home, had to work late.
FIGURE 5.14 Relevant Sketch RNV 9 (sketch of office where the curtains are on fire).
S: (adaptive stress gesture: hand to back of neck) . . . A fire. (soft voice) . . . Looks like it got most of the house . . .
most of the office. Call the fire department and put it out.
FIGURE 5.15 Guilt or Remorse Sketch GR 2 (gender specific).
MITT SUSPECT 2
51
S: . . . She looks like she walked in and seen something . . . (nods, NO) . . . she could’ve either walked in and seen something bad, or walked in and something’s burning in front of her face. . . . I don’t know. I’m
not good at this. (nervous laugh)
FIGURE 5.16 Apprehension Sketch A 3 (person taking a polygraph test).
S: Polygraph. I’ve had it before. If something happened or somebody don’t believe you they’ll give you a
polygraph test and it’ll tell if you’re bad or good.
I: So how’s it come out?
S: I don’t know.
I: It’s your story.
S: . . . If she ain’t got nothing to hide, I’ll say good.
Score: 1
Used a nonverbal stress gesture when she saw the relevant sketch; saw the relevant issue
of fire in the guilt or remorse sketch; had problems with endings and had to be prompted
for outcome or end of the story.
52
5. MORGAN INTERVIEW THEME TECHNIQUE (MITT)
MITT SUSPECT 3
FIGURE 5.17 Irrelevant Sketch IR 1 (violin).
S: Before she wants to learn how to play the violin, and now she’s trying to figure it out. (shrugs/slight
hand illustration as talks) . . . She gets good. Plays a concert.
FIGURE 5.18 Irrelevant Sketch IR 5 (gender specific: male in suit).
MITT SUSPECT 3
53
S: Uh . . . before the guy’s looking for dress clothes (slight hand illustration as talks). Now he’s trying on a suit. Fits good and he gets it.
FIGURE 5.19 Relevant Sketch RNV 9 (sketch of office where the curtains are on fire.
S: Uh . . . before . . . I guess the kid’s playing with fire (slight hand illustration as talks) Now the room’s on fire. (shrugs) Guess he calls the fire department. (slight laugh)
FIGURE 5.20 Guilt or Remorse Sketch GR 1 (gender specific).
S: Before a kid’s having trouble. Now he’s just thinking. Gets it all settled.
54
5. MORGAN INTERVIEW THEME TECHNIQUE (MITT)
FIGURE 5.21 Apprehension Sketch A 3 (person taking a polygraph test).
S: Before he was witness to crime or something, now he’s on a polygraph test . . . after (shrugs) he’s guilty.
(slight snicker)
Score: 1
Sees the fire but minimizes it: playing with matches; has the person taking the polygraph
test guilty; interesting that the person only witnessed the crime.
MITT SUSPECT 4
FIGURE 5.22 Irrelevant Sketch IR 1 (violin).
MITT SUSPECT 4
55
S: She wants to learn how to play the violin and she’s sitting there studying studying studying the
chords, the pictures and stuff (illustrates with hand). And the outcome is she learns how to play it.
FIGURE 5.23 Irrelevant Sketch IR 5 (gender specific: male in suit).
S: . . . A guy walked in a room and sees someone’s sitting there. And there’s suspicion . . . the guy sitting there don’t know him and he’s suspicious and it turns out to be one of his old Army buddies.
FIGURE 5.24 Relevant Sketch RNV 9 (sketch of office where the curtains are on fire).
S: . . . Boy came to see his father, but his father’s not there. So the boy assumes he went home.
56
5. MORGAN INTERVIEW THEME TECHNIQUE (MITT)
FIGURE 5.25 Guilt or Remorse Sketch GR 1 (gender specific).
S: (touches nose) . . . The boy heard his father passed away and he’s sobbing about it, but it turned out not to be his father but a friend of his father.
FIGURE 5.26 Apprehension Sketch A 3 (person taking a polygraph test).
S: It looks like a person wanting to . . . it’s a person testifying in court . . . he’s got some wires hooked up to him, like a lie detector test . . . he’s calm . . . and . . . he’s telling the truth.
SUMMARY
57
Score: 2
A score of 2 was given because two earlier suspects had already received a 1, and this
suspect’s MITT was clearly more problematic because he was the only suspect who did not
see fire in the relevant sketch. Also, during the background questioning at the beginning of
the FAINT interview, the author mentioned that he was in the military to establish rapport
with the suspect, and the suspect stated he wanted to be in the military. Now, the suspect
actually describes himself and the interviewer in the second sketch.
Interestingly, in the case just presented, the first suspect was innocent. The second sus-
pect was also innocent, but had been involved in an arson as a child. The third suspect
was innocent, but had guilty knowledge of the fourth suspect, who actually set the fire
and confessed.
Contact the Academy for Scientific Investigative Training, Nathan J. Gordon and William
L. Fleisher, for information on MITT interview training seminars and purchase of the
“Morgan Interview Theme Technique MITT.”
SUMMARY
• MITT is a projective test where the suspect is asked to make up stories concerning five
presented pictures.
• MITT only takes a few minutes to administer and tends to reduce the anxiety of the
innocent and increase the anxiety of the deceptive.
• MITT allows for the identification of the deceptive by their reluctance to talk about the
relevant issue, their downbeat stories, their inability to make up endings, and their
illogical presentations.
• MITT also gives the interviewer information that can be used during an interrogation to
facilitate admissions and confessions
References
[1] Wikipedia, www.wikipedia.org.
[2] Ibid.
C H A P T E R
6
Forensic Statement Analysis
Today, an important aspect of evaluating written, transcribed, or videotaped statements
today is forensically analyzing them. Currently, there are two major techniques used in the
substantive analysis of statements: Criterion Based Statement Analysis (CBSA) [1] and Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN) [2].
CBSA is a method that developed from a long tradition of research in the field of witness
psychology. The research began with the three following works: La Suggestibilite´ (Suggest-
ibility) by Alfred Binet in 1900; Die Aussagepsychologie (Witness Psychology), by William Stern
in 1902; and the previously mentioned “On the Witness Stand” by Hugo Mu¨nstenberg in
1909 [3].
William Stern (1871–1938), one of the major German psychologists in the field of person-
ality and developmental psychology, published an untitled article in 1904, “The Testimony
is an Intellectual and an Audition Product.” This title accurately describes the concept of
witness psychology, which maintains that “testimony” is a performance that depends not
only on personal characteristics, but also on characteristics of the situation in which the
statement was given [3].
In the early 1900s, Stern and other German psychologists began experiments concerning
the credibility of witness testimony of children and adults in alleged cases of sexual abuse.
They observed the influence th
at other people had on the statements of children.
In 1967, Udo Undeutsch, a professor of psychology in Germany, formulated a working
hypothesis for evaluating the credibility of testimony [1]. This “Undeutsch Hypothesis”
(named by German psychologist Max Steller in 1989) stipulates that descriptions of real
memories differ qualitatively from fabricated testimonies.
This notable difference is based on the supposition that a fabricated statement demands
from the prevaricator a greater cognitive effort, greater creativity, and also a great deal of
self-control. The production of a lie requires more cognitive energy than the production
of a truthful account.
A lie needs supporting strategies such as creativity and control processes to ensure that
different elements of the falsehood fit together without contradiction. This leads to the
assumption that the quality of true statements might differ from invented or fabricated
ones. The quality will differ in such a way that invented statements may be “poorer” in
Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques
59
# 2011, Elsevier Ltd.
60
6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS
quality, because more cognitive energy has to be allocated to creative or control processes.
Therefore, the description of the alleged event might result in a poorer outcome, fewer
details, and a less vivid picture than reports about experienced events.
In other words, the statement not based on a real experience will be less elaborate than a
statement based on genuine recollection. This hypothesis gave a new foundation for the
research and verification of criteria that can differentiate a truthful statement from a fabri-
cated one [3].
In the late 1980s, psychologists Stellar, Raskin, Trankell, Koehnken, and Epsin did empir-
ical research in CBSA and validated that this method can differentiate statements based on
reality from those that are fabrications [4]. However, this method cannot differentiate
between statements based on reality and statements that were influenced by suggestion.
Psychologists continue to research this method today.
The evaluation of a statement uses the following nineteen criteria [1].
General Characteristics:
1. Logical structure
• When a free report is coherent and logical, yet not in chronological order, it is
acceptable.
• To ensure credibility, the entire statement is searched to determine if the content is
concrete, original, precise, and evident.
• Contradictions and contradictions to natural laws (technical, medical,
psychological, etc.) negatively affect the credibility of the statement.
2. Unstructured production
• The fictitious statement is generally ordered in a chronological way.
• It is very difficult to lie in a nonstructured way.
• When the act is described in a discontinuous manner, but nevertheless fits
together like a mosaic, as an entire unit, then it is a qualitative sign of the
fulfillment of this criterion.
3. Quantity of details
• A credible declaration gives more information than a fabricated one. This criterion
is based on the assumption that for a witness who didn’t experience what he/she
is reporting, it is difficult to invent a complex and detailed story while staying
logical and free from contradiction.
• This criterion refers to the relevant issues in the declaration.
Specific Contents: In this category the emphasis is on the quality of the information
given by the witness. The cognitive aspect involved in developing the statement plays a
primary role.
4. Contextual embedding
• This criterion refers to the relevant issues in the statement. Real memories about
an event are more connected to time and space than fabricated ones. This criterion
can be accomplished only if the relevant act is described in a detailed way, giving
reasonable information to each situation that concerns time and space in order to
explain the relevant act.
6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS
61
5. Descriptions of interactions
• The relevant criminal act has to be described by several sequences of actions and
chains of reactions.
• The more complex the sequence, the more valuable this criterion is. For example:
He pointed a gun at me and I put my hands up in the air and he took the papers from my hand. I
tried not to let go and he hit me with the butt of the gun and ran away. When he grabbed the papers
a small piece ripped off that was still in my hand.
6. Reproduction of conversation
• This criterion is accomplished when we have a complexity of conversation
sequences referring to the relevant act.
• When a witness refers to a conversation with only one sentence, like, “Give me
those papers,” then this criterion is not fulfilled.
He pointed a gun at me and said, “If you cooperate you won’t get hurt” and I put my hands up in the
air, and said, “What do you want?” He said, “Give me those papers,” and he took the papers from my
hand. I tightened my hold and tried not to let go and he hit me with the butt of the gun and said, “Don’t
make me hurt you,” and took the papers and ran away. When he grabbed the papers a small piece
ripped off that was still in my hand.
7. Unexpected complications during the incident
• There is agreement, without restriction, that when this criterion is present it is a
very important indication of the credibility of the statement.
• The description of an unexpected disruption within the act, or complications
that cause the ending of the act (for instance a telephone call), would be a
very difficult cognitive task for a witness to fabricate if they are not telling the
truth.
He pointed a gun at me and said, “If you cooperate you won’t get hurt” and I put my hands up in the
air, and said, “What do you want?” Another person suddenly walked into the parking lot and he told
me to put my hands down and don’t move. After the person left he said, “Give me those papers,” and
he took the papers from my hand. I tightened my hold and tried not to let go and he hit me with the butt
of the gun and said, “Don’t make me hurt you,” and took the papers and ran away. When he grabbed the
papers a small piece ripped off that was still in my hand.
Peculiarities of Content:
8. Unusual details
• An extraordinary description or the reference of a rare detail in connection
with the criminal act is considered a solid indicator of a reality-based statement.
• Extraordinary details are the opposite of stereotypical reports. These details have
to refer to the crime.
He pointed a gun at me and said, “If you cooperate you won’t get hurt” and I put my hands up in the
air, and said, “What do you want?” Another person suddenly walked into the parking lot and he told me
to put my hands down and don’t move. He suddenly pushed the gun into my stomach and came very
62
6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS
close to me. After the person left he said, “Give me those papers,” and he took the papers from my hand.
I tightened my hold and tried not to let go and he hit me with the butt
of the gun and said, “Don’t make
me hurt you,” and took the papers and ran away. When he grabbed the papers a small piece ripped off
that was still in my hand.
9. Superfluous details
• The integration of peripheral details in the testimony about the relevant act is a
sign of a real experience.
• Both issues get mixed in the memory and are recalled together as a part of the
experienced event.
• The peripheral details are not necessary to describe the event. Therefore, a
person who didn’t experience a criminal act would not mention peripheral
details.
• Peripheral details are only considered if the witness describes many details of the
relevant act, thus allowing for the differentiation between what is relevant and
what is peripheral.
He pointed a gun at me and said, “If you cooperate you won’t get hurt” and I put my hands up in
the air, and said, “What do you want?” Another person suddenly walked into the parking lot and
he told me to put my hands down and don’t move. He suddenly pushed the gun into my stomach
and came very close to me, almost like it was two people hugging. After the person left he
said, “Give me those papers,” and he took the papers from my hand. I tightened my hold and
tried not to let go and he hit me with the butt of the gun and said, “Don’t make me hurt you,” and
took the papers and ran away. When he grabbed the papers a small piece ripped off that was still in
my hand.
10. Accurately reported details misunderstood
• This refers to details not understood, but reported in an exact form.
• This occurs when the witness describes a situation in an exact way, but does not
understand the significance or meaning of his description. For example, consider
this statement: “He took me to his room and I noticed a lump of putty on his desk.
I found it strange that an adult would be playing with putty.” The putty described in
this statement is actually an explosive, C4 that was used in the commission of a
terrorist act.
11. Related external associations: reference to exterior incidents
• This criterion is accomplished when the statement mentions conversations where
Nathan J Gordon, William L Fleisher Page 9