Nathan J Gordon, William L Fleisher
Page 38
usually interrupt and begin to disagree, whereas deceptive people remain quiet, waiting
to hear what else the interrogator has to say and what evidence or options will be offered.)
The interrogator should then rephrase and repeat the statement: “There is no doubt you did
this, didn’t you?”
“There is no doubt you did this, didn’t you?” is a hook! It allows the suspect to merely
nod “Yes,” and the process is over. This only happens around 10% of the time and is equiv-
alent to someone hitting a home run. However, if you are only willing to hit home runs, we
can assure you that you will never make the Hall of Fame! In most instances, then, the inter-
rogator is just trying to get on base.
FIGURE 18.2
258
18. THE INTEGRATED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE
2. DO NOT ALLOW THE SUSPECT TO DENY THE ACT
FIGURE 18.3
Ninety percent of suspects will at some point begin to deny their involvement. The
more the suspect is allowed to deny the act without contradiction, the more the suspect’s
lies are reinforced. In addition, confessing will also be more difficult. Now the suspect must
admit his wrongdoing, as well as admit that he was lying to the interrogator every time he
denied the act.
When the suspect starts to deny responsibility or involvement, the interrogator must
either stop the denial by voice inflection and speaking over him, or holding his hand up,
palm open and toward the suspect, like a traffic cop indicating “Stop,” and saying, “Now
wait a minute, John. First I want you to listen to what I have to say.”
3. OFFER A SERIES OF POSSIBILITIES OF HOW AND WHY
THIS MAY HAVE HAPPENED
The interrogator must offer possible scenarios to explain why the crime may have been
committed. He should go from possibility to possibility, until the suspect appears to show
an interest in a scenario, and then the interrogator should expand on that possible explana-
tion. Many of these scenarios will minimize the blame for the impact of the suspect’s act,
making it easier for the suspect to admit his involvement. For example:
“John, there’s many reasons why things like this happen. Once I was involved in a case like this, and the
person who did it was forced to take the money to pay back a loan shark who was threatening to kill him. If
that’s why you took the money, tell me. It’s not like you’re a thief.”
(Suspect shows no interest, or starts to deny it, so interrogator introduces a different
scenario.)
4. UNDERMINE THE PERSON’S SELF-CONFIDENCE
259
“You could be a thief, a hardened criminal who deserves to be severely punished. Someone who planned
the whole thing out. But I believe you’re basically an honest person, who found himself in a very tempting
situation, and you did something you wouldn’t have ordinarily done.”
(Suspect appears to be listening and showing interest.)
“Once I met a guy who went into a drawer to get some keys and someone had left $1100 in there for a
deposit instead of putting it into the safe. The guy wasn’t a criminal, but he saw all that money and, not
thinking, put it in his pocket. The next day he even felt guilty and wanted to put that money back, but it
had already been discovered missing and he couldn’t. Now, that guy was basically a good guy. He wasn’t
a criminal. He wasn’t a thief. . . .”
Suspects often will accept possibilities where blame is placed on the victim or where they
find a way to diminish their responsibility; perhaps they were under the influence of alco-
hol or drugs, or perhaps they had no choice.
4. UNDERMINE THE PERSON’S SELF-CONFIDENCE
All deceptive suspects are afraid of evidence that they may have left at the scene, or
that may turn up, which will prove they committed the crime. Never use foolish bluffs to
heighten this fear. For example, imagine an interrogator who tells a suspect he found the
suspect’s fingerprint on a matchbox found at the arson. The suspect knows that’s not pos-
sible because he wore gloves. If the suspect recognizes that the interrogator is bluffing, the
interrogator’s credibility is ruined. Instead, the interrogator should undermine the suspect’s
self-confidence with phrases that begin, “What’s going to happen if . . .,” such as “John,
what’s going to happen if those fingerprints we found on that box of matches are yours?”
Other “What ifs” include footprints, sperm, blood type, and witnesses. The possibilities
are endless and left to your case information and imagination.
FIGURE 18.4
260
18. THE INTEGRATED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE
5. OFFER PERSUASIVE ARGUMENTS FOR TELLING THE TRUTH
The interrogator must tip the scales by enhancing the suspect’s desire to confess, while
reducing inhibitions arising from fear of punishment. The interrogator reminds the suspect
of the guilt he is experiencing and how telling the truth will relieve all that stress as well as
the stress of having the issue following him for some time to come. The suspect should be
reminded that he has the opportunity to get it over with and not have to worry about it any-
more. For example:
“John, we live in a psychological society, not a legalistic one. Two different people who have committed
the exact same crime will receive totally different sentences because one acknowledges what he did was
wrong and shows remorse, while the other defiantly refuses to admit his guilt. Our society looks at both
differently.”
With the pure sociopathic personality, where there is no guilt or remorse, the interroga-
tor may play to the suspect’s pride in taking credit for such a brilliant act or by challenging
his ability to have committed the act because of his below-normal intelligence.
6. OFFER SOLUTIONS, WHERE POSSIBLE, TO ALLEVIATE THE
PERSON’S FEAR
The interrogator should never make promises he cannot keep. When possible, he can
overcome the barriers preventing the suspect from telling the truth as the suspect brings
them up. For example, a suspect may say he is afraid of admitting telling the truth because
he may lose his job. An effective response might be, “John, you’re worried about losing
your job? Your job is what put you here! If they had paid you a fair wage, you wouldn’t
have needed that money. You’ve had other jobs before, and you’ll have more jobs after this.
What you have to do now is tell the truth, and get on with your life.”
7. COMPLIMENT THE PERSON
The interrogator wants the suspect to admit to the crime and talk about his “dark” side.
By complimenting him and recognizing his good side, the interrogator makes it infinitely
easier for the suspect to concede he has a dark side and discuss it.
No one believes he is a bad person or indefensible. If a person did not believe he was
basically good and rational, he could not psychologically exist. A prime example of this
is Joel Steinberg. He beat his adopted daughter to death and severely abused his lover.
He was quoted in People magazine as saying people just do not understand him. He
described himself as a really good person caught in difficult circumstances. Suspects may
be complimented on their intelligence, their courage, and their innate ability. In a sense,
the interrogato
r is appealing to the suspect’s superior qualities as he leads the suspect to
recognize that his best option is to tell the truth.
8. USE ALTERNATIVE AND LEADING QUESTIONS
261
FIGURE 18.5
8. USE ALTERNATIVE AND LEADING QUESTIONS
By asking alternative and leading questions, the interrogator makes it much easier for the
suspect to admit his guilt. The alternative question facilitates a positive response but allows
reduced culpability, whereas the leading question enables a less threatening admission
through nonverbal acquiescence.
One of the fears of the deceptive suspect during the interrogation is that he is losing control.
Alternative questions give the illusion of control. For example, let’s say you love food, except
Greek food. Your significant other’s favorite food is Greek food. You’ve had a tough day and
would like to take your significant other out to dinner. If you come home and say, “Honey,
I’ve had a tough day, and you probably did, too. Let’s go out to dinner. Where would you like
to go?” If you do this, you know you will be at a Greek restaurant. So, you give your significant
other the illusion of control by saying, “Honey, I’ve had a tough day and you probably did, too.
Let’s go out to dinner. What would you like to eat, Italian or Chinese?” If your significant other
chooses either, you are happy. Alternative questions offer two possibilities, one of which is
ideally more severe than the other. If the suspect accepts either alternative, he has made
an admission of guilt. “John, did you plan to do this ahead of time, or did you just find
yourself in a tempting situation and do something you wouldn’t have ordinarily done?”
“Did you put your penis in your daughter, or was it just your finger?” “Did you come
on to her, or did she come on to you?” “Were there other times you did this we don’t
know about, or is this the first time?” Notice that given a severe and less severe choice,
the suspect finds the lesser threat much more appealing.
Leading questions also make it easier for a person to admit to wrongdoing: the interro-
gator asks an assumptive question that allows the suspect to confess with minimum ver-
balization or effort. We also refer to this as a “hook.” He only has to nod “Yes,” and he
has confessed. Thus, the leading question is utilized by the interrogator who knows the sus-
pect is willing to confess but is experiencing difficulty in voicing it:
262
18. THE INTEGRATED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE
“You didn’t plan to do it, did you?”
“It was your finger, wasn’t it?”
“She came on to you first, didn’t she?”
“This was the first time, wasn’t it?”
9. WATCH FOR THE “BUY” SIGNS
Getting a confession is, in a sense, selling the truth. There are many similarities between
selling and interrogating. Perhaps truth is the toughest commodity to sell. If we sold new
cars and the person bought our product, they would drive home in a shiny new automo-
bile. We sell truth, and if the suspect buys our product, they may not get to drive for quite
some time!
Just as in a sale, there are signs an interrogator can look for that signal that the suspect
is prepared to make a purchase: that he is ready to tell the truth. These signs include sud-
den silence, listening attentively to what the interrogator is saying, dropping of the head
and shoulders showing the nonverbal signs of submission, the nodding of the head up
and down showing agreement with what is being said, or statements like “What would
happen if someone did do this?” The last is no different from the prospect for a new
car asking the salesman, “If I put $1000 down, what will my monthly payments be?”
Many salespeople can get the prospect to the point of showing “buy” signs, yet fail to
make the sale.
10. MOVE IN CLOSE AND PRESS FOR THE CONFESSION
When the interrogator recognizes the “buy” signs, he must move in close to the sub-
ject and press for the sale. Now is the time that the suspect’s perception of the interro-
gator’s being in his intimate zone is no longer anxiety-producing, but comforting, and
the proper proxemic zone for the suspect to tell his darkest secret. The interrogator’s
presentation should include alternative and leading questions with a soft, accepting
tone: “John, were you going to steal the money, or am I right, you were just borrowing
it? This was the first time, wasn’t it?” Many confessions are lost because the interrogator
is reluctant to get in close and ask for the sale. Thus, the interrogator has to overcome
any negative feelings about the suspect, his own fear of failure or his own fear of violat-
ing his own intimate zone by making physical contact with someone he does not psy-
chologically or socially feel is appropriate.
The following is an interrogation of a man suspected of molesting his 4-year-old daugh-
ter. His wife made a police complaint after he had visited her (they were separated) for the
weekend and her daughter began acting peculiar. The young girl told her mother that over
the weekend her father came into her bedroom, lay in bed with her, and inserted something
into her vagina.
Pay attention to the way the ten key aspects are introduced and utilized repeatedly through-
out the interrogation until a confession is obtained. Also notice how the interrogator actively lis-
tens and reflects the words and the ideas of the suspect. In short, the interrogator uses the
10. MOVE IN CLOSE AND PRESS FOR THE CONFESSION
263
suspect’s remarks in framing his questions and responses. By using this reflective manner
to lead the suspect toward the goal of truth, the interrogator moves away from the expected
adversarial role to an empathetic one.
KEY: Interrogator (I), Suspect (S)
I: John, I called you in here today because our investigation is concluded, and there is no doubt you have
a problem. (Pause: truthful suspects usually begin to interrupt, whereas most deceptive suspects wait to hear their options) There’s no doubt you sexually molested Marianne. (Firm statement of guilt)
S: Well, there’s . . .
I: (Interrogator shows suspect palm to stop denial) Now, there are several things that could have happened.
Right now we have a statement from Marianne. We don’t know if her perception was totally correct, but
something occurred. Something had to have happened. (Firm statement of guilt)
S: Obviously, there’s something wrong here . . .
I: (Shows palm to stop denial) John, wait a second.
S: I’m not the kind of person . . .
I: (Shows palm to stop denial) Listen to what I have to say . . .
S: I’m not a sick person, that . . .
I: (Immediately deals with fear of being labeled “sick”) I agree with you. I don’t think you are a sick person, but I know something had to have happened. (Firm statement of guilt) Let’s go over the things that have
happened.
S: That’s my daughter you’re talking about!
I: How do you feel about your daughter?
S: How do you feel about your kids? You love them. You do what you can for them. I didn’t raise her the
way my old man raised me, but I did a good job of it considering.
I: John, what were the three most important things you
taught your daughter?
S: I, uh . . . taught her to respect people, to love her mother and father, and . . .
I: And, I’ll bet the third thing you taught your daughter was to tell the truth.
S: Yeah, I taught her that.
I: So, you taught her to respect people, love her parents, and tell the truth. (Takes the suspect’s hand) Let me shake your hand. You did a good job. She is telling the truth. That’s why I can’t understand why you’re
going to put her through what you are. (Argument for telling the truth) John, could it be that you were out
drinking one night, went to your wife’s, and got into the wrong bed? (Possible “How and Why”)
S: My wife’s why I’m here.
I: You see, John, something had to happen. (Firm statement of guilt) What’s going to happen if they decide
to do other tests? (Undermine suspect’s self confidence) What’s going to happen?
S: What other kinds of tests?
I: I’m sure there are going to be medical tests, forensic tests.
S: What do you mean? A medical doctor? For what?
I: Well, to see if her complaint is true or not, whether something has been placed in her vagina.
S: She’s just a kid.
I: And, that’s exactly why they’ll be able to see if anything’s been put up there. Now, what’s going to
happen if that does verify something was placed up there? What’s going to happen then? Where is that
going to leave you? (Undermine suspect’s self confidence)
S: Well, she falls down, things like that. She’s just a young kid.
I: John, something had to happen. A young child, 4 years old, does not make up a story like that. (Firm
statement of guilt) Now . . .
S: What story? No one’s told me the story. Tell me the story! (Suspect yelling: attempt to gain control or
escape situation by causing an argument)
I: (Shows palm like police officer stopping traffic) John, wait a minute, am I raising my voice at you? (Regains control)
S: No, I’m sorry, but I just want to get this resolved.
I: That’s why we are here, and I hope we can get it resolved today. Now, something had to have hap
pened last weekend. You went to your wife’s house, got into Marianne’s bed, and stuck something into
264
18. THE INTEGRATED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE