning continues, whereas guilty subjects most often begin with strong denials regarding their involvement in the crime. Finally, deceptive subjects sometimes use "buy-out" statements to try to get out of the situation without having to admit to the crime (e.g., "I didnt steal it, but I'd be will- ing to pay the victim for it anyway"). Truthful subjects do not typically try to engage in such a negotiation.

MECHANICAL METHODS OF DETECTING DECEPTION The polygraph and the Computer Voice Stress Analyzer are the most commonly used machines to detect deception.

posysfrAr!r-r

A polygraph is a machine that records physiological responses to psychological phenomena. Like verbal and nonverbal indicators of deception, the premise of the polygraph is that lying is stressful and this stress can be detected in physiological ways. Specifically, the theory holds that the polygraph can detect this stress through the recording of variations in a person's res- piration rate (recorded through pneumographs, which are tubes filled with air thatare placed around the subject's chest and abdomen), blood pressure (recorded by a blood pressure cuff placed around the subjectt upper arm), and galvanic skin response (a measure of sweat on the subject's fingertips recorded through the use of galvanometers attached to the fingers).

Several methods of conducting polygraph examinations have been used over the years. The first widely used method was referred to as the General Question Test or the relevant- irnelevant test (HlI). The RIT consisted of a series of ten to fifteen questions, some of which were relevant to the crime (e.g., "Did you kill Jake Koplin last night?") and some that were irrelevant to the crime and neutral in their content (e.g., "Are you sitting down?"). It was expected that the deceptive subjects would react substantially more strongly to the relevant

pil5

LANGE:

SIMPSON:

Polygraph; A ffi#chin* designed t* ffiIefi$ilr* physicl*gica I r*e*ti#ffi $ t* str*ss #s fi resillt of deceptimn.

Helevant*irrelevant test (HIB: A p#Eygraplh

trxeffi"Iififiti*n method in whi*h qlr*sti#fis retr*vmnt tc the c!"lffi* in questi*n *r* nsked af*ng w,th que$ti*rls thfit ers lrr*levfrnt; du0 tc frequent err*r$, ilse *f this n:eth*d h*s dsclEned.

##ffi

Guilty knowledge technique {GKT}: A p*[ygr*ph ex* ry: ! r"lati*n

n:*th*d in which r-n ultiple-chci** QUestlfinS nnd finswers er* prsvided t* suhjects.

Control question technique {CQT}: A poEygra ph exa m i r-!fi tl0{1

ru:*th*d in which qu*stl*r"ls r*Bevant t* a

*rirne in qu*sti**: mre

astr<*ci aI*ng with *th*n psy*l':*lmgica I try arousl r:g

**ntr*l qu*sti*ns; it [s the m*st frequl*ntlY urs*d p*trygrnph meth*d used t*d*y.

CBIMINAL INVESTIGATION

than the irrelevant questions. This expectation was shown to be incorrect because relevant

questions in fact elicited a greater reaction in both deceptive andtruthfulsubjects. A truthful

denial can be as arousing as a deceptive denial. Research has shown this method can produce

a substantial number of false-positive errors (identifying innocent subjects as guilty) and is

therefore strongly biased against truthful subjects. This polygraph method is now used

infrequently.

Another technique that is not well accepted but that shows interesting possibilities is the guilty knowledge technique (GKO or the concealed information test (CIT). Although there

have been several iterations of this technique, the most recent involves constructing and

presenting to a suspect a series of multiple-choice questions that focus on details of the

crime only the perpetrator and police would know. For example, two of several such ques-

tions would be as follows:

If you are the one who killed Glenda Fisbee, then you would know where in the

house her body was found. Was it in (a) the basement, (b) the kitchen, (c) the

bathroom, (d) the affic, or (e) the bedroom?

If you committed this crime, then you would know how she was killed. Was she

bludgeoned with (a) a brick, (b) a crowbaq (c) a baseball bat, (d) a pipe, or (e) a hammer?58

The subject would be instructed to say no to each answer option. The expectation is that the

actual culprit will have the strongest physiological reaction to the correct answer. A consis-

tent reaction to correct answers may allow one to infer guilt. It is in this way the test mea-

sures guilty knowledge as opposed to emotions or deception. Possibly the greatest advantage

to this approach is that it makes countermeasures to hide deception (see the following dis-

cussion) a nonissue. Research continues to be conducted on the value of this technique.se

The primary and most generally accepted methodology for conducting polygraph examina-

tions today is known as the control question technique (CQT).50 \7ith the CQT methodolog}

responses to relevant questions (e.g., "Did you take the gold watch?") are compared with ,.rporr., to emotionally arousing control questions (e.g., "Did you ever tell a lie?" "Did yo,, .r., take anything of value that was not yours?"). These control questions are broad,

vague, and refer to behaviors any subject has likely engaged in, at least at some point in the

past. k is believed that in this approach, an innocent subject who truthfully answers the

,.lerrarrt questions will be more concerned with and will react more strongly to the control

questions than a deceptive (guilty) person (i.e., an innocent subject would not be worried

about telling the trutl on the relevant questions but would be more worried about the

control questions). Alternatively, a subject who is deceptive on the relevant questions (a

guilty sutject) will be more concerned with and have a greater reaction to the relevant

q,r.rtiorr than the control questions. In essence, the control questions threaten the innocent

(iruthful), whereas the relevant questions threaten the guilty (deceptive). An example of the

questions that could comprise a cQT polygraph examination follows:

Do you live in the United States? During the first 27 yeats of your life, did you ever

tell even one lie? Did you rob the Quickmart at Fourth and Main last night? Prior to

Lg87, didyou ever break even one rule or regulation? Did you take the money from

the cash register at the Quickmart last night? Did you participate in any way in the

robbery of the quickmart last night? Before age27,did you ever even make one

mistake? Were you born in the month of November?51

The questions are usually presented twice in mixed order. Again, it is presumed that a per-

son who is guilty will have the greatest physiological reaction to the relevant questions; a

person who is innocent will have the greatest reaction to the control questions.

Polygraph tests normally begin with an extensive pretest interview that usually takes

b.t*.".r forty-five to ninety minutes. During this interview, consent to administer the exam

Chapter 7 . lnternogations and Confessions

is obtained from the subject, biographical dataarc obtained from the subject, and the crime in question and the subject's version of events are discussed. A description of the polygraph is given and how it works is discussed. The issues under examination and the exact ques- tions to be asked of the subject are identified and discussed by the investigator administer- ing the exam. The transducers are then attached to the subject. After the questioning is done, an interview is usually conducted. At this time the subject may be told he or she was determined to be deceptive, and this may lead to additional interrogation. TypicallS the entfue polygraph process usually lasts between two and three hours.

Estimates regarding the accuracy rates of the polygraph vary. Some studies estimate the CQT technique as producing accuracy rates of 80 percent to 90 percent.62 Others claim the accuracy rate as closer to 60 percent to 70 percent. The most methodologically sound stud- ies show accuracy rates of 50 percent to 75 percent.63'W'hile these rates are not extraordi- narily high, they are better than other methods of lie detection (e.g., interpretation of verbal and nonverbal behaviors).

There are several challenges associated with measuring the accuracy of a polygraph. First, it difficult to test the polygraph in actual investigative settings when it is unknown whether the subject is actually stating the truth or being deceptive. Second, as is the case with verbal and nonverbal cues, certain characteristics of subjects may affect the accuracy of the poly- graph (e.g., drug use, mental illness). Finally the polygraph is a machine-a tool.It does

have the technological capabilities of detecting physiological changes during questioning, but much also depends on the skills and abilities of the operator of the machine and the ability to interpret the results. Needless to say, the research debate on the validity of poly- graph testing is not resolved. However, the one aspect virtually all research agrees on is that the CQT technique is more prone to false-positive errors (identifying innocent subjects as

guilty) than false-negative errors (identifying guilty subjects as innocent).64

A great deal of discussion and debate has focused on if or to what degree the polygraph can be "beaten" (i.e., a deceptive subject could take actions so as to be judged truthful). Typically, the aim is to enhance one's reaction'to the control questions so that the physio- logical response to the control and relevant questions are similar. The most common

PHOTO 7 .2ifne polygraph is a machine used by investigators to detect deception. lts accuracy

depends on many factors, especially the skill of the examiner.

2fr7

mo-

=C =o- p T1 o C =-l-9. =N C

E (D U)a Z (D

=aC)o 3

Hmffi

Computer Voice Stress Analyzer {CV$A}: A ma*hir:e that purp*rts t* detect dec*pti*n fr*s'n stress ir: *r"r*'$ v*lce; resean*h evidenc* d**s nmt

sl.*pp*rt the *se *f the machEne"

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

techniques used to do this are the use of physical manipulations, such as inducing physical pain or muscle tension. This can involve biting one's tongue, pressing toes against the floor, temporarily stopping breathing, tightening leg or buttocks muscles, and so forth. Other attempted manipulations are mental countermeasures, such as thinking emotionally arous-

ing thoughts as questions are asked. Mental countermeasures are generally less effective

than physical ones, but they are impossible to detect. If countermeasures have an effect,

they most often lead to inconclusive results. If any countermeasures are discovered by the

polygraph examiner, such actions would be viewed as a failure to cooperate. These actions

are likely to be interpreted as attempted deception.

Polygraph results are infrequently admissible in court. The courts' primary objections to the introduction of polygraph results are that they are unreliable, that the polygraph invades the responsibility and task of the jury (to determine guilt or innocence), and that polygraph results, because of their scientific nature, may overwhelmingly influence the jury. Although each of these objections may be subject to debate, this is the prevailing wisdom of courts today. Some states have absolute bans on the introduction of polygraph evidence in court, whereas others require a stipulation prior to admittance. In states requiring a stipulation, usually the defense and prosecution must agree to introduce the polygraph results. As one would expect, this is an infrequent occurrence. At the federal level, different circuits have different rules governing the admission of polygraph results.

coM ptJTE R Vfi ts E SrfiE$S AwAI"rXsfi \CV$A) The Computer Voice Stress Analfzer{CVSA} is a machine that is supposed to detect stress in one's voice. The theory is that deception causes stress and this stress can be detected in one's

speaking voice. Similar to the polygraph, a subject's known, truthful, verbal response to a control question (e.g., "Are you sitting down?") is compared with a subject's verbal response

to a relevant question (e.g., "Did you steal the gold watch?"). Differences in the voiceprint pafterns in the questions are interpreted as a reflection of deception. The National Institute for Truth Verification markets the CVSA. According to the institute, unlike with the poly- graph, questions are not limited to a yes-or-no response {ormat, the machine cannot be

fooled, and results are not affected by the subject's age, medical condition, or drug use.

pHoTo 7.3: No independent, methodologically sound research exists that indicates the computer

Voice Stress Analyzer produces valid and reliable results.

Eo a

=CJz a a() L

o_

:) N C CO

c) rL C (U a

Chapter 7 r lnterrogations and Confessions

No verifiable scientific research has demonsrated stress in one's voice is indicative of decep- tion, nor has any research shown stress can be measured through voice stress analysis.6s A study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice found that when subjects were asked about recent drug use, voice stress analysis was able to identify deception about 50 percent of the time (the same probably as flipping a coin); however, subjects were much less likely to be deceptive when reporting recent drug use when they knew their statements were to be analyzed for deception.65 Investigators should tread cautiously when using and relying on yoice stress analysis to make judgments about deception.

tr*#

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

MAIN POINTS

An interrogation refers to questioning or other

action intended to elicit factual information from

a suspect when this information may be used in a

criminal prosecution.

Usually interrogations are conducted when

the suspect is in the custody of the police (i.e.,

custodial interrogations). Miranda warnings apply

to custodial interrogations.

Interrogation methods have come under scrutiny

due to the prevalence of false confessions.

The Reid Technique is the traditional and most

commonly used approach to interrogations in

the United States. lt is the "convince to confess"

approach.

The PEACE model of interrogations is based on the

notion of developing trust and showing respect to

suspects in order to receive truthful information

from them.

The use of deception in interrogations can be

useful, but it is also controversial.

ln order for an interrogation to take place, the

suspect must first wave his or her Miranda rights.

ln the overwhelming majority of interrogations,

suspects agree to answer the questions of the police. Then, most of the time, suspects confess or

say something incriminating.

Regardless of the technique used, important

ingredients in a productive interrogation include (1) a plan, (2) adequate time, (3) control of the

interrogation, (a) an understanding of the facts

of the case, (5) familiarity with the suspect's

background, and (6) rapport with the suspect.

Rationalization, projection, and minimization (RPM)

is a potentially useful approach to interrogations.

Rationalizations can be offered to make it appear that the suspect's actions were rational

and reasonable. Projection refers to assigning

responsibility for the criminal actions to someone

else. With minimization, the serious of the crime or

the suspect's involvement in the crime is reduced.

These elements may make it easier for a suspect to

confess.

10. The feather approach to interrogations is kinder

and gentler than the sledgehammer approach.

Research shows the feather approach to be more

effective at eliciting information.

11. False confessions are extremely troubling given the

value of confessions in establishing proof.

12. False confession cases have many of the same

interrogation characteristics as true confession

cases.

13. The Miranda requirements have little impact

on and offer little protection from false

confessions.

14. The basic theory underlying the behavioral

detection of deception is that a person who is

being deceptive is under increased physiological

stress and that this stress can be detected and, in

some cases, measured.

15. The accurate detection of deception through

verbal and nonverbal behavior is difficult and prone

to error. The consideration of both behavioral

cues and also the facts and evidence in the case

is important when making judgments about

deception.

16. A polygraph is used to detect physiological

responses associated with deception. Various

methods can be used to conduct a polygraph

firf; CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

examination;the most common today is the innocent. lvtuch of the accuracy of the polygraph

control question technique (CQT). depends on the skill and capabilities of the polygraph

17. Thebest research shows polygraph accuracy rates examiner'

of 60 percent to 70 percent. lt is more common that 18. Most research indicates the computer voice stress

innocent (truthful) subjects are identified as guilty Analyzer detects deception with about 50 percent

than guilty (deceptive) subjects are identified as accuracy-the same as flipping a coin.

Computer Voice Stress Analyzer Guilty knowledge technique Reid Technique, 190

IMPOHTANT TEHMS

(CVSA) ,208

Confession, 184

Control question technique (cQT), 206

Created jobs, 203

Emotional offender, 191

False confession, 185

(GKT), 206

lnterrogation, 184

Nonemotional offender, 191

PEACE model ,194

Persuaded false confession, 199

Polygraph, 205

Rationa! ization, projection, and minimization (RPM), 192

Relevant-irrelevant test (RlT), 205

Stress compliant false confession, 199

Voluntary false confession, 200

GU ESTI ONS FOB D ISCUSSI 0N AN D H EVI EW @'*'oo*'**n"*"***'*o*'#{trdrr*rri4c/i

1. What is the potential problem with seeking a 6. What can be done to minimize the frequency and

confession as the goal of an interrogation? significance of false confessions?

2. What is the Reid Technique of interrogations? How 7. Why do the Miranda warnings offer little protection

does it differ from the PEACE model? from false confessions?

3. Why are spending enough time preparing for 8. What is the theory underlying the detection of

an interrogation and having a plan important? deception? How does tnis ttreory relate to the

What are the other ingredients of a productive polygraph and to nonverbal behavior in particular?

interrogation' ,. what is a polygraph? what are the primary

4. What is the role of rationalization, projection, and methods of conducting a polygraph examination?

minimization (RpM) in interrogations? What is the What are false-positive errors and false-negative

difference between the sledgehammer and feather errors in polygraph examinations? Which is more

approaches? Which approach is generally more common?

effective? 10. Are polygraph results admissible in court? How

5. Why do people confess to crimes they committed? else could they be used?

why might people confess to crimes they did nof

commit?

Chapter 7 " lntennogations and Confessions pI1

0sncr ffi#ffiffi" Give your students the SAGE edge!

SAGE edge offers a robust online environment featuring an impressive array of free tools and resources for review study, and further exploration,

keeping both instructors and students on the cutting edge of teaching and learning, Learn more at edge.sagepub.com/brandl4e.