Nathan J Gordon, William L Fleisher

by Effective Interviewing

  S: (No response)

  Comment: Suspect again shows weakness; however, there is no invasion of space.

  I: John, I think you’re really a truthful person. I don’t think you really wanted to hurt anybody. I think

  what you really just wanted to do was show the manager, hey, I can live up to just what you think I am.

  You wanted the manager to think you’re a good person, a hard worker, and that you think a lot of the com

  pany. And yesterday, last night, when he corrected you as you put it, you were upset, weren’t you?

  Comment: Goes back to original “how and why” but adds concept of “upset.”

  S: No, sir.

  I: You weren’t?

  S: No, sir.

  I: First time he’s ever corrected you about anything, wasn’t it?

  S: Yeah, but I didn’t get upset.

  I: But John, you think about it, a lot of times if someone corrects you, people are going to resent it to a

  certain degree, right?

  S: Yes, sir.

  I: And did you not resent it some?

  S: No, sir.

  I: They don’t work you too much here?

  S: No, sir, just when we’re real busy.

  I: And yesterday, were you real busy?

  S: No, sir.

  I: Well then, you thought you’d be able to coast a little bit, what, cleaning up the restroom and what else?

  S: The restrooms.

  I: And what, you just plain didn’t hear the page, did you?

  S: I heard it, I heard it twice, but then when I looked another employee was coming to help.

  I: Yeah, but those first two times you heard, what, you thought you had enough time to finish up and

  then go up and help, didn’t you?

  S: Yes, sir.

  I: And then you realized another employee had already taken care of it for you?

  S: Yes, sir.

  I: And the manager, he expected you to just drop everything you were doing, right then and there, didn’t he?

  Comment: Projects blame to manager.

  S: That’s what you’re supposed to do.

  I: But, you’re probably like a lot of people, you want to finish a job and . . .

  S: Yes, sir.

  I: . . . and you figured this job, this job will only take another couple moments, and you didn’t realize the time went by that fast, did you?

  S: The time flew by.

  I: Yeah, and anyway, the time flying by you didn’t realize it had been as long as it had, did you?

  S: No, sir.

  I: So, anyway, the manager talked to you . . .

  270

  18. THE INTEGRATED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE

  S: Yes, sir.

  I: . . . and you wanted to prove to him, hey, I’m worthy of what you think of me, you think I’m a good

  worker.

  Comment: Original “how and why.”

  S: That’s why I was walking the store for loose items.

  I: Yeah, but John, tell me, the fire, why?

  S: (Eyes down and to his right

  no response)

  Comment: Suspect again shows weakness; however, there is no invasion of space.

  I: That’s all. The truth is all I’m after. The truth. Who was it that said, “The truth will set you free”?

  Comment: Reasons to tell the truth.

  S: The Bible says that.

  I: Yeah, that’s all. I believe you want to tell me the truth. I believe the fire . . . you didn’t want it to grow as big as it did. You thought it’d only take care of one or two small bags. Before you realized it . . . by the time you got the manager and got back it was probably bigger than you thought it’d be, wasn’t it?

  Comment: Excellent lead question/hook.

  S: Yes, sir.

  Comment: Detective should have shaken hands and sealed the deal, and it would have

  been over.

  I: And what, you set it to show the manager you could be all that he thought?

  S: (No response

  looks down and to his right)

  I: (Moves his chair closer and leans in) What?

  S: What will happen if I confess?

  Comment: The detective now has a “buy sign” indicating the suspect has taken back his

  initial confession and wants to confess again, but wants to know the agreement of sale. The

  easiest way to deal with this is to go back to alternatives: “It depends; were you trying to

  kill everyone, or am I right, you just set a little fire to show the manager you were a good

  employee? Tell the truth. That’s what it was, wasn’t it?” Instead, the detective starts

  “dancing.”

  I: What we’ll do John is, first of all, I think you’ll feel better for it, I think since this has happened you feel like you got a big rock sitting on your chest, and you know how good it feels to tell the truth. And, what’s going to happen? I’m going to have to tell the general manager, and I’m going to have to do my reports, and

  what we can do, you know, I’ll have to check and find out. Double check to make sure, cause I don’t want to

  tell you a lie. You want me be truthful with you, right?

  S: Yes, sir.

  I: And that’s what I’m going to try and do. And you’d rather, you’d rather if I don’t know something, to

  tell you up front, wouldn’t you?

  S: Yes, sir, but I’m afraid if I confess I’ll get put in jail as a major arsonist.

  10. MOVE IN CLOSE AND PRESS FOR THE CONFESSION

  271

  Comment: The detective should just tell him he already confessed, what he has to do

  now is explain why, give him the alternatives, throw a hook, and shake his hand.

  I: No John, (touches suspect’s arm) all arson is is when you burn a structure. When say I charred this desk, or charred that wall, that is arson. If I set a match to it and it was charred, just like on the end of this match.

  Now, God was with you last night. The fact that no one got hurt, the fact that you were able to (snaps fingers) find the manager that quick, right?

  S: Yes, sir.

  I: And then what, the fact that the fire didn’t get big enough because the sprinkler system wasn’t

  turned on.

  S: Well, the manager says that if a fire gets hot enough they will turn on.

  I: Yeah, but they probably weren’t turned on. Anyway, is that why you set the fire, to live up to what the

  manager thinks of you, that you are a super good worker?

  Comment: Back to original “how and why” and ends with a leading question (hook).

  S: Yes, sir.

  I: Now, let me shake your hand. (Shakes suspect’s hand) You’re an honest person. Don’t you feel better?

  Comment: Seals the deal.

  S: Yes, sir (smiles).

  I: You’re smiling. It makes you feel good down deep, doesn’t it?

  S: Yes, sir.

  I: Now, what I’d like you to do is basically tell me everything you did from the time you came on yes

  terday, until the manager corrected you, and then until you went into the stockroom and set the fire.

  On a cool winter afternoon in 1990, one of the authors, William L. Fleisher, and two of his

  friends, Frank Bender, an artist famous for his reconstruction of faces on the skulls of

  decomposed bodies, and Richard Walter, a forensic psychologist, met for lunch in Day by

  Day, a Philadelphia restaurant.

  They had met to just have lunch and for Bender to introduce Fleisher to Richard Walter.

  Soon, the conversation turned to a famous cold-case homicide from decades earlier. The

  three discussed the possibilities of solving this case in light of new technology and under-

  standing of victimology and the relatively new art of psychological profiling. After the pass-

  ing of several hours, Fleisher expressed how much he enjoye
d their intellectually

  stimulating conversation and suggested that they form a like-minded forensic experts to

  meet over a good meal and try to solve cold-case homicides. Thus, began the internationally

  renowned Vidocq Society. Fleisher brought together twenty-six other forensic experts,

  including his co-author Nathan J. Gordon, who became a charter member and board mem-

  ber. The experts named the Society after the famous eighteenth-century French criminal

  turned detective, Eugene Franc¸ois Vidocq, who started the first law enforcement agency

  dedicated strictly to criminal investigation, the French Suˆrete´. When first organized, the

  Society would meet four times a year to discuss cold-case homicides while enjoying a fine

  meal in a collegial atmosphere.

  Eventually, the group received some notoriety in law enforcement circles and was con-

  tacted on a regular basis by these agencies, as well as victims’ families, and asked to assist

  272

  18. THE INTEGRATED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE

  in attempting to bring the cases to resolution. * One of these cases was the vicious 14-year-old murder of a young woman who was the manager of a fast food restaurant in a northern

  suburb of Philadelphia. The victim appeared to have been robbed and killed as she was

  closing up the store by herself, which was contrary to company policy.

  The case was presented by Falls Township Police Department Detective Sergeant Wynn

  Cloud, who had been asked by his new chief of police to look at some cold cases. Sergeant

  Cloud presented the case before the assembled members of the Vidocq Society. One of the

  suggestions to the police made at the luncheon was for the detectives to reinterview every-

  one involved in the case. ** When the dead woman’s mother was reinterviewed, she told the investigators that she had always believed her daughter’s boyfriend had killed her. The

  investigator told her that the boyfriend, John Johnson, † could not have done it; he was not in the state when it happened. The mother replied, “John? John was not her boyfriend;

  she broke up with him several months before this happened. Her boyfriend was Donald

  Grady!” With that simple reinterview, the police now had a new suspect. And furthermore,

  no Donald Grady had been interviewed by the police.

  Criminal records and driver’s records failed to turn up a Donald Grady. At the sugges-

  tion of former Philadelphia Police Department Major Crime Detective Edward J. Gaughan,

  a Vidocq member, the guest sign-in book at the funeral service was checked. Amazingly, a

  “B. Donald O’Grady” had signed the book. Criminal records revealed that O’Grady had

  several prior drug arrests and still lived in the area. A surveillance was set up at his resi-

  dence, and cigarette butts from his trash were recovered that had DNA matching DNA

  from the crime scene.

  The police decided to pick up O’Grady after work and bring him into the police station

  for a DNA test to ensure that the DNA recovered in his trash was his, not that of his

  brother, who lived with him and his mother. The authors and Mr. Gaughan were asked

  by the police to be there where they brought in O’Grady to conduct a FAINT interview

  and polygraph examination on him. After failing the polygraph examination, the suspect

  was immediately removed to a conference room where he was to be interrogated by three

  members of the police department.

  In the state of Pennsylvania, at the time, there was a “6 hour” rule. This means the police

  had only 6 hours to either charge the suspect or release him. As the clock was ticking down,

  one of the authors asked permission to enter the conference room. He observed a very large

  conference table. The suspect and one officer were seated in the center of the table next to

  each other, the second officer was seated across from the suspect on the other side of the

  table, and the third officer was sitting on the table near the corner.

  The officer next to the suspect was paging through crime scene pictures, making weak

  statements such as, “I don’t think you have been truthful about your involvement in this,”

  as the suspect nonchalantly listened and smoked a cigarette.

  *The Vidocq Society is listed by the U.S. Department of Justice as a recommended resource for cold case

  homicide investigators.

  **According to Green River Killer profiler and investigator Robert D. Keppel, in more than 95% of cold cases, the police would have spoken to the killer within 72 hours of the crime.

  †Names of the boyfriends have been changed for privacy reasons.

  10. MOVE IN CLOSE AND PRESS FOR THE CONFESSION

  273

  Officer 2

  Officer 3

  Officer 1

  Suspect

  Author

  FIGURE 18.6

  The room setup was poor, as was the interrogation process.{ The author pulled a chair

  up facing the suspect. Time was running out. He immediately made a forceful assertion:

  “I gave you a polygraph test, so you can tell these officers anything you like, but you and

  I know you did this, didn’t you?” (hook). As the suspect started to make a denial, he was

  shut down as the author offered two “hows and whys” as alternatives: “What I need to

  know is, did you kill her for drug money, or did you get into a lover’s spat and she came

  at you with a knife and you defended yourself?” Bear in mind that the woman had been

  beaten, her throat sliced, suffocated with a plastic bag that had been placed over her head,

  and stabbed numerous times. “Was it drugs? Or did she come at you first?” The suspect

  again began to deny, and because time was almost up, the author used a reverse close:

  “I can see this is a waste of time. Had it been self-defense, you would have told me. You

  obviously are a cold-hearted killer!” The author left the room.

  The authors and Mr. Gaughan sent a police lieutenant back into the room with the admo-

  nition to O’Grady that he had 5 minutes to tell his side of the story, as the interview was

  over, and after that time he would not have a chance to set the record straight. The lieuten-

  ant left the room. Literally, within seconds of him closing the door, one of the officers came

  out and said the suspect just confessed. It was “self-defense.”

  The authors instructed the officers to go back in the room. Take away the cigarettes, turn

  the suspect’s chair sideways and face him, and tell him that the scene showed it could not

  have been self-defense. The wounds inflicted were too numerous, and the safe had been

  robbed. Ask him if he is sorry for what he did.

  Within minutes an officer came back out and said that as soon as one of them sat face to

  face with him and made the statements suggested, his chin went down to his chest, and he

  confessed that he killed her for the money.

  Interestingly, after he confessed, O’Grady he said that ever since he had killed her, he

  had waited every day over the past 14 years for the police to knock on his door! The offi-

  cers then had the suspect write a confession, and when he had finished, the authors

  {Please note, this is not meant to be critical of the investigators, as they were working in a borrowed room at a police department in a neighboring county because that is where the suspect worked and had to be taken.

  274

  18. THE INTEGRATED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE

  instructed the officers to have the suspect write th
e following: “I have written this state-

  ment in my own hand, without any threats or promises from anyone, knowing it will

  be used against me in a court of law, because . . .” and then instruct the suspect to write

  why he decided to confess. As you will learn in the next chapter, this made the confession

  credible! }

  In conducting the interrogation, remember that it is no longer an interview designed to

  collect information. It is not just a process of asking questions and receiving answers. It is

  the repeated use of the ten key aspects and in many cases the reiteration of the same ideas.

  However, the interrogator constantly changes the content of the alternative and lead ques-

  tions as he searches for a “how and why” scenario the suspect will accept.

  As you interrogate, keep these ten common truths identified by television’s Dr. Phil in

  mind [1]:

  1. The number one fear of all people is rejection.

  2. The number one need of all people is acceptance/approval.

  3. To manage people effectively, you must do it in a way that protects or enhances their

  self-esteem.

  4. Everybody approaches every situation with at least some concern about “what’s in it

  for me” – the favorite radio station WII-FM.

  5. Everybody prefers to talk about things that are important to them personally.

  6. People hear and incorporate only what they understand.

  7. People like, trust, and believe those who are like themselves.

  8. People often do things for other than apparent reasons.

  9. Even people of quality can be, and often are, petty and small.

  10. Everybody wears a social mask. You must look beyond the mask to see the person.

  Ten percent of the deceptive population will confess immediately after the interrogator

  firmly states he knows the suspect is guilty and throws them a hook (leading question).

  With the remaining 90%, the interrogator must commit himself to using the ten key aspects

  repeatedly until a confession is obtained.

  With truthful suspects, the interrogation never gets off the ground. Truthful

  suspects will object and resist every step of the way. The interrogator will find it impos-

  sible to offer “how and why” solutions because it is of no interest to the truthful

  suspect. He doesn’t want to hear face-saving solutions because he did not commit the

  crime!