ashamed. These minor transgressions are the experiments with the rules by which most of
us learn to become responsible members of the community, and committing them is an
94
7. QUESTION FORMULATION
integral part of our socialization. We are testing our social parameters, learning a sense of
remorse or guilt, and usually growing into better human beings. However, this experimen-
tal antisocial behavior is something we are very reluctant to discuss with other people,
let alone a stranger investigating a serious crime.
Now, if you were an innocent suspect, which type of question would bother you more?
The relevant or the comparison? Obviously, the comparison question holds a greater threat
for you because you are being asked to admit to something you actually did. You did not
do the crime under investigation, so the relevant questions represent no threat.
In asking comparison questions, question framing is less agreed upon among interview-
ing professionals. Notice that some of the sample comparison questions begin with globally
inclusive phrases such as “In your entire life, did you ever. . .” whereas other questions
involve ages or begin with phrases that seem to exclude a great deal, such as “During the
first 20 years of your life. . .” or “Between the ages of 19 and 23, did you ever. . . .” This is
because there is professional disagreement concerning the importance of using “inclusive”
or “exclusive” comparison questions. John Reid and Fred Inbau, the innovators of the
comparison question, recommended the use of inclusive questions, those that include
the relevant time period under investigation. Thus, they recommended questions worded
with the preface, “In your entire life. . . .” They believed that the interviewer should make
the comparison question as broad and general as possible. This would ensure that a suspect
experienced the maximum threat, forcing him to lie in response to a question that he felt
might lead the investigator to believe he was guilty of the relevant act.
The alternative position has been taken by Cleve Backster, who recommends that the
comparison question be separated in time from the relevant issue. For example, if you are
24 years old at the time of the crime, he would ask, “During the first 21 years of your life. . .”
or “Between the ages of 14 and 18.. . .” Backster argues that this prevents the guilty suspect
from perceiving the comparison question as a more generalized “relevant” question. Asked,
“In your entire life, did you ever steal anything?” the guilty suspect answers “No,” as he
thinks, “I stole the safe money, yesterday.”
The authors recommend the use of the Backster comparison question, where the compar-
ison issue question is separated from the relevant question, while keeping the comparison
period as broad as possible. This can be accomplished by going back 2 years from the
person’s age at the time the crime was committed. This will assure the interviewer that
the innocent individual will be stressed by the comparison question, without contaminating
the response of the guilty suspect to the relevant question. For example, with a 28-year-old
subject: During the first 26 years of your life, did you ever steal anything?
The interviewer will use these various types of questions to determine truth or deception
in the interviewees by comparing the person’s psychological and physiological responses or
“leaks” during the interview. The theory of Psychological Set states that an individual will
react most strongly to that stimulus which holds the greatest interest, or represents the
greatest immediate threat to his or her well-being, as determined by the interviewee himself
or herself. If the subject displays more reactive signs to the comparison questions than to
the relevant ones, it is a sign that he is truthful on the relevant issue. If, on the other hand,
the subject exhibits the opposite behavior, by reacting more strongly to the relevant ques-
tions than to the comparison ones, it is a sign he is deceptive.
SUMMARY
95
SUMMARY
• There are four types of questions utilized in the FAINT interviews: irrelevant, relevant,
comparison, and projective.
• Irrelevant questions are generally background questions that have nothing to do with
the investigation, and therefore offer no threat to innocent or guilty suspects. These
questions establish the interviewer’s professional authority, allow for assessment of the
suspect’s situational heightened emotional state, allow for the building of rapport, and
assist in preventing resistance by structure.
• Relevant questions deal with the matter under investigation. They may deal with direct
or secondary involvement. These questions must force the guilty to lie and allow the
innocent to answer truthfully.
• Comparison questions are designed to cause a dilemma for the innocent suspect. They
deal with deviant acts that everyone has performed in their lifetime. Yet the innocent
suspect, who was prepared to answer all questions truthfully about a crime he did not
commit, is now placed in conflict as to how to answer them.
• The subject’s psychological set enables the interviewer to make determinations of truth
or deception when observing the interviewee as he is questioned with relevant and
comparison questions.
References
[1] C. Backster, Anticlimax dampening concept, Polygraph 3 (1) (1974) 48 50.
[2] J. Reid, A revised questioning technique in lie detection tests, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 37 (6) (1947) 542 547.
C H A P T E R
8
Projective Analysis of Unwitting
Verbal Cues
One of the most successful techniques developed to date to quickly separate the
“innocent as later verified” from the “guilty as later verified” * suspects is the Forensic Assessment Interview (FAINT). The Forensic Assessment Interview actually involves two
concurrent types of assessment: verbal and nonverbal. The verbal assessment is made
through an analysis of a series of projective questions, ** relevant questions, and comparison questions. As a brief review: The interview should begin with irrelevant questions to establish the professional authority of the interviewer. At some time during this initial period the
interviewer must elicit nonthreatening conversation from the suspect to assess the suspect’s
“truth-telling” norm for this emotionally heightened situation. The interviewer may accom-
plish this by finding something he has in common with the suspect and get him talking
about it. It might be about his education, military experience, family, hobbies, or anything
else of mutual interest that will encourage the suspect to talk. This conversation will also
allow the interviewer to establish immediate rapport.
Once that has been done, the interviewer should ask projective questions that will elicit
the unwitting verbal cues that are to be assessed. Projective questions must require the sus-
pect to give a response based on the suspect’s own degree of culpability. Keep in mind that,
although the projective questions are predominant, they are interspersed with comparison
and relevant questions throughout the process. The number, sequence, and types of ques-
tions must be consistent for each s
uspect. The interviewer must ask each suspect exactly
the same questions, in exactly the same sequence and manner. These precise and parallel
interviews are the only framework within which the individuals’ verbal responses can be
compared and analyzed reliably, so that the interviewer will be able to differentiate
between truthful and deceptive suspects.
*The terminology of “innocent as later verified” and “guilty as later verified” was established by Cleve
Backster to accurately describe the substantive nature of a person’s guilt or innocence, which until verified by the facts of confession is speculative.
**Projective questions are generally of a “what if. . .?” nature and designed to have the interviewee open up and release memories or repressed thoughts or attitudinal changes due to their actions.
Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques
97
# 2011, Elsevier Ltd.
98
8. PROJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF UNWITTING VERBAL CUES
Truthful and deceptive suspects have a fundamental difference in their attitude toward
your investigation and its results. The truthful suspect wants the interviewer to be success-
ful. He wants the interviewer to find the truth: that he – the suspect – did not commit, nor
was he knowingly involved in, the crime under investigation. The deceptive suspect has
different goals. He wants the interviewer to fail. He wants the truth to remain hidden, to
create the illusion that he did not commit and/or was not involved in the matter under
investigation.
Because of this very basic difference in attitude and expectation, truthful and deceptive
suspects will differ in the ways they answer relevant, comparison, and projective questions.
Truthful interviewees are usually more cooperative during the interview. This does not
mean they are not nervous or afraid. Most truthful suspects fear that there is a chance that
they might be accused of a crime of which they are innocent. Truthful suspects will become
more at ease as the interview progresses and they realize they are in the hands of a fair,
capable, and competent investigator. The truthful suspect will usually be more talkative
and provide answers meant to help in narrowing the investigation and identifying the
guilty party.
Deceptive suspects are also nervous and afraid. They are afraid that a competent inves-
tigator will identify them correctly as the individual who committed the crime. As they
become aware of the interviewer’s capabilities, their nervousness and fears do not dissipate
but increase, as the discovery of their guilt becomes more likely. They generally have little
or no information to provide and are not very talkative. They recognize that the more talk-
ing they do, the more information they have to fabricate, and the greater chance they have
of slipping up and being detected. Their desire to use passive deception, lying by omission,
is instinctive.
Given all this, there are notable language differences in the way that guilty and innocent
interviewees respond to the interviewer’s questions. Truthful suspects use strong terminol-
ogy and speak about moral values when describing a crime. They will connect themselves
to the issue and will not be afraid to use harsh words such as rape, steal, and murder. On the
other hand, deceptive suspects will distance themselves from the matter and evade identi-
fying the crime; they use less condemning, vague, and evasive language such as “It’s about
something that happened to some lady,” or “It’s about some money they think may be
missing.”
Truthful suspects will tell you who had the opportunity to commit the crime and include
themselves in the group of suspects with opportunity, if that is the case. They will tell you
whom they suspect, as well as who they think is innocent. They realize that this information
will help you in narrowing the investigation and eliminate them from suspicion. Deceptive
suspects will often make sweeping declarations explaining why they could not have com-
mitted the crime (e.g., “I went into the safe that day, but I couldn’t have taken the money
because a supervisor was nearby who could have seen me”). Or they claim little or no
knowledge of the crime in an attempt to escape from helping with the narrowing of the
investigation. They generally appear to have no information to offer, avoid speculating on
anyone who might be involved, and vouch for no one, or everyone.
Truthful suspects appear interested in what is happening; their best interests are served
by having the matter resolved. Deceptive suspects often are distant and unemotional dur-
ing the interview process; their hope is that the investigation will go away, unresolved.
8. PROJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF UNWITTING VERBAL CUES
99
Truthful suspects argue actual innocence: “I didn’t do it.” Deceptive suspects argue legal
innocence: “What proof is there that I did it?”
During the FAINT interview, two things can automatically indicate deception: the sus-
pect employing “personal coding” or changing their “how and why.”
Personal coding is when the suspect redefines the crime so that, in essence, it is no longer
the crime under investigation. For instance, in the interview of a suspect accused of digital
penetration of a very young child, when asked, “Finish this sentence, this interview and
investigation is about . . . what?” he answered, “I thought it was about rape.” When one of
the authors replied, “Thought is past tense. What do you think it is about now?” he replied,
“Bad touching.” “What is bad touching?” he was asked. He replied, “You know, like
ripping her clothes, smacking her.” He was then asked, “How about if someone just stuck
their finger in her vagina, but didn’t rip her clothes or smack her, would that be bad touch-
ing?” “No,” he replied. As you can see, by the suspect’s own definition (personal coding),
he was innocent of the crime under investigation.
The innocent suspect has no need to personally code the crime, since he is already innocent
of the crime under investigation. Therefore, it is very important that the interviewer be cog-
nizant of this attempt by some deceptive suspects to escape detection by personal coding.
A suspect’s “how and why” refers to their oral or written explanation of what the inves-
tigation is about and how they would explain it. For example, a suspect asked to write what
the investigation was about and how they would explain it wrote: “My wife interrogated
my daughter and convinced her that my playing actions were sexual actions.” Later in
the interview he was asked, “Why do you think your daughter is saying this if it is not
true?” He responded, “I think she is doing it for attention. Her mother and me are sepa-
rated and I think she is trying to get us back together. For attention I’d say.” This change
of the suspect’s “how and why” immediately identified him as deceptive.
The following motivational and behavioral differences are the key to how Projective
analysis plays out during the Forensic Assessment Interview:
Truthful
Deceptive
Wants truth known.
Wants truth hidden.
Talkative.
Not talkative.
Tries to narrow or assist
&n
bsp; Has no information/tries to broaden investigation.
investigation.
Uses appropriate and strong terms.
Uses mild/evasive terms.
Expresses real feelings.
Detached/distant.
Admits the opportunity.
Denies opportunity/makes sweeping declarations
to exclude self.
Argues actual innocence.
Argues legal innocence.
No use of “personal coding.”
Uses “personal coding.”
Consistent “how and why.”
Changes “how and why.”
John Reid was the pioneer in the use of projective questions in criminal interviews.
A study published on the Reid Behavioral Analysis Interview (BAI) method used the
100
8. PROJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF UNWITTING VERBAL CUES
following fifteen questions to analyze verbal and nonverbal behavior to identify truthful
from deceptive suspects [1]:
1. What is the purpose of this interview today?
2. If you did this you should tell me now. Did you do it?
3. Do you know who did it?
4. Who do you suspect of doing it?
5. Is there anyone you could vouch for, who you do not think would be involved?
6. Who would have had the best opportunity to do this if they wanted to?
7. Do you think this was done deliberately?
8. How do you feel about being interviewed?
9. How do you think the investigation will turn out on you?
10. Have you ever thought about doing this?
11. What do you think should happen to the person who did this?
12. Do you think the person should get a second chance?
13. Tell me why you wouldn’t do something like this.
14. Why do you think someone would do something like this?
15. Have you told anyone about coming in for the interview today?
Four evaluators in that blind study assessed the suspect’s attitude, posture (closed,
uncomfortable, and rigid/frozen being signs of deception), and verbal responses. The
evaluators properly identified 78 percent of the truthful suspects, misidentified 5 percent
as deceptive, and found 17 percent inconclusive. The accuracy for deceptive suspects was
66 percent; 17 percent were identified as truthful and 17 percent were found to be inconclu-
Nathan J Gordon, William L Fleisher Page 15