Nathan J Gordon, William L Fleisher
Page 20
Unsureness; negative feelings about self
Tongue flicking teeth/lips
Sexual gesture
Hands and Arms
Fingering collar of shirt
Desire to escape
Placing hand over heart or middle
Sincerity
of chest
Wiping under nose with finger
Aggression
Drumming or tapping fingers
Impatience; hostility; frustration
Fingers steepled
Superiority
Hands held behind head
Confidence; superiority
Man running fingers through hair
Superiority
Woman playing with hair, or man
Flirtation
quickly combing hair
Rubbing objects
Reassurance; sensuousness
Fist pounding or clenching
Aggression
Hand covering face
Protection
Self-caressing, stroking
Sensual personality; narcissistic; vain
Covering eyes with hands
Fear or shame
Legs and Feet
Crossing legs/arms in front
Fear of human contact
Foot tapping
Irritation; annoyance; or repressed aggression
Short choppy foot swing
Anger
Curling toes up or down
Sexual interest
Restless foot movement
Anxiety
138
9. NONVERBAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR DURING THE
INTERROGATION; SURRENDER
These gestures or body positions show a form of submissiveness. Humans, like other ani-
mals, have body zones they protect. The most vulnerable body areas are the throat and
stomach. Have you ever seen two animals fighting? When one animal accepts that the other
has won the fight, the loser gives up and will physically submit; in the case of a wolf, it rolls
over on its back, exposing its vital areas, its throat and neck. It is, in effect, saying, “Okay,
you win. You are bigger and stronger. I submit. Here is my throat. Kill me if you like, but
please don’t.”
Similar signs of submission appear in people when they psychologically accept that they
have lost (Figure 9.28). Thus, during an interrogation, when you see suspects open vital areas, by suddenly unfolding their arms and/or legs, and/or lowering their heads, exposing the vital area of the back of their necks, they have just given up. They are telling you
nonverbally that they are ready to confess.
FIGURE 9.28 Submission.
SUMMARY
139
SUMMARY
• As illustrators increase from the suspect’s “norm,” the chances of truthfulness increase.
• As illustrators decrease, or use of adaptors increases, from the suspect’s “norm,” the
chances of deception increase.
• The application of nonverbal behavior to the FAINT interview will be for nonverbal
behavior associated with deception to negate a positive verbal answer.
• These negative nonverbal behaviors will include timely adaptors, unnecessary thought
gestures, paralinguistic behaviors associated with deception, and neurolinguistic signs of
construction.
References
[1] P. Eckman, Telling Lies, W. W. Norton and Company, New York, 1992.
[2] A. Verj, K. Edward, K. Roberts, R. Bull, Detecting deception via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior, J. Nonverbal Behav. 24 (4) (2000) 239 263, Winter.
[3] F.S. Horvath, Verbal and nonverbal cues to truth and deception during polygraph examinations, Journal of Police Science and Administration 1 (2) (1973).
[4] N.J. Gordon, W.L. Fleisher, Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques, Academic Press, London, 2002.
[5] P. Eckman, W.V. Friesen, Nonverbal Leakage Clues To Deception, Psychiatry 31 (1) (1969) 88 89.
[6] J. Iverson, Discover 20 (3) (1999).
[7] AFP Worldwide News. September 14, 2003, Paris.
[8] F.A. Al Simadi, Detection of deceptive behavior: a cross cultural test, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 28 (2000) 455 462.
[9] C. Darwin, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, D. Appleton, New York, 1872.
[10] D.B. Givens, Website for the Center for Nonverbal Studies. http://members.aol.com/nonverbal2/center.
#1998 2003.
[11] W. James, A study of the expression of bodily posture, J. Gen. Psychol. (1932) 405 406.
[12] A. Mehrabian, The anthropology of posture, Sci. Am. 196 (1957) 122 132.
[13] W.C. McGrew, Aspects of social development in nursery school children with emphasis on introduction to the group, in: N.G. Blurton Jones (Ed.), Ethological Studies of Child Behaviour, Cambridge University Press, 1972, pp. 129 156.
[14] C. Backster, Lecture on the Zone of Comparison Technique, Paper presented at the American Polygraph Asso ciation Annual Seminar, San Diego, CA, August 4, 1979.
[15] J. LeDoux, The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1996.
[16] Poker Top Ten. Top Ten Poker Tells: The Body Language of Poker. Available at: http://www.playwinningpoker
.com/poker/tells/.
[17] D. Morris, Body Watching: A Field Guide to the Human Species, Random House Value Publishers, London,
1985.
[18] A. Mehrabian, Nonverbal Communication, Aldine Atherton, Chicago, 1972.
[19] Unknown attendee, Seminar on Pre Employment Interviewing, South African National Defense Force,
February 2001.
[20] D. Morris, The Naked Ape: A Zoologist Study of the Human Animal, Random House Group, London, 1994.
[21] K. Fuduka, Eye blinks: new indices for the detection of deception, Int. J. Psychophysiol. 40 (3) (2001) 239 245, April.
[22] J. Burgoon, D. Butler, W. Woodall, Nonverbal Communication: The Unspoken Dialogue, Harper and Row,
New York, 1989.
[23] C. Brannigan, D. Humphries, I see what you mean, New Sci. 42 (1969) 406 408.
140
9. NONVERBAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
[24] Mysteries of health, Men’s Health Magazine, January/February (2001) p. 34.
[25] A.C. Guyton, Textbook of Medical Physiology, nineth ed., W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1996.
[26] W.D. Willis Jr., The chemical senses, in: R.M. Berne, M.N. Levy (Eds.), Physiology, New York, 1998.
[27] H. Rosenfeld, Nonverbal Reciprocation of Approval: An Experimental Analysis, pp. 63 72. Argyle, 1973.
[28] D. Goleman, Laugh and your computer will laugh with you, someday, New York Times, January 7, 1997.
pp. C1, C9.
[29] J. Niederhofer, Lecture on Neurolinguistic Programming, American Polygraph Association 36th Annual
Seminar, Indianapolis, Indiana, August 6, 2001.
C H A P T E R
10
Traditional Scoring of the FAINT
Interview
Scoring the FAINT interview will include five segments:
1. Posture/Demeanor
2. MITT
3. Projective/Relevant/Comparison Questions
4. The Suspect’s Written Statement
5. The After-Interview Interview
After completing the initial part of the interview concerning personal data, a score of þ1,
0, or –1 will be given for your assessment of the suspect’s body posture and demeanor. Plus
(þ) scores indicate truthfulness, zero (0) scores indicate you could not make a determina-
tion, and minus (–) scores indicate deception.
The next step in the FAINT process is the assessment of the Morgan Interview Thematic
Technique (MITT). Once again, a score of þ1, 0,
or –1 will be given. In a case involving mul-
tiple suspects, where one or more suspects already has received a –1, a suspect with a MITT
presentation that is clearly more deceptive than the others may be given a score of 2.
Traditional scoring of the projective, relevant, and comparison questions in the Forensic
Assessment Interview is based on a 3-point scale. If both the nonverbal behavior and the
verbal content of the suspect meet the criteria for a truthful response to a question, the score
for that question will be þ1. If both the nonverbal behavior and the verbal content meet the
criteria of deceptive behavior, the score for that question will be –1. If there is no observable
nonverbal behavior, the score for that question will be based solely on the verbal content as
þ1 if it is consistent with truthful criteria, or as –1 if it is consistent with deceptive criteria. If
there is a conflict between the nonverbal behavior and the verbal content, the score for that
question will be 0. For example, if the suspect touches his nose (a nonverbal deceptive sign)
as he names a suspect (a verbal sign of truthfulness), the score is 0. Also score the question
0 if you are unsure of the value of what was observed.
The written or oral statement of the suspect concerning what he knows about the crime
and how he would explain it, as well as the After-Interview Interview, will also each receive
a score of þ1, 0, or –1.
Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques
141
# 2011, Elsevier Ltd.
142
10. TRADITIONAL SCORING OF THE FAINT INTERVIEW
TABLE 10.1
Verbal behavior
Nonverbal cues
Assessment score
þ
þ
þ1
1
þ
0
þ1
0
1
þ
0
With that in mind, it is very important, given a group of potential suspects, that inter-
views be conducted with all suspects before the interviewer comes to a decision about nar-
rowing the investigation to a given suspect. Although forensic assessment is highly reliable,
it is not perfect. That being said, let’s assume that the interviewer’s accuracy identifying
suspects properly with the Forensic Assessment Interview Technique is 90%. If an investi-
gator were assigned a case where there were ten suspects, of whom one was deceptive, with
90% accuracy, statistically one could expect to properly identify the guilty suspect as decep-
tive, and correctly identify eight of the nine truthful suspects as truthful. However, one
truthful suspect is likely to be identified as deceptive.
Therefore, to increase the accuracy, the two remaining suspects would then be reinter-
viewed. During this reinterview the interviewer will use the same techniques, but the
second interview will be much shorter:
Q: Our investigation is ongoing; however, we have not been able to eliminate you as a
suspect or be sure that you have told us everything you know about this. Please tell me
again everything you know about this and how you would explain it.
Apply the rules of SCAN to the answer.
Q: Tell me why it could not have been you?
Truthful: Argue actual innocence
“I didn’t do it!”
Deceptive: Argue legal innocence
“Because no one can prove I did it. What do you have that shows it
was me?”
Q: Do you suspect someone in particular, or know for sure who did it?
Truthful: Narrow investigation by naming someone.
Deceptive: Broaden, or will not help investigation; provide no names.
Q: During the (back 2 years from suspect’s age when crime was committed), did you
ever . . . ? (Comparison)
Truthful: Show nonverbal deceptive behavior, response latency, repeat question, use hedge phrases, and
make admissions reluctantly.
Deceptive: Not concerned with question.
10. TRADITIONAL SCORING OF THE FAINT INTERVIEW
143
Q: Did you (commit the crime)?
Truthful: Respond with quick, emphatic denial.
Deceptive: Usually deny, or become evasive. May exhibit response latency, ask you to repeat the
question or repeat it to themselves.
Q: What would you say if later it was proved that you did this?
Truthful: Respond that it’s not possible.
Deceptive: Answer the question, or tell you there is nothing he can do about it.
Q: For example, would there be any reason (for incriminating evidence/or someone to
have said you did it)?
Truthful: Quickly deny it.
Deceptive: Weak in denial, or may come up with a reason it could be possible.
Q: If I need to speak with you again, is it okay?
Truthful: Will agree.
Deceptive: Will usually have to think about it, or agree. If there is a refusal, an interrogation should
begin.
Q: Should I believe your answers concerning whether or not you did this crime?
Truthful: Will make affirmative statement.
Deceptive: Usually will not commit to having us believe them.
If the suspect answers that we should believe them, they must now answer “I told the
truth,” “I did not lie,” or “I did not do the crime” to any of the following questions:
Q: Give me one reason why I should believe you.
Q: What would you say if the investigation comes up with proof you did this?
Q: What were your emotions during the interview?
Q: Were you afraid?
Q: If applicable: If you were asked to pay for
, how much would you be willing to pay?
The following are the actual assessment interviews conducted in three unrelated matters.
The first case study is one of seven bank employees potentially involved in a theft of money
shipped from the bank’s vault. The second case study is a day-care worker accused of sex-
ually molesting young children under her supervision. The third case study is a multiple
suspect investigation to try to determine if any of the four employees interviewed were
involved in setting a fire in a stockroom. See whether you can determine if each is truthful
or deceptive.
144
10. TRADITIONAL SCORING OF THE FAINT INTERVIEW
CASE STUDY 1
In the bank case, $700 was missing from money that had been shipped from the bank (we
will call it ABC Bank) to another bank (XYZ Bank). The receiving bank reported that seven
different “straps” (bundles of money) had been short, indicating someone removed one or
two bills from each strap prior to shipping. The MITT and After-Interview Interview por-
tions are not included for this exercise.
Suspect A
Q: How long have you worked here?
A: Uh . . . since February 27th, I believe this year. (coughs)
Q: What do you do?
A: I’m a bank teller, accepting deposits, tax payments, a variety of work.
Q: How do you like working here?
A: Uh . . . (smiles) the work is great; the experience. I’ve had differences with my co workers, but, I
believe we can get along. It’s kid stuff.
Q: What do you like most about your job?
A: Oh, a lot of things, satisfaction of helping someone.
Q: What do you like the least?
A: The least? (laughs) . . . ha
te coming into work Mondays too early. I like to sleep a lot.
Q: What is this investigation about?
A: What is that again? Money that was supposedly lost here. According to our vice president it was lost
here.
Q: Why were you selected to be interviewed?
A: We’re all selected. Nobody’s exempt.
Q: How do you feel about being interviewed?
A: I feel we have to. If there’s a thief among us, we have to know. In addition to this money, there’s
been 20 dollars here and there missing from MAC. You never count money. Two weeks ago I took money
from “Employee B,” and was short $100. It was a stack.
Q: Tell me whatever you know about the missing money, and how you would explain it.
A: What I know about $700, was supposedly missing from money transferred from the vault that was
being shipped to XYZ Bank. I do not recall vault currency, except for coins and one dollar packs, being ever left unattended. Customers are never left alone in the vault room while currency is left unattended. . . . I can only conclude that only someone involved in the shipment process, or someone with access to the vault,
could have pilfered money in the manner described to us, if indeed the loss did occur at the branch and
not in transit.
Q: If you were going to conduct the investigation, how would you do it?
A: Question the people involved in the shipment process and find out if at any time only one person had
access to the money. Also, it may be possible the person that signed the shipment transfer slip did not count the full shipment as is required. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case, because often due to time
restraints and heavy customer turn out, proper procedures are not followed in the transfer process.
Q: What are the five most important causes that would have created this situation?
A: Procedures were not followed. Not all the money was counted before it was shipped. One of the two
parties left the other alone during the shipment process. Both parties in the shipment process were involved in the theft. Someone who had access to the vault before or during the shipment process took the money
while it was not under dual control.
Q: Did you ever think about doing something like this?
A: I never have to steal. We’re a wealthy family.
CASE STUDY 2
145
Q: In your entire life, did you ever steal anything from a job?
A: I never stole a penny from a job . . . from nobody.