rather than the content of the confrontation. If the interviewer says, ‘ You ’ re
lying through your teeth ’ , the suspect can respond by saying ‘ You think so?
Well, work it out for yourself. That ’ s my last word on the subject. ’ If the
confrontation is formulated in a neutral manner the suspect has little choice
but to respond to the content of the confrontation and to explain any
inconsistencies.
Example of a c onfrontation f ormulated in the r ight w ay
Interviewer: So, on Sunday, 2 December you drove to your friends ’ house
in X [another town]. You stayed there on Sunday night and
drove back again late in the day on Monday, 3 December. Is
that right? [summary]
Suspect : Yes.
Interviewer : So, how was it that a witness who lives in Bishops Close saw
your car parked outside his house during the night of Sunday,
2/Monday, 3 December and made a note of your vehicle
registration number? ’
A Structured Model for Investigative Interviewing of Suspects
45
If, after being confronted with the evidence, a suspect stands by his or her
original statement, which is inconsistent with the evidence, there is no point
in the interviewer getting caught up in a ‘ yes you did ’ / ‘ no I didn ’ t ’ discussion
with the suspect. It is better for the interviewer simply to proceed to the next
step in the question plan.
If, after being confronted with the evidence, the suspect comes up with an
entirely new explanation for the evidence, the interviewer can then pursue a
line of questioning based on the new explanation so that the suspect ’ s state-
ment can be investigated.
If, after being confronted with the evidence, the suspect alters his or her
statement to make it consistent with the evidence, the interviewer should not
respond in a negative manner. For example, the interviewer should not say ‘ At
last! Why on earth did you leave it so long? You could have said that right
from the start! ’ If the interviewer reacts like this, the suspect will have little
incentive to change any inaccuracies in what he or she said earlier as the
suspect will feel that if he or she does, it will simply be met with negative
feedback. It is better for the interviewer to be mildly positive: ‘ It ’ s good that
you ’ ve cleared that up. ’ The suspect will then realize that the interviewer will
not object if he or she alters a statement made earlier. The suspect may then
fi nd it easier to alter the statement. It is not advisable for the interviewer to
reward the suspect for altering the story to make it consistent with the evi-
dence. If the interviewer does, the risk of exerting undue infl uence will be too
high, especially if the suspect has a tendency to be compliant (Gudjonsson,
2003 ).
Once the suspect has altered his or her statement to make it consistent
with the evidence, the interviewer can pursue a line of questioning based
on the suspect
’ s revised statement. Obviously it is not enough for the
suspect simply to say,
‘ Yes, that
’ s right. The fact is, I was there.
’ The
interviewer must then ask the suspect to provide a more detailed explana-
tion and
– if possible and appropriate
– in the form of free recall.
‘ OK.
You say the truth is you were there. It ’ s good that you ’ ve cleared that up.
Now tell me precisely what happened.
’ The interviewer must then ask
the suspect a series of open questions about his or her revised statement. The
revised statement can subsequently be compared with the facts revealed by
the investigation.
The l imitations of the m odel
If all the evidence is provided by a single source, as is often the case in a sexual
abuse case, for example, there will not be enough information to draw up a
useful question plan. If, for example, a child has alleged that her father sexually
abused her and all the evidence is based only on this child ’ s statement, it is
not possible to formulate effective information - gathering questions. Having
46
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing
said that, when preparing for the interview the source of the evidence (in this
case, the child) can be discussed with the suspect.
Getting the suspect to repeat what he said earlier and getting the suspect
to repeat what he said in reverse order are not part of this model.
Bull & Milne (2004) reported a study conducted by Soukara, Bull & Vrij
which revealed that suspects were more likely to change their confession if the
interviewer showed concern. A study conducted by Kebbell, Hurren
&
Mazerolle (2006) suggested that suspected sex offenders should be approached
in an open - minded manner that displays humanity rather than dominance to
maximize the likelihood of a confession. These aspects are not explicitly
addressed in the model outlined above. The model simply focuses on the
content of the interview and does not offer any guidelines on how to approach
and treat individual suspects.
What are the a dvantages of u sing t his m odel?
When a suspect is interviewed in accordance with the structured model, rather
than experiencing external pressure (in the form of coercive interviewing tech-
niques, promises, raised voices, etc.), the suspect experiences internal pressure.
If in answer to information - gathering questions the suspect makes a statement
that is inconsistent with a piece of evidence, the suspect is subsequently con-
fronted with the evidence in a neutral way. The suspect then experiences
increasing internal pressure as a result of the fact the he or she can see the
inconsistencies between the statement and the evidence and feels obliged to
provide an explanation.
Asking questions related to the evidence before confronting the suspect
with the evidence affects the suspect ’ s perception of proof. In ensuring that
the evidence is verifi ed to start with, the interviewer effectively increases the
strength of the suspect ’ s belief in the evidence against him or her. If the suspect
has already answered a series of information - gathering questions, he or she is
likely to fi nd it far more diffi cult to come up with yet another explanation than
if he or she were presented with the evidence before being asked a series of
information - gathering questions. For example, if an interviewer tells a suspect
that his or her fi ngerprints have been found at the scene of the crime without
fi rst asking a series of information - gathering questions, it will be fairly easy for
the suspect to say that he or she had a legitimate reason for being at the crime
scene. If the interviewer has already ruled out this possibility before telling the
suspect about the fi ngerprints, it will be far more diffi cult for the suspect to
provide a convincing explanation of how the fi ngerprints came to be at the
crime scene.
The information - gathering approach postulated by the model imposes a
high cognitive load on the suspect – certainly if the subject
committed the
crime – and this may well result in more verbal and nonverbal cues to deceit.
A Structured Model for Investigative Interviewing of Suspects
47
Several of the tips that Vrij (2004) gives for increasing the cognitive load on
a suspect are included in the model or can be incorporated in the questioning
plan: while gathering information the interviewer can ask the suspect a series
of follow - up questions. Time - related questions can also be incorporated in the
question plan.
The approach suggested by the model includes strategic use of evidence
(SUE). This should enable the interviewer to identify guilty suspects
and
innocent suspects more rapidly. In answer to information - gathering questions
innocent suspects will provide an explanation that is consistent with and
accounts for the evidence.
Because the interviewer is forced to consider possible alternative
explanations for the evidence against the suspect while preparing for the
interview, the interviewer is less likely to assume automatically that the
suspect committed the crime. The interviewer is forced to examine the evi-
dence from different points of view and to consider possible explanations from
the outset.
Rather than simply seeking to obtain a confession, the interviewer has to
focus on asking questions and confronting the suspect with the evidence in
the right way. Attempting to persuade the suspect that he or she must – or
had better – confess, because there is already ample evidence to prove that he
or she did it is no longer the main focus of the interview.
Because the interviewer is working with a prepared question plan, it is clear
when the interview can be brought to a close. Once the interviewer has asked
all the questions, the interview is complete. This helps to ensure that the
interview does not degenerate into an endless discussion of points that have
already been discussed which is really a thinly disguised attempt to convince
the suspect that it would be better to confess.
In summary: the structured approach proposed by the model includes
several elements which research has suggested to be helpful in extracting truth-
ful statements from guilty suspects. At the same time, it also helps to minimize
risk factors in the interviewer ’ s behaviour that might otherwise prompt an
innocent suspect to make a false confession.
Finally, a quote from an interview with a man who was convicted of mur-
dering his girlfriend. During the investigation he was interviewed in accor-
dance with the structured method. He describes his experience as follows
( Recherche Magazine , 2002):
… I got caught out by my own statements, but I can ’ t say they tricked me.
They played it very smart … They asked me so many questions that I couldn ’ t
keep my story straight. They were very skilful. They obviously thought it out
very carefully. They proceeded correctly in every respect. They could have
arrested me earlier, but they used the time to prepare everything. Ninety per
cent of my fellow detainees have lots of complaints about the way they were
treated. But I have to say I was always treated impeccably. The police were never
aggressive.
48
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing
References
Amelsvoort ,
A. van ,
Rispens ,
I. & Grolman ,
H. (
2007 ).
Handleiding verhoor .
’ s - Gravenhage : Reed Business Information bv .
Blaauw , J. A. ( 2000 ). De puttense moordzaak . Baarn : Uitgeverij De Fontein bv .
Bull , R. & Milne , R. ( 2004 ). Attempts to improve the police interviewing of suspects .
In G. D. Lassiter (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment (pp. 181 – 196) .
New York : Kluwer .
Gosewehr , D. & Timmerman , H. ( 2007 ). Wanneer de waarheid … Het ware verhaal
over Ina Post . Amsterdam : Rozenberg Publishers .
Gudjonsson , G. H. ( 2003 ). The psychology of interrogations and confessions . Chichester :
Wiley .
Gudjonsson , G. H. & Bownes , I. ( 1992 ). The reasons why suspects confess during
custodial interrogation: Data for Northern Ireland . Medicine, Science and the Law ,
32 , 204 – 212 .
Gudjonsson , G. H. & Petursson , H. ( 1991 ). Custodial interrogation: Why do suspects
confess and how does it relate to their crime, attitude and personality? Personality
and Individual Differences , 12 , 295 – 306 .
Gudjonsson ,
G. H.
& Sigurdsson ,
J. F.
(
1999 ).
The Gudjonsson Confession
Questionnaire - Revised (GCQ - R): Factor structure and its relationship with per-
sonality . Personality and Individual Differences , 27 , 953 – 968 .
Hartwig , M. , Granhag , P. A. , Str ö mwall , L. A. & Kronkvist , O. ( 2006 ). Strategic use
of evidence during police interviews: When training to detect deception works .
Law and Human Behavior , 30 , 603 – 619 .
Hartwig , M ., Granhag , P. A. & Str ö mwall , L. A. ( 2007 ). Guilty and innocent suspects ’
strategies during police interrogations . Psychology, Crime & Law , 13 , 213 – 227 .
Isra ë ls , H. ( 2004 ). De bekentenissen van Ina Post . Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer.
Kebbell , M. , Hurren , E. & Mazerolle , P. ( 2006 ). An investigation into the effective
and ethical interviewing of suspected sex offenders. Trends & Issues in Crime and
Criminal Justice , no. 327.
Lassiter , D. ( 2004 ). Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment . New York : Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers .
Nickerson ,
R. S.
(
1998 ).
Confi rmation bias: A ubiquitious phenomenon in many
guises . Review of General Psychology , 2 , 175 – 220 .
Nisbett , R. & Ross , L. ( 1980 ). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social
judgment . Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice - Hall .
Posthumus , F. ( 2005 ). Evaluatieonderzoek in de Schiedammer Parkmoord. Rapportage
in opdracht van het College van procureurs - generaal . Amsterdam.
Sigurdsson , I. & Gudjonsson , G. H. ( 1994 ). Alcohol and drug intoxication during
police interrogation and the reasons why suspects confess to the police . Addiction ,
89 , 985 – 997 .
Soukara , S. , Bull , R. & Vrij , A. ( 2002 ). Police detectives ’ aims regarding their inter-
views with suspects: Any changes at the turn of the miliennium? International
Journal of Police Science and Management , 4 , 110 – 114 .
Trope , Y. & Liberman , A. ( 1996 ). Social hypothesis testing: Cognitive and motiva-
tional mechanisms
. In
E. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.),
Social psychology:
Handbook of basic principles . New York : Guilford Press .
A Structured Model for Investigative Interviewing of Suspects
49
Vrij , A. ( 2004 ). Why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve . Legal
and Criminological Psychology , 9 , 159 – 181 .
Vrij , A. ( 2006 ). Challenging interviewees during interviews: The potential effects on
&
nbsp; lie detection . Psychology, Crime & Law , 12 , 193 – 206 .
Vrij , A. , Mann , S. & Fisher , R. ( 2006 ). Information - gathering vs. accusatory interview
style: Individual differences in respondents ’ experiences . Personality and Individual
Differences , 41 , 589 – 599 .
Part of a questioning plan regarding the use of a car during a burglary
No.
Evidence
Objective
Information - gathering
+/ −
Summary
Confrontation
+/ − Confi rmation
Further
questions
questioning
or
investigation
7
Howard drives
Establish that
How do you get about?
+
So you are
Confrontation 1: So how is it
+
That ’ s clear
the red Rover
Howard
What means of transport
−
able to
that there is an entry in our
−
owned by his
drives his
do you have? What else?
use your
information system in which
mother
mother ’ s red
Who does the car belong
mother ’ s
the police confi rm that you
(vehicle
Rover
to? What colour is it?
red Rover
were seen driving the red
registration
(vehicle
What is the vehicle
(vehicle
Rover owned by your
number
registration
registration of the car?
registration
mother (vehicle registration
DP - KH - 28).
DP - KH - 28).
What is the make? When
DP - KH - 28).
DP - KH - 28)?
Source(s): Entry
do you use the car?
Alternative
Confrontation 2: So how is
in our
When was the last time
it that according to the
information
you used it? What do
Government Road Transport
system,
you use the car for?
Agency your mother is the
Government
What agreements do you
registered keeper of the
Road
have with your mother as
red Rover with vehicle
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing: Current Developments and Future Directions Page 11