Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques, Third Edition

EFFECTIVE INTERVIEWING AND INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES

EFFECTIVE INTERVIEWING AND INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES THIRD EDITION NATHAN J. GORDON Academy for Scientific Investigative Training Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

WILLIAM L. FLEISHER Keystone Intelligence Network, Inc. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON NEW YORK • OXFORD • PARIS • SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier

Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier 30 Corporate Drive, Suite 400, Burlington, MA 01803, USA 525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, California 92101 4495, USA 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8RR, UK # 2011, Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions. This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein). Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Gordon, Nathan J. Effective interviewing and interrogation techniques / Nathan J. Gordon, William L. Fleisher. 3rd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978 0 12 381986 4 1. Interviewing in law enforcement. 2. Police questioning. 3. Interviewing. I. Fleisher, William L. II. Title. HV8073.G64 2011 363.25’4 dc22 2010018555 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: 978 0 12 381986 4 For information on all Academic Press publications visit our Web site at www.elsevierdirect.com Printed in the United States 11 12 13 9 8 7 6 5

4 3 2 1

Foreword How do you know when someone is lying? This age-old question is answered convincingly in the third edition of Nathan Gordon and William Fleisher’s Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques. Gordon and Fleisher provide a tour de force of practical and scientific knowledge drawn from the authors’ decades of experience as preeminent experts in the field. The attempt to prevaricate and deceive, born of fundamental instincts for selfpreservation, takes as many forms as human ingenuity can devise. The evolution of techniques designed to ferret out the truth provides a fascinating and enlightening preface to this highly readable “how-to” guide to reliable methods of questioning, observation, and analysis. Those same self-protective mechanisms, hard-wired into all of us, provide the skilled examiner the basis to form judgments about who is lying and who is responding truthfully. For it is the observable clues provided by our autonomic nervous system to focused questioning that allow the trained interrogator to separate the liars from the truth-tellers. In clear and concise language, punctuated by illuminating examples drawn from real-life situations, Fleisher and Gordon show us how the psychological/physiological ramifications of the “flight or fight” and “freeze or hide” instincts betray the prevaricator. Going beyond theory to practical application of scientific learning, the authors provide a guide

to highly usable and proven effective techniques and tradecraft for both interviewing possible suspects and interrogating likely perpetrators. The forensic assessment interview technique (FAINT) is the keystone to practical application of the scientific and practical knowledge developed earlier in the book. Again, the use of case studies to illustrate effective application of these techniques adds greatly to the reader’s appreciation of their value. Although the third edition of Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques provides a definitive resource for law enforcement and security professionals, others with an interest in identifying prevaricators – prosecutors, criminal defense lawyers, and civil litigators – will also appreciate learning the tricks of the trade revealed in this book. I speak from personal experience – I have known Bill Fleisher since he was a rookie special agent with the FBI and I was a federal prosecutor investigating fraud and official corruption. Later, when we were each in private practice, Bill helped me expose a lying witness, leading ultimately to a defense verdict in a civil suit involving a claim against a major corporation for more than a billion dollars. You will find, as I have, that not only do these observations and techniques make sense – they work! Richard Ben-Veniste is a partner in the international law firm of Mayer Brown LLP.

vii

Preface Humans possess three basic social instincts: they are aggressive, territorial, and tribal. What this means is that nonsocialized humans, when left to their own instinctual devices, will take whatever they can, from whomever or wherever they can, while protecting their own territories and families (clans) from aggressors. These instincts are not applicable to abstract ideals or territories, in that humans will associate with and protect only their own families (or clans) and live in their own territories, if they can. All others and all other property are fair game if instinct is the primary ground for behavior. In entering society, however willingly, we set aside using our instincts as our sole guide. Society usually cannot permit instinctual, essentially selfish behavior; participation in society requires cooperative, complex, considerate and, often, selfless behavior. It establishes institutions and controls that promote its behavioral expectations. Its social institutions—religion, government, law, politics, art, sports, taboos, etc.—have evolved to help socialize and redirect natural, aggressive instincts toward positive and socially approved ends. Whenever social institutions and/or controls break down, humans tend to revert back to their primitive instincts of aggression, territoriality, and clannishness. Current history leaves little doubt that this is the way with humans; just look at the trouble spots of the world: whether it is Kosovo, Rwanda, or the major cities, whenever social comparatives and institutions falter, there

is conflict—undisguised aggression based upon territoriality and tribalness. However socialized, our instincts, in fact, remain strong: perhaps the strongest and least socialized being our survival instinct. Where socialization fails, instincts direct the behavior of both criminals and tyrants. But instincts they remain, and when they are at work, no matter how subtly, they leave a psycho-physiological trail: detectable signs and signals. We can sadly point to the horrendous events in the summer of 2005, when law and order broke down in fabled New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, as a classic example of human instincts run amuck. Understanding this psycho-physiological trail enables professional investigators to increase their ability to determine the truth; not a small task, in that knowing the truth is probably the single most important factor in the functioning of society. We need to know whom to trust and whom to rely upon, as trust and interdependence are the glue that holds society together. Thus, the need to ascertain whether someone has violated the norms of trust and therefore represents a threat to an individual or society as a whole is essential to our continued well-being. Individuals who pose threats rarely announce themselves. Thus, while the results of deviant behavior are often painfully obvious, the perpetrators frequently are not. When identified as suspects, alleged perpetrators may lie, dissemble, and/or cover up their connections to their acts. Penetrating this wall of deception and the separation of the innocent from the

PREFACE

guilty are the crux of police work. To increase the efficiency and reliability of that process is the function of this book. The authors intend to give the investigator a critical insight into human behavior, which will enable him to become a better interviewer, a better interrogator and, most importantly, an expert detector of truthful and deceptive behavior.

A Note about Gender The use of “he” and “his” throughout implies no gender bias, and is used to avoid the awkward use of “he/she” and “his/her.”

About the Authors the Vidocq Society, where he received the prestigious Vidocq Medal of Honor for his assistance in solving a 14-year-old cold-case homicide. Mr. Gordon lives in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with his wife, three children, and two grandsons.

Nathan J. Gordon is Director of the Academy for Scientific Investigative Training, where he developed the Forensic Assessment Interview and Integrated Interrogation Technique. He is an expert forensic psychophysiologist and an internationally recognized expert in the field of Forensic Assessment Interviewing and Interrogation. He has lectured and conducted seminars on these subjects to thousands of law enforcement, intelligence, and private security officers throughout the United States, Africa, Europe, and Asia. Mr. Gordon, a recognized innovator in the field of truth verification, has had his work recognized in publications including Forensic Psychophysiology: Use of the Polygraph, by James Allen Matte. He is the 2010 President of the American Polygraph Association and has served as president of the Pennsylvania Polygraph Association and president of the International Forensic Psychophysiological Institutes Association. He is a Director of

William L. Fleisher is Director of Keystone Intelligence Network, Inc. He retired as Deputy Special Agent in Charge of the Philadelphia office of the U.S. Customs Service. Mr. Fleisher is a former special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a supervisor with the Philadelphia Police Department. He has more than 42 years of experience in law enforcement and investigation and has been a polygraph examiner since 1975. An internationally recognized expert in Behavior Symptom Analysis, Mr. Fleisher is the author of the U.S. Customs technical

xii

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

manual on Behavioral Symptom Analysis. Mr. Fleisher is the recipient of the Customs Service Distinguished Service Medal and Award for his efforts in developing interviewing techniques for customs inspectors. He has lectured worldwide on interviewing and polygraph techniques and is the cofounder and first Commissioner of the world-renowned Vidocq Society, an organization of forensic experts, which assists law enforcement and victims’ families in solving unsolved homicides. He is also a member of the American Polygraph Association, International Association of the

Chiefs of Police, and the American Society of Industrial Security and is a Certified Fraud Examiner. Mr. Fleisher was recognized in the November 2001 issue of Philadelphia magazine as one the “76 Smartest Philadelphians,” and the “go to guy” for other private investigators who need direction in complicated investigations. He is also featured prominently in New York Times bestselling author Michael Capuzzo’s book The Murder Room. Mr. Fleisher lives in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, with his wife Michelle, four children, and two grandchildren.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge and thank those pioneers who have led the way in the art of interviewing, interrogation, and truth verification. Professionals such as Leonarde Keeler, John Reid, Cleve Backster, Richard Arther, Warren Holmes, Joseph Buckley, Philip Cochetti, Stanley Abrams, James Matte, Avinoam Sapir, Milt Addison, Norm Ansley, Ron Decker, Ed Gelb, Murlene McKinnon, Dave Sykes, Ray Morgan, Frank Horvath, Gordon Barland, and the many other men and women “in the trenches,” who like Diogenes, have led the search for the truth. The authors would like to give special recognition to Philip M. Cochetti, who served as the Assistant Director of the Academy for Scientific Investigative Training from 1980–1988. It was during this time that many of the ideas shared in this book were developed and his contributions are greatly appreciated. The authors would be remiss if they did not express their everlasting gratitude to their loyal wives, Kathy Gordon and Michelle Fleisher, and their families, who have endured many lonely hours supporting their careers. Over the years, the authors have had the distinct pleasure of meeting and training some of the finest individuals from all over

the world. These students have come from Switzerland, South Africa, Singapore, Israel, Egypt, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Canada, Netherlands, France, Korea, South America, Taiwan, and the United States of America, with one thing in common—a desire to make the world better through forensic science. We thank you for your trust in us. Special thanks to Gloria Alvarado, our dedicated office manager, and Jake Haber, former director of Continuing Education, University of Delaware, an early supporter. The authors would also like to acknowledge the editorial contribution by C. Donald Weinberg to the first edition of this book. They also thank those students and friends that modeled the scenes portrayed in this book. And a very special thanks to Amy Gordon, who taught the authors the true meaning of love. The authors wish to dedicate this book in memory of Lee G. Feathers, a member of the first graduating class of the Academy for Scientific Investigative Training. Lee went on to become one of the finest polygraph examiners and interrogators in the northeastern United States—thanks, Lee, for your friendship and insight into interviewing and interrogation.

xiii

Companion Web Site

Ancillary materials are available online at: www.elsevier.com/companions/9780123819864

xiv

C H A P T E R

The Search for Truth The need to detect deception is hardly a twentieth-century phenomenon; humans have always needed to distinguish between the trustworthy and the untrustworthy. Agreed, to some small extent there is an inherent conflict in that both truth and deception have their places: they are necessary for individual and social survival. There are times when truth serves a socially destructive purpose or when small truths aren’t useful in a larger context. However, in the great majority of cases, deception is used to hide or disguise the truth to the detriment of society. The question is, how can we separate harmless lies from harmful ones and, more to the point, harmful lies from necessary truth? Those for whom the lies are useful work against solving the problem. They know that for the lie to do its job, it must not be detectable—or, at least, not detectable before escape or attack is possible. Ever since small familial groups of humans banded together for mutual social benefit, or for protection of person and property, humankind has been plagued by individuals whose practices deviate from the societal covenant. The activities of these individuals, if not checked, could and sometimes did destroy the societal group as a whole. Given that, the ability to detect lies to identify individuals who cannot be trusted has been vital to both physical and social survival. The search for a reliable means to identify the untrustworthy is as ancient as humankind. Some techniques were founded in superstition and/or the religious belief that a moral god would in some way reveal the truth and disallow immorality. Many of these attempts, in fact, had some psychological or physiological basis; other methods relied solely on fear of continued pain and torture. What is interesting about human behavior is that it has not changed since Biblical times. In fact, the very first clue to human behavior appeared in the Book of Genesis. It is the story of Eve influencing Adam to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree. Having eaten it, Adam and Eve were imbued with knowledge and realized they were naked. When they heard God’s voice, they were ashamed and hid themselves. God asked Adam why he was hiding. Adam replied that they were naked and ashamed. God asked Adam how he knew he was naked: did he eat from the fruit that was forbidden? Adam replied, “The woman Thou gave me made me eat thereof.” When God asked Eve about that, Eve stated, “The snake beguiled me into eating the forbidden fruit.” Although the authors are paraphrasing the story, it is obvious that things have not changed much since the Garden of Eden [1]. Persons accused almost always look for someone else to blame for their situation. Often, it is the victim they

Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques

2011, Elsevier Ltd.

1. THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH

blame. This is an excellent example of how humans rationalize to escape punishment and conceal the truth. The earliest form of lie detection probably was trial by combat, resolving an issue through strength of arms. In primitive hunting tactics, it was not uncommon for hunters to shoot an arrow or spear into an animal that would only wound it. The hunter would then track the wounded animal until it died either from loss of blood or from the poison often used on the arrow tip. Consider the problem of two primitive hunters who approach a fallen prey. Each believes it was his arrow or spear that killed it, and that it belongs to him; they refuse to compromise. As simplistic as it seems, each sees himself as making a truthful claim and the other as not. To decide the “truth,” which actually means possession, they engage in combat. The ideal assumption is that the individual with truth on his side will prevail. However, the most cunning and skilled of the combatants usually was victorious and thus declared himself as having the rightful claim. This scenario had changed very little by medieval times. It was then customary that knights engaged in mortal combat to decide whose lord was in the right in any given controversy. Although the practice was functionally the same as trial by combat, the ethical premise was different. It was held that the knight representing the truth would be victorious because of “divine intervention”—that is, that a just God would not allow injustice to prevail. Even today, on any given weekend night, a police officer may be called to a club or bar where two men are about to engage in combat to determine which of them is telling the truth about whom the woman seated between them is really with. As you can see, the test of “trial by combat” lives on. The next development in the search for truth was trial by ordeal [2]. It was once again assumed that God would intervene on behalf of the innocent; that is, God would protect any innocent individual from harm, as was the case with Daniel in the lion’s den. Although these attempts to detect truth appeared to be laden with religious beliefs, they were in fact based on practical observations of both psychological and physiological phenomena, which play an important role in truth-finding processes. For example, in China, in approximately 1000 BC, it was common practice to have an accused person chew a handful of crushed dry rice, and then attempt to spit it out (certainly not much of an ordeal) [3]. If the rice became wet, and therefore easy to spit out, the person was considered truthful. If the rice was dry and it stuck to the suspect’s mouth when he tried to spit it out, then he was thought to be lying. Divine intervention was not involved in this outcome as much as was the salivary gland. This somewhat benign test was based on the physiological phenomenon of inhibited salivary gland activity caused by fear or stress. The truthful individual had normal salivary gland activity, causing the rice to become wet and easy to spit out. The stressed or deceptive person had a dry mouth, and the crushed rice in his mouth remained dry and when he attempted to spit it out it stuck to his mouth. It is unclear how the Chinese arrived at their test for truth—whether they merely observed that liars’ mouths remained dry, or had some understanding that the autonomic nervous system inhibits salivation and all digestive processes when an individual is under serious threat. It should be noted that Chinese traditional medicine has been around for some 5000 years.

1. THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH

Interestingly, testing for a dry mouth was, and still is, found in a wide range of unrelated cultures worldwide. The most severe version of these tests often consisted of putting some kind of red-hot metal object on the tongue. If the person were truthful, the normal saliva in the mouth protected the tongue, acting as a “heat sink” to dissipate the burning. If the person were lying, the mouth would be dry, and the hot metal would burn the unprotected tongue. Even today, in some countries in the Middle East, it is common that the accused in minor cases can choose this traditional method to assert his innocence [4]. In various societies, truth tests were developed whose premises were psychological, not physiological. Trial by the “sacred ass” is a classic psychological test that was practiced in India around 500 BC [2]. In this test, a donkey was staked out in the center of a pitch-dark hut. The suspects were told that inside the hut was a “sacred ass” that could differentiate between a truthful person and a liar. It did this by braying only when the guilty (lying) person pulled its tail. They were also told the animal would remain silent if an innocent (truthful) person pulled its tail. Each suspect was directed to go into the hut alone, with specific instructions to pull the tail of the “sacred ass.” What the suspects did not know was that the priests had covered the donkey’s tail with lamp black. A truthful individual, having nothing to fear, entered the dark hut and pulled the donkey’s tail. The donkey may or may not have brayed, but those who were innocent came out with soot all over their hands. A guilty party, on the other hand, would enter and, not wanting to risk disclosing his guilt, would not touch the donkey’s tail. He might promise it a carrot, or stroke its head, but he would not pull the tail. After all, he believed if he did not touch the tail of the “sacred ass,” it would have no reason to bray, and the priests would incorrectly identify him as truthful. The elegantly simple truth was that because he did not pull the tail, it was easy for the priests to properly identify him as the culprit by his clean hands. In the 1950s, rumors have it, the Philadelphia Police Department had a detective division that innovated an interesting psychological test for truth. The suspect was seated in a chair. One detective stood behind him holding a thick telephone book; the other one stood directly in front of him. The latter detective informed the suspect that he was going to ask him some questions, and as long as he answered questions truthfully, there would be no problem. The suspect was also told, however, that if he lied, the detective standing behind him would hit him in the head with the telephone book. “It won’t leave any marks,” he was told, “but it will hurt like hell!” The detective would then begin with some irrelevant questions: “Is your name James Smith?” “Were you born in Pennsylvania?” “Do you reside at 412 Mercy Street?” Then the detective would ask a strong relevant question: “Did you steal that missing deposit?” and they would observe whether or not the suspect flinched or ducked as he answered the question, indicating he anticipated being hit with the phone book because he was lying. This was an involuntary reflective reaction that would only occur when a person knew he was lying and anticipated being hit. Society’s next advancement in its search for truth was trial by torture. This had a dichotomous effect for law enforcement. Every crime could be solved by confession; unfortunately, it was not always solved by identifying the actual perpetrator of the crime! The assumption was that the innocent suspect would withstand any amount of suffering to preserve his reputation and, in religious societies, his immortal soul. In reality, given enough

1. THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH

pain, any man might confess, and most torturers knew that. The “trial,” in fact, became indistinguishable from the punishment itself and was justified in that the “truth seekers” found almost everyone guilty. Trial by torture was the method of justice during the infamous witch hunts and inquisitions in Europe. These latter are of particular interest, because they did not have as their basis the seeking of truth. Rather, the method addressed a perceived threat from forces whose existence could not be proven. Thus, trials by torture were not always designed to find truth, but sometimes to justify and validate the prejudices and fears of the society and the claims of its leaders. Such “trials” were commonplace during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance and continued into more recent periods when people believed that witches or some other group (e.g., Jews, Communists, reactionaries, hom*osexuals) threatened the social order. In the past, there were two ways in which an inquisitor attempted to prove a person was a witch [5]: 1. By finding the “Devil’s Mark,” or 2. By getting a confession. The Devil’s Mark was an alleged spot on a witch’s body that showed she had been attached to the Devil (much as we have a navel where we were once attached to our mothers). Although the Devil’s Mark was invisible, it could be found because it was a spot on the witch’s body that would not bleed. Suspected witches were tied down and continuously pricked as the inquisitors searched for the spot. It is not known how many witches were discovered by finding the elusive mark; however, many “witches” confessed during the process. Unfortunately, trial by torture is still used today to solve “crimes” by confession, the solution of the crime being of greater importance than whether the suspect is guilty or innocent. This was unfortunately demonstrated when treatment of detainees and prisoners at Abu Ghraib and other holding areas by United States interviewers and interrogators was revealed [6]. More about torture is found in Chapter 14 of this book. As civilized societies searched for a more just and credible way to separate the innocent from the guilty, trial by torture lost credibility and was replaced by trial by jury. Although the jury in its early form was not made up of one’s peers, it is the origin of our judicial system in which the “Finder of Fact,” either a judge or a jury of peers, listens to evidence introduced by witnesses. The Finder of Fact then decides the defendant’s guilt or innocence based on some standard of proof. As is still the case in our current judicial system, this involves the evaluation of objective facts—that is, data that can be confirmed physically—and the testimony of competent witnesses and experts. The latter involves the subjective interpretation of the witnesses’ credibility and/or expertise by the judge or jury and, among other things, is subject to manipulation by a clever liar. Although the jury system proved more humane and more just, the Finder of Fact’s inability to separate truth from deception in complex cases leaves it seriously flawed. The infamous Dreyfus case, in which a Jewish-French army officer was falsely convicted by fabricated evidence and a prejudiced court, focused attention on the need for a better means of detecting liars and their fabrications. That need was experimentally addressed in a series of scientific attempts beginning in late nineteenth-century Europe. By this time, the scientific community had a basic understanding of the autonomic nervous system.

1. THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH

Scientists understood the physiological changes that occurred in the human body caused by fear and stress and correctly assumed that those changes would occur when a suspect experienced the fear of being caught in a lie. The research centered on finding a reliable and timely means of measuring those changes. In the early 1890s, Angelo Mosso, an Italian physiologist, studied the effect of fear on the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. Mosso was particularly interested in measuring circulatory flow changes in the body. He developed a mechanical device known as the “Scientific Cradle,” often called “Mosso’s Cradle.” This device was nothing more than a balanced, table-like platform, mounted on a fulcrum [2]. Mosso theorized that the flow of blood to the head changes during emotional stress, such as that caused by fear of detection. This, he believed, explained why a person’s face flushes or whitens during emotional states. He theorized that this sudden change of blood flow to the brain caused by fear would result in a slight shift in the subject’s body weight, and thus a corresponding measurable movement of the cradle. Mosso proposed he could analyze the lines drawn on the kymograph and determine the credibility of the witness. There is, however, no evidence that Mosso ever put his theory into practice. In all probability, the device was too crude and unreliable to make the kind of measurements that Mosso would have needed. In 1895, Cesare Lombrosso, an acquaintance of Mosso, applied the use of more precise instrumentation sensitive to changes in volumetric displacement to measure emotional changes and detect deception. Lombrosso postulated: It is well known that any emotion that makes the heartbeat to quicken or become slower causes humans to blush or pale. These vasomotor phenomena are entirely beyond our comparative. If we plunge our hands into the volumetric tank invented by Francis Frank, the level of the liquid registered on the tube above will rise and fall at every pulsation. Besides these regular fluctuations, variations may be observed which corre spond to every stimulation of the senses, every thought, and above all, every emotion [2].

The “volumetric glove,” developed by Patrizi, was considered an improvement over the volumetric tank. The suspect put his hand in a sealed rubber glove filled with air. Changes in air pressure due to heart pulsations were then recorded on a Marey tympanum and on a revolving cylinder covered with smoked paper. Lombrosso’s daughter writes in The Criminal Man: My father sometimes made successful use of the plethysmograph to discover whether an accused person was guilty of the crime imputed to him, by mentioning it suddenly while his hands were in the plethysmo graph or placing the photograph of the victim before his eyes.

Lombrosso became the first person to use scientific instrumentation successfully in the detection of deception. He is considered the father of modern criminology. He is also known for his less than scientific theory of physiognomy, which was a system he developed to identify persons prone to criminal behavior based on their physiology and bone structure. Luigi Galvani, in his 1791 paper “Animal Electricity,” had developed a theory that electricity flowed through living organisms and that differences in this electricity could be measured. Galvani erroneously reached this conclusion when he mistakenly noticed a

1. THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH

dissected frog’s leg muscle contract, but didn’t note that the muscle accidentally came into contact with a piece of metal containing an electrical charge. His theory was wrong; there is no animal electricity of the sort that Galvani had postulated. However, the principle of electrical conductivity aroused the interest of other scientists in his field. One of the scientists who had followed Galvani’s experiments, Hans Christian Oersted, discovered a connection between electricity and magnetism. His work intrigued Andre´ Ampe`re, who published a paper on September 18, 1820, concerning an instrument he constructed to measure the strength of electrical currents. In honor of Galvani, Ampe`re named his instrument a “galvanometer” [7]. In 1897, Harold Sticker became the first person to suggest the application of the galvanometer for detecting deception [2]. Sticker, a psychologist, experimented on sweat gland secretion as a measure of psychological stress. In pursuit of his data, he was the first experimenter to apply Ampe`re’s principle to measure physiological change. Sticker’s research was not original: it was an extension of research completed by Adamkiewicz, who had already demonstrated that sweat gland activity was linked to the mental processes [2]. Sticker simply applied the principle, theorizing that stress would lead to increases in the secretion of the sweat glands. He believed that changes in skin conductivity caused by sweating could be measured; that a galvanometer attached to a person would allow the observation of galvanic skin response (GSR), changes in the body’s resistance to small charges of electricity; and that the GSR reflected changes in the subject’s mental excitation. Sticker further suggested that the use of the GSR, together with showing the person pictures or asking questions, would stimulate emotional responses that could then be reliably measured physiologically. In 1902, a German professor of psychology, William Stern, wrote an article, “Die Aussagepsychologie” (“The Witness Psychology”), hypothesizing that a person’s statement depends on the cognitive ability of the person, as well as on the interviewing process used to obtain the statement. Considered the “Father of Statement Analysis,” Stern began the research which has led to the development of criteria based statement analysis [8]. In 1907, S. Veraguth suggested the use of the GSR in conjunction with psychological word association tests [2]. He proposed that the GSR be used as a diagnostic tool in assessing psychological disorders. He also coined the term “psycho-galvanic reflex.” Following Veraguth’s suggestion, such prominent psychologists as Jung and Peterson began using the GSR to detect emotional issues with their patients. The concept of applying scientific instrumentation to measure physiological changes indicative of deception was first advanced by Hugo Mustenberg in 1909. Mustenberg, a professor of psychology at Harvard University, was concerned that perjury was destroying the integrity of the judicial system. In “On the Witness Stand,” Mustenberg devoted an entire chapter to recommending that physiological activity of a witness be monitored as testimony was given to ensure that the witness was telling the truth [3]. He also asserted that the simultaneous measurement of a broad range of physiological responses would be more reliable. Among the physiological parameters that he suggested be monitored were muscle contractions, eye movement, breathing, cardiovascular activity, and changes in electrodermal activity (GSR). Following the publication of his book, a great deal of research began to appear concerning deception and physiological functions.

1. THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH

In 1913, early results of this research were reported by Vittorio Benussi, an Italian scientist. Benussi conducted experiments in deception and was able to formulate a method of interpreting the respiration cycles of subjects for determining whether or not they were being truthful [3]. Benussi measured the length of time it took the individual to complete the two different parts of a single breath: the inhalation (breathing in), and the exhalation (breathing out). His highly accurate research demonstrated that following a conscious lie a subject’s inhalation period shortened, and the exhalation period became longer. He called this the subject’s I:E ratio. Meanwhile, other physiological research was proceeding. In 1917, a student of Mustenberg, William Marston, published a research paper on the discontinuous method of measuring changes in systolic blood pressure readings to detect deception [3]. Periodically during an interview, he would take the interviewee’s standard blood pressure measurements via an arm cuff and then chart any significant changes in systolic blood pressure. Marston reported 96 percent accuracy in detecting deception using this method.

Inh

ion

ala

lat

tion

Normal Breathing 3:5 Ratio

n tio

Inh alat

la ha

ion

Deceptive Breathing 2:6 Ratio

FIGURE 1.1 (A) Normal breathing cycle (I:E ratio 3:5). (B) Change in breathing following deception (I:E ratio 2:6).

1. THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH

In 1921, the Mackenzie polygraph instrument, which could continuously record complex physiological changes, was developed for European physicians [3]. There was speculation that the device, if applied to the detection of truthfulness, could measure and record changes as specific questions were being asked, so that a record would be available for later review. With the encouragement of August Vollmer, Chief of Police, Berkeley, California, Detective John A. Larson combined the Mackenzie ink polygraph to record and monitor changes based on the research of Benussi and Marston [3]. Larson constructed a two-pen lie detector that measured breathing and continuous changes in cardiovascular activity. He named his instrument the “Cardio-Pneumo Psychogram,” but it was quickly nicknamed the “Breadboard Polygraph,” because in its construction he used a breadboard for the base. Larson became the first person in law enforcement to administer polygraph tests to criminal suspects to assess their truthfulness. To date, there have been many improvements made to the basic polygraph instrument. The questioning techniques used with them have also been refined. Indeed, the pioneers of modern lie detection did their work well. In creating this highly reliable instrument, they based their art on the sound principles found in the sciences of psychology and physiology. Many other attempts at monitoring physiological changes have been made in the past century. These include attempts to detect changes in the voice, infrared monitoring of the facial area, computerized analysis of nonverbal microexpressions, measurement of brain waves, and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans of the brain to detect differences in activity between truth telling and lying. Polygraph testing, although it has obvious strengths, has some inherent limitations: it requires written consent, a lengthy interview, and instrumentation and chart analysis to determine the truth. It can be perceived as an invasive inquiry because of the necessary attachments from the instrumentation to the subject. The instrument itself can create a heightened emotional state, which may explain the more significant number of false

FIGURE 1.2 (A) Computerized polygraph. Source: Lafayette Instrument, Indiana, USA. (B) Analog polygraph. Source: Stoelting Instrument Co., Illinois, USA.

SUMMARY

positives (truthful suspects determined deceptive) than false negatives (deceptive suspects determined truthful) [3]. And finally, it cannot be applied ad hoc. The psychophysiological processes that cause changes to take place in a suspect’s body during a polygraph can also be observed less formally and intrusively by an interviewer trained in the techniques of the Forensic Assessment Interview. Deception is detected through analysis of the suspect’s conscious and unconscious nonverbal behavior and projective analysis of unwitting verbal cues independent of the polygraph instrumentation. The Forensic Assessment Interview, a noninstrumental analysis, may seem limited in that there is no technological reference, no paper trail; however, it offers a considerable advantage: the absence of technology leaves the suspect less aware of what is being monitored and less guarded and intimidated. Most importantly, the interviewer can evaluate a broader range of suspect responses to arrive at a reliable assessment of witness/suspect credibility.

SUMMARY • The search for truth is not a modern concept. It dates back to the very beginnings of civilization. • The earliest test for truth was trial by combat, where the truth teller was determined by fighting ability. • Societies then began using psychological and physiological tests to determine truth, known as trial by ordeal. • Trial by torture is still the predominant method of ascertaining truth in the world today and is being given much thought since the September 11, 2001, attack on the United States. • Trial by peers, our judicial system, is an attempt to ascertain the truth. • Modern attempts at determining truth include polygraph, nonverbal behavior, unwitting verbal cues, voice stress, pupilometrics, various forms of brain activity, and voice stress. Accuracy ranges from above 95% with the polygraph, to below a coin toss with voice stress. • The Forensic Assessment Interview Technique allows the interviewer to assess nonverbal and verbal behavior without the need of attachments to make accurate determinations of truth or deception.

References [1] The Bible Old Testament, Book of Genesis. [2] P.Y. Trovillo, A History of Lie Detection, Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 29 (1939) 148 181; 30, 104 199. [3] J.A. Matte, Forensic Psychophysiology; Using the Polygraph, JAM Publications, Williamsville, NY, 1996. [4] E. Cohen, Interview, June 27, Philadelphia, P, 1997. [5] T.S. Szasz, The Manufacture of Madness, Harper and Row, New York, 1970. [6] H. Thomas, U.S. torture tactics shame us all, Hearst Newspapers, October 11, 2007. [7] B. Travers, J. Muhr, S. Evans, World of Invention Textbook, Gale Group, 1994. [8] D. Tavor, Lecture conducted on Criteria Based Statement Analysis, Centurion, South Africa, April 10, 2003.

C H A P T E R

Truth and Lies What is a lie? What is truth? The definitions can be blurred. In the statement of a witness, truth does not necessarily represent what actually occurred. It is a recollection of a perception – with all its biases, filters, and predispositions – without any intention to distort or deceive. Lies do not necessarily represent complete distortions of reality. Therefore it is necessary to define and describe what the “truth” is and, for that matter, what is a “lie.” For example, let us say that two friends are walking down the street when suddenly a mail truck runs into the rear of a police car. The police officer gets out of the vehicle and asks them what they observed. Both of them give statements that, on further review, represent two substantially different versions of what happened because of differences in position and when each of them had their attention drawn to the accident. Could both be telling the truth? The answer, of course, is “Yes,” because both reported what they perceived and therefore believed to have happened. This latter issue is crucial. How we perceive things affects our recollection of the event. Perception is influenced by internal factors such as age, weight, health, cultural background, acuity of the senses, and preoccupations. External factors that affect perception include where we are standing, what we are doing at the time, how much light there is, and so on. What we perceive is what we believe to be true. Therefore, if both friends reported what they believed to have happened, though their perceptions were somewhat different, they were both telling the “truth.” Interestingly, if you could establish the ground truth, which is what in fact did happen, we might find considerable inaccuracies in both representations; however, without that, both would be telling the truth! It is important to remember this when dealing with investigations of “he said, she said” matters. There was a polygraph case involving a married couple. The wife alleged physical abuse, and the husband denied it. Both were scheduled for an examination, which appeared to be a pretty easy case. One obviously was telling the truth, and one obviously was lying. They both came out truthful. How can that be? In any cases of this type, there are four possible outcomes: 1. 2. 3. 4.

He is telling the truth and she is lying. She is telling the truth and he is lying. They are both lying. They are both telling the truth.

Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques

2011, Elsevier Ltd.

2. TRUTH AND LIES

In this polygraph case that ended in outcome 4, the husband’s perception was that the wife was assaulting him and he pushed her away trying not to hurt her. The wife’s perception was that he pushed her head into a wall in an attempt to hurt her. For both of them, their perceptions were their respective reality! For the purposes of this text, the operating definition of the truth is the deliberate, complete, and objective communication (whether verbal, written, or by gesture) of the recollection of a person, place, thing, and/or event, which the communicator (speaker) believes to exist, have existed, or occurred. Conversely, untruth – a lie – is: 1. The deliberate communication to another, verbally, written (i.e., a bad check), or by gesture (i.e., a fake smile), of something that the communicator knows or suspects is not the case; or 2. The presentation or omission of information, with the deliberate intent to deceive and mislead someone who is requesting the truth. As we were growing up, our parents, religious leaders, and teachers taught us that it is morally and ethically wrong to tell a lie. Despite the positive effects these people have had in our lives, these same individuals have modeled for us that it is acceptable to lie regularly. Your mother tells you never to lie, but as you answer the phone, she whispers, “If it’s for me, tell them I’m not home.” You were 14 years old, but airline tickets were half price for those under 13, so your parents tell you to look younger so that the tickets for your vacation flight to Disney World will cost less. We tell our children about tooth fairies, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and many other beings that do not exist. Picture yourself visiting a dying friend in the hospital. “How do I look?” your friend asks. You lie, because the truth is unkind in this context. You reply, “Great! You’re really looking better. You’ll be out of here in no time,” as you think to yourself, “Carried by me and several of your other friends.” These lies are rationalized as “white” or ethically necessary lies. In this context, we all lie! Most are harmless lies that are actually necessary to our social interaction with other people. These lies are social conventions: they reduce interpersonal friction and foster goodwill. Such lies do not usually pose a threat to our well-being, whether we are the tellers or receivers. The other category of deceit is the troublesome one – the intentionally harmful and selfserving lie. Fortunately, it is the one most open to detection. The process of socialization in which people are conditioned to feel guilt and fear detection and subsequent punishment when they tell serious lies produces observable reactions. In telling the lie, the liar is attempting to evade responsibility for an unethical, immoral, and/or illegal act. Moreover, the lie will likely defame or defraud someone. As a result the liar, affected by fear and guilt, has observable psychophysiological reactions. Once someone has made the decision to lie, there are two primary ways for him to proceed: lying by omission or commission. Lying by omission is generally the method of choice. It is tacit, easier, and involves less risk because no invention is required. By denying or leaving out relevant information, the liar chooses the path that offers the least risk of detection, as he runs from the truth and makes no commitment to fabricated information. This person may rationalize that concealing information is not morally objectionable because he has not fabricated information, and therefore may experience less guilt having

2. TRUTH AND LIES

chosen the path of passive deception. However, passive deceit usually contains some elements of fabrication or evidence of missing information that a knowledgeable interviewer can detect and expose through detailed inquiry; this will force the liar to commit to invention or fabrication, thus psychologically heightening the fear of detection. Lying by commission, fabricating information, can be viewed as active deceit. This involves greater cognitive energy – commitment, invention, and defense – and the enhanced risk of contradicting prior information, or giving information that can later be proved to be false. The risk here is great. When asked a question, the suspect has two choices: tell the truth, or lie. If he chooses to tell the truth, it is easy, because the truth is free-flowing and requires very little mental energy. If he chooses to lie, he now is presented with numerous additional choices and concerns: how big a lie to tell, what to put in, what to leave out, contradicting prior inventions, punishment if caught, etc. It should be noted, this being the case, that the majority of what a deceptive suspect says is actually true. Consider the following, in which a person lies by telling the truth, but distorts the context by the manner in which he tells it. A man comes home late and his wife demands to know where he has been. He sarcastically replies, “Out with my girlfriend!” which is exactly where he was. Imagine a scenario where the previously mentioned man called home and told his wife that he would be working late. He has informed her he would take a break for dinner, then do some more work, and then come home. Instead of working until 5 P.M., he actually worked until 5:30 P.M. He then met his girlfriend, had dinner with her, stopped at a motel, returned to the office to pick up some papers, and then went home. He told his wife the truth. He worked late, stopped for dinner, later returned to the office, and then went home. He omitted certain vital details, thus lying by omission. Had he fabricated an explanation, that he had to stay late for a meeting, that would have involved active deceit, and a greater possibility of detection. A good interviewer must learn to sift through whatever truth there is in a clever liar’s story. The interviewer cannot be misled by a superficial reaction to the interviewee’s affect or tone. To sort among the various statements, the interviewer must focus on the components of the statement that indicate possible deception or deliberate omission of information. This sorting process is enabled by the understanding of nonverbal behavior and the assessment of unwitting verbal cues. It is a given that everyone being interviewed will feel a little apprehensive and nervous and cannot be counted on to respond disinterestedly: this is natural. Truthful people experience some apprehension that the interviewer will be less than competent and thus accuse them of crimes they did not commit. Deceptive people are afraid that the interviewer will be competent and will discover that they do, in fact, bear some or all of the responsibility for the matter under investigation. James Matte identifies this as the innocent person’s “fear of error” versus the guilty person’s “hope of error” [1]. To a great extent, the anxiety of the truthful interviewee can be moderated and the fear of the involved interviewee exaggerated by the initial impression the interviewer makes (Figure 2.1). By appearing and acting as a professional, the interviewer has this dual effect on his interviewees. Close your eyes and imagine what a professional CEO of a major corporation looks like at work. If you are a male, picture a male, and if you are a female, picture a female. Pay particular attention to the attire and office.

2. TRUTH AND LIES

Interviewer

Suspect

Interviewer

FIGURE 2.1 Who would you believe is more competent?

If you visualized a man, did he have on a T-shirt and shorts? Was he wearing a sport jacket and slacks? Did he wear a tie? Was he wearing a suit? If you selected a woman, did she have on slacks and a blouse? Chances are the man wore a suit and tie, and the woman wore a dress or suit. That is how most of us imagine a “professional” at work. You probably also visualized a neat desk and an office with professional-looking furniture. Thus, you have demonstrated that professionalism is at least initially conveyed through appearance and environment. How does one dress to look professional? Men should be dressed in suits. Generally the best colors are dark colors, such as blue, black, charcoal, and gray. Shirts should be clean and pressed. The professional male will almost always be wearing a white shirt, or perhaps a light blue shirt. Shirts of other colors should be left home. The tie should be conservative, and there should not be any visible tattoos, body piercings, earrings, or excessive jewelry. Footwear should be in good condition and well shined. Obviously the professional male has well groomed hair, as well as any mustache or beard. The professional woman will dress in a skirt suit, dress, or pants suit. As with the male, the colors should be dark. White blouses also do well for the female, and there should be no excessive decorations on it. The professional woman will not be wearing ostentatious jewelry. Her hair will be neatly groomed, and her use of cosmetics and perfume will be minimal. Remember, every truthful suspect interviewed is afraid that the interviewer is incompetent and will accuse them of a crime they did not commit. Every deceptive suspect is afraid the interviewer is competent and will accuse them of the crime they did commit. Truthful suspects, who through appearance and surroundings perceive the interviewer to be competent and objective, experience a reduction in their fear of being wrongly accused of involvement in a crime. Their fears will moderate, and their behavior will become less stressed, and thus more indicative of truthfulness, as the interview progresses. In contrast, deceptive suspects will be threatened by the appearance of a competent interviewer, who they perceive can identify them as being involved. Their fear of having their deception revealed will increase during the interview; thus, under heightened stress, they will exhibit even more

SUMMARY

deceptive behavior. Of course, if the interviewer looks or acts incompetent, he will still have a dual effect. The truthful suspect’s fear of a mistake will increase, causing him to appear deceptive. There will also be a reduction in the deceptive suspect’s fear of being caught, and his behavior will appear more truthful. The interviewer’s demeanor is also extremely important. He must convey to the interviewee that he is an unbiased investigator, whose only client is the truth. If he appears to have already reached an opinion as to the interviewee’s involvement in the crime under investigation, it will cause the fear and anxiety of both the innocent and guilty suspects to increase. In addition to the importance of the initial impression the interviewer makes on the interviewee by appearance, demeanor, and the environment of the interview, there are certain techniques that can be used to psychologically enhance the interview process. For example, when the interviewee comes into the room, the interviewer can gain rapport by paralleling the interviewee’s nonverbal behavior, identifying his neurolinguistic mode of preference, and/or finding and discussing something held in common with the interviewee before beginning the assessment. These contextual issues are discussed in subsequent chapters.

SUMMARY • An untruth may be caused by many things, other than a deliberate attempt of deception. • A lie is defined as the deliberate communication to another, verbally, written (i.e., a bad check), or by gesture (i.e., a fake smile), of something that the communicator knows or suspects is not the case; or the presentation or omission of information, with the deliberate intent to deceive and mislead someone who is requesting the truth. • There are many types of lies. As forensic interviewers, we are interested in lies told by a suspect in an attempt to escape punishment for deviant acts committed. • Every suspect, truthful and untruthful, will enter the interview in an elevated emotional state due to fear. Truthful suspects fear they will be falsely accused of a crime they did not commit by an incompetent interviewer. Untruthful suspects fear they will be accused of a crime they did commit by a competent interviewer. • If the interviewer is perceived as competent, the truthful suspect’s fear will begin to dissipate as the interview progresses, and the untruthful suspect’s fear will increase, resulting in an increase of deceptive leakage behavior.

Reference [1] J.A. Matte, Forensic Psychophysiology: Using the Polygraph, JAM Publications, Williamsville, NY, 1996.

C H A P T E R

Psychophysiological Basis of the Forensic Assessment The determination of where truth can be found, and the detection of lies, is a discipline based on scientific principles. These scientific principles are grounded in the data derived from research findings in physiology and psychology. Therefore, it is extremely important that a good interviewer understand those physiological and psychological processes that produce the manifestations that allow for an accurate assessment of truth or deception. The key physiological source of these manifestations is found in the body’s autonomic nervous system, in a mechanism commonly called the “fight or flight” response. This psychophysiological response occurs when an individual consciously or unconsciously perceives a threat to his immediate well-being. This response involves a complex and specific range of physiological changes occurring spontaneously, which prepare the individual to either stand and fight, or flee the threat. A less well-entrenched phenomenon related to this mechanism has been identified as the “freeze/hide” syndrome [1]. The latter occurs in those circ*mstances when the threatened individual is too young, too weak, or too psychologically disempowered to fight or flee. Although less frequently considered, there is as sound a basis for “freeze/hide” as there is for “fight/flight.” Consider what threats primitive humans faced from other species. Other than a snake, what predators could he outfight or outrun? None! Therefore, man’s most likely survival response was to freeze and hope the predator did not see him, like a deer caught in headlights. Today, under circ*mstances where an individual cannot flee and perceives that fighting will be ineffectual, hiding as a means of avoiding confrontation with an overwhelming force is instinctual. In the tragic circ*mstances of a house fire, young children who cannot escape are almost always found hiding under a bed or in a closet. The child lacking the strength to fight or the experience to flee is left with the only natural option for the weak or inexperienced: to “hide” from the threat. Think back to when you were a child, lying in bed with the thought that something or someone was going to get you. What did you do? Most likely you “hid” under the covers! These same options apply to any threat, including the threat of being exposed. Thus, the guilty suspect of a criminal investigation being interviewed by a law enforcement officer experiences the threat of being detected, as real and vital a threat as any other. This suspect

Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques

2011, Elsevier Ltd.

3. PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE FORENSIC ASSESSMENT

has these same three instinctual options: fight, flee, or freeze/hide. It is the conflict among these evolutionary drives and the psychological reality of his situation that will create the nonverbal and verbal indicators that the trained interviewer reads and interprets as signs of a response to a threat. In this case the threat is that of being exposed as the culprit, and the resultant psychophysiological response can be read as deception. To better understand the “fight or flight” response, consider the following stimuli and responses. It’s late at night, and you are walking down the street alone in a less than desirable, unfamiliar neighborhood. Your senses are heightened, and you are, as one might expect, apprehensive and nervous. As you walk by an alley, a person appears out of the shadows and shouts, “Hey, you!” You quickly jump back. Your heart begins to beat faster, and your mouth becomes dry. The digestion of your dinner stops as the blood needed for this function is redirected from your digestive organs to the large muscles in your legs, back, and arms and to your brain. This causes a sensation of “butterflies” in your stomach. Your pupils dilate to admit more light and also to give you a deeper field of vision. You get goose bumps on your arms, caused by piloerection (hair standing erect), and your breathing increases as you prepare to meet the threat. Your senses of hearing and smell are also enhanced. These are all instinctual responses, easily observable and almost impossible to suppress. Suddenly, the stranger asks, “Do you have a match?” You answer, “No,” and quickly walk away. As you turn the corner, you see a police officer walking his beat near your car. You take a few deep breaths and give an audible sigh of relief, and your body returns to its prethreat norm. What you have experienced in this scenario is an example of the body’s fight/flight mechanism and is fully explainable in scientific psychophysiological terms. Physiologists have found that one of the requirements for any living organism’s survival is to maintain an ideal internal environment free of distress or threat. This is known as homeostasis. In humans this homeostatic condition is made possible by the maintenance of normal physiological functions by the body’s unique nervous systems: 1. The central nervous system (CNS) consists of the brain and spinal cord. 2. All other nerve pathways are within the peripheral nervous system, which itself separates into the somatic nervous system and the autonomic nervous system (ANS). (a) The somatic nervous system is involved with voluntary control over your skeletal muscles. For example, you control and direct the movement of your arms and hands with your skeletal muscles through your somatic nervous system. (b) The autonomic nervous system, as previously discussed, controls those involuntary physiological functions of the body and has considerable psychological impact as well. The autonomic nervous system controls smooth muscles, glands, and organs not usually under conscious control. Right now, you are not telling your heart, “Beat, beat, beat,” yet your heart is beating. You are not thinking, “Breathe, breathe, breathe,” yet you are breathing. These functions are being controlled through your autonomic nervous system. The autonomic nervous system is divided in its functions: the parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) and sympathetic nervous system. (i) The parasympathetic nervous system is the “housekeeping” or braking system. It is responsible for conserving energy and making sure necessary bodily functions such as digestion and waste elimination take place. It also functions

3. PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE FORENSIC ASSESSMENT

(ii)

to restrain sympathetic arousal and attempt to maintain homeostatic norm. In doing so, it conserves physiological resources. The sympathetic nervous system is our emergency or action system. It is the system that causes the sudden and dramatic changes manifested in the example cited previously.

The brain is in constant struggle with various psychological and physiological stressors to maintain or regain homeostasis through managing the competition of the parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous systems. The brain slows the heart down by sending it a parasympathetic neural message, or speeds it up by sending it a sympathetic message. It is constantly performing a cardiac-output physiological balancing act. Generally, the parasympathetic nervous system increases abdominal activity, allowing for digestion and waste elimination, while it slows thoracic (chest) activity and conserves energy by slowing the heart rate, lowering blood pressure, and decreasing the rate of breathing. The sympathetic nervous system decreases abdominal activity (there is no need for digestion or waste elimination under conditions of dire threat) and increases thoracic activity in an attempt to get more oxygen to the critical areas of the body necessary to assist in survival (Figure 3.1). Thus, the parasympathetic nervous system is constantly trying to balance the activity of the sympathetic nervous system in order to conserve energy and prevent bodily dysfunction. However, frequently its efforts are defeated. When this occurs, sympathetic arousal takes place, causing sudden involuntary changes to prepare for the threat. The heart rate is increased and additional levels of adrenaline are secreted into the blood. The combination of an increase in cardiac output and adrenaline causes an increase in blood pressure. Additional red blood cells are released from the spleen to increase the amount of oxygen delivered to the body cells and remove the additional waste products produced by the excited metabolism. The underlying physiology is also stressed. The liver, fat, and muscle tissue which store energy as glycogen are infiltrated by adrenocorticotropic (ACTH) hormones. These hormones immediately help convert energy stored in these areas to actual energy to be released into the bloodstream. Research has established that ACTH also affects mind function and improves memory. Endorphins, which are natural narcotics, are simultaneously released into the bloodstream (this pseudopharmaceutical mechanism assists us in not experiencing pain from injuries incurred until after the fight). The endorphins also help Increases abdominal activity

Increases thoracic activity tic

the

a mp

Par a

sym

Decreases abdominal activity

the

tic

Decreases thoracic activity

FIGURE 3.1 Overview of parasympa thetic/sympathetic controls of the body.

3. PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE FORENSIC ASSESSMENT

you overcome your fear of the situation. Clotting enzymes are released to prevent profuse bleeding. There is vasoconstriction of the peripheral arterioles, which redirects the blood supply away from the skin surfaces to other parts of the body (this decreases the amount of blood that will be lost in case of injury, and causes the “ghost white” appearance often observed in people experiencing fear). In conjunction with the foregoing changes, there will also be a combination of differentiated vasoconstrictions and vasodilatations, as blood is rerouted from areas of less importance to areas of primary importance in the body, or the body’s core, during the emergency. There is an increase in sweat gland activity to help cool the body down and act as a lubricant to help prevent abrasions during a fight. Palmar sweat (moisture in the hand) also provides for a better grip. The hair may stand on end (piloerection or goose bumps). This physiological mechanism of raising the hair helps cool the skin surface, allowing air to circulate more freely over it. In earlier periods of our species evolution – before clothing – this hair “standing on end” may have served to make us look larger, fiercer, and less palatable to predators (Figure 3.2). The interaction of the two branches of the autonomic nervous system is clearly seen and felt (Figure 3.3). Sympathetically, visual and hearing acuity increase, maintaining the individual in a heightened state of awareness. As the pupils dilate, more light is admitted, extending far vision. Sympathetically, the salivary glands are inhibited. They are part of the digestive system and considered unimportant during fight/flight. This causes the “dry mouth” phenomenon utilized by earlier cultures in trials by ordeal. Some research suggests that memories imprinted during this heightened mental state are more vivid and may account for “reliving” and highly accurate recall experienced by traumatized individuals. Others may argue that the endorphins may explain why victims of traumatic injury often do not remember it. Whichever occurs, one thing is certain: the mind-body’s sympathetic arousal during a threat is a highly evolved process designed to totally protect the individual during emergencies and afford it the best chance for survival. The parasympathetic nervous system is the “ying” to the sympathetic nervous system’s “yang.” Its job is to bring the body back into homeostasis – to conserve precious energy to

FIGURE 3.2

3. PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE FORENSIC ASSESSMENT

Parasympathetic

Sympathetic

Constricts

Eye

Dilates

Stimulates

Salivary glands

Inhibits

Slows No comparative Slows

Breathing

Increases

Sweat glands

Increases

Heart

Accelerates

Stimulates

Digestion

Inhibits

Stimulates

Waste elimination

Inhibits

FIGURE 3.3 The autonomic nervous system.

“calm” the physiological seas, so to speak. If the parasympathetic nervous system should overcompensate as it attempts to return the body to its prethreat norm, involuntary urination or even defecation may result. Many police officers have often taken note of how, on occasion, they responded to the scene of a burglary only to find human feces in the middle of the floor. Some people theorize that this defecation is sexually or socially related behavior, but it is likely that it is caused by the overcompensation of the parasympathetic division, after the strong sympathetic arousal caused by fear of detection associated with committing a burglary. This overcompensation explains why people sometimes faint during extreme emergencies, and why deceptive suspects often display leaning/supportive behaviors. Although the forgoing example was one of perceived physical threat, the responses to psychological or even supernatural threat are similar. A guilty suspect may become weak in the knees or appear to lose balance and have the need to support himself during the periods of greatest threat. Extreme sympathetic and parasympathetic arousals appear most obviously in cases where there are reports of death caused by “voodoo” curses. Victims who strongly believed they had been cursed would die after displaying chronic symptoms of fright (sympathetic arousal), which depleted their adrenaline, causing death due to low blood pressure [2]. Alternatively, sympathetically/parasympathetically induced voodoo death can also be caused by hypovolemic shock. This results from the constant heightened state caused by sympathetic arousal: victims’ intestines lack the necessary blood and fluids to sustain cell life, and organ necrosis and death results. Whichever explanation applies in a given instance, these cases clearly validate the General Adaptation Syndrome postulated by Hans Selye, a Canadian physiologist [3], and the need for the body to be able to regain a homeostatic norm.* * Selye reported that on experiencing distress, the body entered an “alarm” stage, where psychophysiological factors were heightened. The body next entered a stage of “resistance,” where it attempted to overcome the distress. If the body was unable to correct the problem, it entered into a stage of “exhaustion,” which ultimately led to death.

3. PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE FORENSIC ASSESSMENT

Usually alterations to the body’s homeostatic norm are not drastic or life threatening. They are, however, clearly measurable, and measuring changes in three of the body’s systems is the basis for the polygraph examination. During a polygraph examination, the examinee is attached to the polygraph instrument, and several charts of data are collected while the examinee answers only “yes” or “no” in response to the questions asked. Requiring only yes or no answers minimizes vocalization and subsequently reduces distortion created in the breathing pattern of the examinee, which is inherent in prolonged speech patterns. In addition to breathing, the polygraph instrument records electrodermal skin activity and cardiovascular changes, such as changes in pulse rate, mean blood pressure, and blood volume [4]. Moreover, the same physiological changes, in one degree or another, that are recorded on a polygraph instrument also appear during the telling of a lie in an interview when the subject experiences undue stress caused by the fear of detection. While the polygraph technique elicits one series of measurable changes, consider the greater number of additional, observable physiological changes suppressed using this technology. Many physiological changes caused by the tremendous energy and strength the body is producing during this heightened state of arousal, which would cause changes in body position and nonverbal behavior, cannot be assessed because of the subject’s instructions to sit still. The forensic interviewer, on the other hand, is not limited only to observing changes in the three physiological parameters that the polygraph monitors. He or she is trained to make global use of the senses to detect leakage of deceptive behavior, regardless of how it occurs, during the Forensic Assessment Interview. Understanding why these changes occur and how to recognize them will enable the reader to determine truth or deception and separate innocent from guilty suspects. It is a given that the sympathetic nervous system kicks into action whenever the brain perceives a threat. In considering data presented to the interviewer as a result of sympathetic enervation, we should be aware of the work of W. B. Cannon. Cannon, a famous Harvard psychologist, reported that when a cat was fed a meal containing a radiation-opaque substance and placed on a table so an x-ray of its stomach could be taken, digestion went on normally. The cat’s stomach made rhythmic movements known as peristaltic action. When a dog was brought into the room, which represented a threat to the cat’s well-being, the cat became sympathetically aroused, and its digestion suddenly ceased. The question remains: Why does telling lies constitute a threat significant enough to cause this sympathetic enervation? There are several theories for this cause–effect relationship. They include conditioning, approach-avoidance conflict, and psychological set (also referred to as “salience”) [5]. Classical or Pavlovian conditioning [6] was discovered by the Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov, while he was attempting to study salivation in dogs. To start the dogs salivating, Pavlov presented them with food. His experiments were disrupted when just the sight of him or his assistants caused the dogs to begin salivating even before food had been presented. Pavlov realized that salivation could be psychologically caused; and, he had taken on a special relationship with food in the minds of the dogs. Every time he had previously entered the room the dogs were presented with food. Now, just the sight of him caused salivation.

3. PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE FORENSIC ASSESSMENT

Pavlov called the presentation of food an “unconditioned stimulus” (UCS), which he described as any stimulus capable of causing a reaction to occur without any prior training or learning having taken place. Pavlov labeled the reaction or response that occurred when a UCS was presented an “unconditioned response” (UCR). In Pavlov’s chance discovery, food was the UCS, and salivation was the UCR. Pavlov theorized that if a neutral stimulus (NS), such as himself, were paired enough times with a UCS (i.e., food), then the NS would take on the properties of the UCS and cause the UCR (i.e., salivation) to occur, even though the UCS was not present. The neutral stimulus had become a “conditioned stimulus” (CS), and the UCR was now a “conditioned response” (CR) (Figure 3.4). When a child is caught doing something “wrong” (wrong behavior can be very subjective) by his parents, he is yelled at, disapproved of, spanked, or in some other way punished. This automatically causes sympathetic arousal to occur. Punishment is the UCS, and sympathetic arousal is the UCR. Throughout our lifetimes, when we tell self-serving lies and get caught, we are punished. Lying, therefore, becomes associated or paired with punishment. It becomes a conditioned stimulus (CS), which can then cause a conditioned sympathetic arousal to occur (Figure 3.5). A second explanatory theory is that of “conflict” [5]. Anytime mental conflicts occur, we experience emotional changes that, in turn, cause physiological changes to occur. If you have the choice of going to a movie or to a football game, and you really want to do both, you are experiencing an approach-approach conflict. The greater your desire to attend both events, the greater the conflict would be, and the greater the resulting physiological changes that will be created. Avoidance-avoidance conflict results from having to choose between two negatively impacting options. The greater the negative impact of the options, the greater the accompanying physiological response. Food (UCS)

Salivation (UCR)

FIGURE 3.4 Classical/Pavlovian conditioning.

Pavlov (Neutral stimulus)

Punishment (UCS)

Caught telling a lie (CS)

Sympathetic arousal (UCR)

FIGURE 3.5 Conditioned response to a lie.

3. PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE FORENSIC ASSESSMENT

When an action causes something desirable or undesirable, with neither being predictable, it is called an approach-avoidance conflict. A laboratory rat in a Skinner box** is taught that by pressing a lever it will receive a reward of a food pellet. When the experimenter unpredictably alternates the outcome by intermittently introducing a punishment of an electric shock when the lever is pressed, the rat does not know whether it will be rewarded with food or punished with an electronic shock. The rat wants to receive food, but fears receiving an electric shock, and it now experiences an approach-avoidance conflict, because the same action can produce either outcome. Like the rat in the Skinner box, an individual telling a lie also places himself in an approach-avoidance conflict. He is asked a question by the interviewer and answers with a lie. If he gets away with his deception, he is rewarded. If his lie is detected, he is punished. He is unsure what the result will be. The greater the reward and punishment, the greater the mental conflict will be, and the greater the accompanying sympathetic arousal. A third possible theory involves the psychological concept of cognitive dissonance. When a person holds two contradictory ideas simultaneously, he will experience an uncomfortable feeling [7]. The “ideas” or “cognitions” in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one’s behavior, and facts. This theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology. Dissonance occurs when a person perceives a logical inconsistency among his or her cognitions. This happens when one idea implies the opposite of another. For example, a belief that lying is wrong, as a person tells a lie, is inconsistent. This contradiction creates dissonance, which is experienced as anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, stress, and other negative emotional states. These negative states, in turn, cause physiological changes to occur. Polygraph expert Cleve Backster (Figure 3.6) introduced the theory of psychological set [4]. Psychological set postulates that an individual being asked a series of questions will mentally focus on those questions that have the greatest salience, because they pose the greatest interest or immediate threat to his general well-being at that point in time. The salience of the question is determined by the person himself. The Forensic Assessment Interview utilizes relevant questions dealing with the crime, to pose the greatest threat to the guilty suspect because he will be forced to either confess to or lie about the matter at hand. Comparison questions designed to deal with earlier transgressions or peccadilloes are utilized to threaten the innocent suspect. The fear of being caught in a lie offering the greatest threat, relevant or comparison questions, will cause accompanying physiological changes, which result in the leakage of deceptive behavior. Through the use of relevant and comparison questions, and given the ability to observe and detect changes associated with sympathetic arousal, the trained interviewer can monitor the suspect’s psychological set and solve the puzzle of truth or deception.†

B. F. Skinner, the famous behavioral psychologist, designed a plastic, see through cage with a metal floor to allow him to study animal behavior.

†

To allow you an area of comparison, and give you the ability to properly identify truthful suspects, you will learn how to develop and introduce “comparison questions” in the chapter on question formulation. These questions, as you will see, will become the greatest threat for the innocent suspect.

3. PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE FORENSIC ASSESSMENT

FIGURE 3.6

Photo of Cleve Backster.

Although there is no agreement on which theory or theories in combination actually account for the phenomenon, most professionals in the field rely on Backster’s postulates. Theoretical debate aside, we do know that physiological changes reliably take place in an individual’s body when he or she tells a lie. The degree of change will depend on many factors [8]: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The suspect’s perception of the interviewer’s ability to detect the truth The suspect’s past success in similar situations where he lied The degree of guilt and shame the suspect feels about his actions The degree of guilt or shame the suspect experiences about lying to the interviewer The extent of the suspect’s reward or punishment if he succeeds or fails in his attempt at deception

One possible problem the interviewer must be aware of is that to date, there has not been any reliable information that allows us to precisely differentiate among the various emotional stimuli that could cause the changes produced by the sympathetic division; that is, there is no known way to precisely positively identify a cause based on any given physiological response. The sympathetic change would be similar whether the emotional change causing it was due to fear, anger, hate, sexual arousal, or joy. Therefore, as forensic assessors we understand that we must precisely limit the stimuli as best we can, so that we can assign a distinct cause to any effect we observe. In order to do that, we must set up the assessment interview as a controlled scientific experiment in which the only variable introduced is our series of questions. This is the only way we can prevent ambiguity in assessing a response that might have arisen from any one of a complex range of emotions, rather than simply fear of detection of lying. Only under such controlled conditions can we accurately determine that the behavioral changes we observe are due solely to the interviewee’s perception and subsequent fear caused by his or her attempt to deceive us.

3. PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE FORENSIC ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY • A Forensic Assessment Interview must be set up as a scientific experiment where the only stimulus presented is the interviewer’s question, and all extraneous stimuli are controlled. • Under these circ*mstances, when a suspect lies, emotional changes should occur because of conditioning, conflict, or psychological set. • This emotional imbalance will cause subsequent physiological changes resulting in observable behaviors, the degree of which may be affected by various factors. • These factors will include the interviewee’s perception of the interviewer’s ability to detect deception, the interviewee’s past experiences at deception, and the interviewee’s perception of the seriousness of being caught.

References [1] C. Darwin, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, D. Appleton, New York, 1872. [2] W.B. Cannon, The mechanisms of emotional disturbance of bodily functions, N. Engl. J. Med. (1928). [3] H. Selye, The general adaptation syndrome and the disease of adaptation, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology 6 (1946) 117 231. [4] J.A. Matte, Forensic Psychophysiology; Using the Polygraph, JAM Publications, Williamsville, NY, 1996. [5] S. Abrams, The psychological basis of polygraph technique, Journal of the American Polygraph Association 3 (4) (1974) 141 150, December. [6] H. Rachlin, Behavior and Learning, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1976. [7] www.wikipedia.org. [8] P. Eckman, Telling Lies, W. W. Norton, New York, 1985.

C H A P T E R

Preparation for the Interview/Interrogation The interview and interrogation are two related but fundamentally different processes. The interview is an information-gathering process. An interview is best described as a conversation between two or more people, preferably face-to-face, with the purpose of gathering whatever relevant information is available. The information could be as commonplace as what happened during an automobile accident, or as critical as trying to sort out the innocent from the guilty in a serious crime by use of the Forensic Assessment Interview Technique (FAINT). It is the latter type of interview that we will concentrate on in this text. Interview Purpose is to gather information.

Interrogation Purpose is to get a confession.

The interrogation, on the other hand, seeks to encourage the guilty to admit to their involvement in a crime or other incident. These differing goals, of necessity, affect the nature of the setting, the behavior of the questioner, and the scope of the questions. The interview itself is a nonsuggestive process, because the interviewer is there to collect and make an objective determination of the facts and determine whether the interviewee is truthful and/or credible. An “interviewer” must not contaminate the information being collected with excessive and/or direct input. He must display an unbiased professional attitude. The tone of the interview must be objective and nonjudgmental. With some degree of frequency, investigators or clients will provide subjective or biased information. Often their information is correct. However, there will be times when the information given is not correct, even though those providing it may consider themselves to be offering accurate data. This incorrect information may be jaded by conscious or unconscious bias or prejudice, or even self-interest. Thus, the burden of truth finding falls on the interviewer, who must remain focused on determining the objective reality. The “interrogator,” on the other hand, must project to the suspect that there is absolutely no doubt in his mind as to the suspect’s guilt. He must display an attitude of confidence

Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques

2011, Elsevier Ltd.

4. PREPARATION FOR THE INTERVIEW/INTERROGATION

that he will get the truth. This confident attitude will be crucial in breaking the resistance of the deceptive suspect. Of course, if the interrogator has incorrectly assessed the guilt of the suspect, this air of confidence may cause hostility and aggression in the truthful person, which should alert the interrogator to reassess his diagnosis. Interview Purpose is to gather information. Nonaccusatory.

Interrogation Purpose is to get a confession. Accusatory.

Because the interviewer is there to gather information, the FAINT interview is highly structured, but remains free flowing, nondirective, and, where appropriate, open ended. An interrogation, on the other hand, is highly structured and focused and follows a carefully researched ten-step procedure: “The Integrated Interrogation Technique.” This procedure is proven to be highly effective in obtaining admissions and/or confessions from the guilty. Interview Purpose is to gather information. Nonaccusatory. Free flowing.

Interrogation Purpose is to get a confession. Accusatory. Structured.

The flow of communication between the interviewer and suspect, versus the interrogator and suspect, will differ dramatically. During the interview the flow of communication is “5:95.” The interviewer speaks 5% of the time, asking questions and directing the conversation. The suspect speaks 95% of the time, as he answers the questions. This is in keeping with the goals of the interview process, which is to gather information. The less the interviewer talks, the more information he gathers. The less the interviewer talks, the purer the information which he collects will be. Avinoam Sapir, the innovator of SCAN (see Chapter 5), teaches that the suspect is not stupid! He will learn how to answer the interviewer’s questions based on the information the interviewer reveals. The interrogation is by nature a face-to-face encounter, where the interrogator has only one purpose: to obtain a confession from a guilty individual. The time for collecting information has passed; therefore there is no need for information-seeking questions. The interrogator is only seeking confirmation of information he already knows or highly suspects. All the interrogator wants the suspect to do is nod or say “Yes” when he asks a leading question, such as, “Is that why you did it (the crime)?” In fact, asking questions that seek information suggests that the interrogator does not have the necessary information to be certain that the suspect committed the crime. This weakens the interrogator’s chance of success. Therefore, the interrogator makes sure that a “95:5” conversation mode is maintained, in which the interrogator is speaking 95% of the time, and the suspect only 5% of the time.

4. PREPARATION FOR THE INTERVIEW/INTERROGATION

Another reason for the interrogator to maintain verbal dominance is that if the suspect is not saying he committed the crime, the only thing he will be saying is he did not commit the act! The more the suspect fortifies his position of innocence, the more difficult the interrogator’s objective of obtaining a confession becomes. It is much harder for an individual to admit something he has been adamantly denying for the past hour or two than if he had just been sitting there listening to the interrogator. Interview Purpose is to gather information. Nonaccusatory. Free flowing. Suspect speaks 95% of the time.

Interrogation Purpose is to get a confession. Accusatory. Structured. Suspect speaks 5% of the time.

The location of the interview may be varied. It may be in an office, or in the suspect’s home or place of work. The interrogation definitely needs to be in the interrogator’s office. Humans, like all animals, are territorial. They will fight harder and feel more secure on their own “turf.” The suspect needs to be denied the “home field” advantage. In addition, it is much more difficult for a person to confess, knowing that as soon as they leave the room they will have to face their loved ones or coworkers. Interview Purpose is to gather information. Nonaccusatory. Free flowing. Suspect speaks 95% of the time. Varied locations.

Interrogation Purpose is to get a confession. Accusatory. Structured. Suspect speaks 5% of the time. Interrogator has “home field” advantage.

The interview/interrogation room should not be a small, threatening enclosed space. A nine by nine (90 90 ) room is adequate. The room should contain a desk and two or three chairs. The furniture should not be too elaborate; similarly, it should not give one the feeling of impoverishment or despair. It is acceptable to have some nondistracting pictures on the wall, but they should not be on the wall the suspect will face during the process of being interviewed or interrogated. The easier it is for the innocent suspect to relax, the easier it is for the interviewer to make an accurate assessment. The easier it is for the guilty suspect to focus on his desire of getting “it” off his chest, rather than concentrating on his fear of punishment, the easier it is for him to confess. Therefore, an environment that reminds the suspect in an interview or interrogation that he is in an interrogation room – a custodial environment of four bare walls, shabby furniture, locked doors, and barred windows – is counterproductive. The environment should not be so comfortable as to distract, but should be supportive and nonthreatening. Most importantly, the environment, as well as the

4. PREPARATION FOR THE INTERVIEW/INTERROGATION

interviewer/interrogator’s clothing, should be free of custodial reminders – no handcuff tie tacks or empty holsters. The interviewer/interrogator’s chair should be on casters to allow him to move into or out of the suspect’s space when he wants to. The chair should be higher than the suspect’s chair, because height gives a psychological perception of superiority. The room should be free of outside or inside noise and other distractions. If there are recurring outside noises, the authors suggest using a white-noise machine. There should be no telephone in the room, and all mobile phones should be turned off or put into the silent mode. The room should have a means for monitoring, either by two-way mirror or with a video camera. There is only one difference between the interview room and the interrogation room: the spatial distance between the chairs of the interviewer and suspect, and that between the interrogator and suspect. The distance between interrogator and suspect should be much closer than with the interviewer and suspect. The science of and judicious use of personal space is called “proxemics.” Dr. Edward T. Hall, Professor of Anthropology at Northwestern University, who conducted extensive research into this phenomenon, found that distance relationships among people of varying degrees of intimacy have a direct effect on a person’s manner of relating [1]. Humans are territorial, and they have territorial zones that imply different degrees of acceptance and different degrees of comfort with particular people they interact with within those zones. When these zones are violated, that is, when a less welcome individual intrudes beyond a psychological zone barrier, there are certain predictable responses. Although distances and those who may enter a given zone vary from culture to culture, the presence of the zones themselves does not. For example, although we all have intimate zones, in the Arab culture a close intimate distance is acceptable between men, and Arab men are often seen holding hands. In Western culture, we would find this very uncomfortable, even embarrassing. Dr. Hall identified four spatial zones in which most people in Western culture relate to one another: Proxemics for North America Intimate: Contact to 1800 Personal: 1800 to 40 Social: 40 to 120 Public: 120 þ

1. Intimate Distance ranges from actual physical contact to as far away as 18 inches, still within touching distance. We allow only our most intimate associates to enter this zone. Invasion by anyone else is anxiety producing, with anxiety increasing as distance is reduced. When circ*mstances require our personal zone to be invaded – for instance, in a crowded elevator, subway, or bus – we psychologically isolate ourselves and tighten our muscles. In a crowded theater, we focus our attention to the event and studiously ignore our neighbors. Given that this zone creates the greatest anxiety and involves the strongest responses, much of the interrogation will take place in this zone. Remember, the last territory a person can defend is what he is thinking – it is the job of the interrogator to get inside that last place and effectively stop the suspect’s resistance.

4. PREPARATION FOR THE INTERVIEW/INTERROGATION

2. Personal Distance ranges from 18 inches out to 4 feet. Dr. Hall calls the latter the “limit of physical domination.” This is just outside touching distance, yet close enough for some personal discussion to take place. The Forensic Assessment Interview will take place in the outer limits of this zone. 3. Social Distance ranges from 4 to 12 feet. Four to 7 feet is the distance where we conduct most of our informal transactions. Seven to 12 feet is where more formal social and business relationships take place. 4. Public Distance is the furthest limit of our territorial zones. It ranges from 12 to 25 feet or greater. These are teaching or public speaking distances. Still greater distances are of marginal personal concern. People feel threatened when they perceive their personal zone rules are violated. To test this phenomenon yourself, during a meal start encroaching on your fellow diner’s territory by slowly moving your silverware, condiments, drink glass, and so on, into their side of the table. Observe how uncomfortable they appear to become. Better yet, imagine the anxiety you would experience if you were sitting in an almost empty theater and someone you did not know sat in the chair next to you. Distance between the interviewer and suspect should be at the outer limits of the personal zone, approximately 4 feet away. This will ensure that the distance does not cause the suspect to display unnatural defensive behavior, which could then be mistaken as deceptive behavior or adaptors. During the interview, the only time we want to cause these types of behaviors is if the suspect decides to attempt deception in answer to one of our questions. During the interrogation the interrogator should begin at a distance of 3 to 4 feet, with a forward body lean, and slowly move into the suspect’s intimate zone (18 inches to contact) each time he senses weakness in the suspect. Each movement forward should reduce the distance between the interrogator and suspect until one of the interrogator’s knees is between the suspect’s legs. This will increase anxiety and vulnerability and increase the suspect’s desire to confess, if guilty. If not guilty, this invasion will harden the suspect’s resistance. Interview Purpose is to gather information. Nonaccusatory. Suspect speaks 95% of the time. Free flowing. Varied locations. Conducted in “Personal-Social Zone.”

Interrogation Purpose is to get a confession. Accusatory. Suspect speaks 5% of the time. Structured. Interrogator has “home field” advantage. Begins in “Personal,” ends in “Intimate Zone.”

Interviewers can take notes during the interview as long as their writing behavior and affect are consistent. Any sudden change in writing behavior, whether one stops writing or suddenly begins writing, will alert the suspect that there has been a change in the process and subsequently affect his verbal and nonverbal behavior.

4. PREPARATION FOR THE INTERVIEW/INTERROGATION

During the interrogation, notes are not necessary: one is not gathering information. Writing during the interrogation communicates to the suspect that the interrogator does not have all the answers. If the interrogator is not sure whether the suspect did the crime, why should the suspect admit to it? The interrogator only wants the suspect to nod “Yes” to a leading question, such as, “Is that why you did it?” After obtaining the confirmation of guilt, the interrogator can then document it.

Interview Purpose is to gather information. Nonaccusatory. Free flowing. Suspect speaks 95% of the time. Varied locations. Conducted in “Personal-Social Zone.” Writing OK if consistent.

Interrogation Purpose is to get a confession. Accusatory. Structured. Suspect speaks 5% of the time. Interrogator has “home field” advantage. Begins in “Personal,” ends in “Intimate Zone.” No writing until after suspect confesses.

As we lecture across the country, we ask participants when a suspect must be given their “Miranda warnings.” It appears there is general understanding that “Miranda” does not apply to private security. The Constitution protects citizens against government, not against other citizens. “Miranda” only applies to governmental personnel, such as law enforcement agents or agents of public agencies. When governmental personnel are required to give “Miranda” seems unclear. We generally get three responses to this question: if it is accusatory, if the investigation has focused on a single suspect, and if it is custodial. According to the Supreme Court the test for “Miranda” is not based on whether the communication is accusatory, or whether the investigation has focused on a single suspect, but based solely on whether the situation would be viewed as “custodial” in the mind of an average person. Therefore, it is not necessary to give a “Miranda warning” (see Chapter 17, “Legal Considerations”) in an interview setting because it is not a custodial situation. However, the fact is, the interviewer must give “Miranda” whenever his agency requires it!

Interview Purpose is to gather information. Nonaccusatory. Free flowing. Suspect speaks 95% of the time. Varied locations. Conducted in “Personal-Social Zone.” Writing OK if consistent. “Miranda” not legally required.

4. PREPARATION FOR THE INTERVIEW/INTERROGATION

Many law enforcement agencies have suspects sign a visitors’ book when they arrive at their location to show the voluntary nature of the interrogation. For many interrogators “Miranda” creates a bigger psychological block than it does for the suspect. Too many interrogators believe that once given “Miranda,” the suspect will not confess. This often results in the self-fulfilling prophecy: “If I give “Miranda”, the suspect will not confess; because the suspect will not confess, there is no reason to work hard to get a confession.” Because the interrogator does not work hard, there is no confession, and “Miranda” is blamed. The interviewer should maintain truthful open body positioning. His goal is not to possibly contaminate the interview by exhibiting negative nonverbal behavior. There is an evolutionary tendency for individuals in a submissive role to mimic the nonverbal behavior of the dominant individual, nonverbally communicating, “I’m like you – please like me.” Therefore, the suspect may unconsciously decide to mimic or parallel the interviewer’s behavior. If this occurs and the interviewer is modeling defensive nonverbal behavior, it will negatively affect the nonverbal assessment. The interviewer’s truthful nonverbal behavior, on the other hand, will send a subconscious message to the suspect, which will create openness and help establish rapport. The interrogator also maintains truthful open body positioning. If the suspect mimics the interrogator’s behavior, the nonverbal message to his brain will be open: to tell the truth. By maintaining truthful nonverbal behavior, the interrogator communicates a more believable verbal message to the suspect. Even though the suspect may never have read a book or taken a course in detecting deception, he will have an innate sense that something is wrong if there is a lack of consistency between the interrogator’s nonverbal and verbal behavior. Therefore, consistency is crucial. Interview Interrogation Purpose is to gather information. Purpose is to get a confession. Nonaccusatory. Accusatory. Free flowing. Structured. Suspect speaks 95% of the time. Suspect speaks 5% of the time. Varied locations. Interrogator has “home field” advantage. Conducted in “Personal-Social Zone.” Begins in “Personal,” ends in “Intimate Zone.” Writing OK if consistent. No writing until after suspect confesses. “Miranda” not legally required. “Miranda” may be legally required. Interviewer demonstrates truthful nonverbal behavior in both situations.

In an assessment interview, the interviewer is using a structured question format. Thus, the average Forensic Assessment Interview takes approximately 20 to 30 minutes, this being the limit to the average individual’s close attention span. There is no time limit for an interrogation unless stipulated by law, such as Pennsylvania’s “six-hour rule.”* The interrogator should take as long as necessary to get the confession. The *

Under the six hour rule, statements obtained more than 6 hours after an arrest should be suppressed to guard against the coercive influence of custodial interrogation. See Commonwealth v. Davenport, 370 A.2d 301, 306 (Pa. 1977).

4. PREPARATION FOR THE INTERVIEW/INTERROGATION

interrogation is over when the suspect confesses, or requests the presence of an attorney. Although the suspect is mentally encumbered with the cognitive process of deception and threat of punishment, the bottom line is still a struggle for psychological dominance. The one who gives up first is automatically the loser. The interrogator may tire, but so will the suspect, and the interrogator has the advantage of being the controlling force.

Interview Interrogation Purpose is to gather information. Purpose is to get a confession. Nonaccusatory. Accusatory. Free flowing. Structured. Suspect speaks 95% of the time. Suspect speaks 5% of the time. Varied locations. Interrogator has “home field” advantage. Conducted in “Personal-Social Zone.” Begins in “Personal,” ends in “Intimate Zone.” Writing OK if consistent. No writing until after suspect confesses. “Miranda” not legally required. “Miranda” may be legally required. Interviewer demonstrates truthful nonverbal behavior in both situations. Takes approximately 30 minutes. No time limit.

The good interviewer/interrogator must apply his alertness and intelligence to understand and assess the verbal and nonverbal behavior of the suspect. He must have patience and perseverance and display an attitude both inwardly and outwardly of never giving up. The first time the interrogator looks at his watch, or displays any behavior indicating that he is under time constraints, or is tiring, he has lost; the suspect will realize that if he can just hold out a little longer, he can escape. It is not unlike a psychological game of “chicken,” boiling down to who flinches first. The interrogator has the additional job of helping the guilty suspect find relief, a sense of cleansing in confession. If the interrogator becomes judgmental, the supportive environment that helps the guilty suspect to confess will disappear. Therefore, there must be empathy and rapport. Without rapport, empathy cannot be communicated; that is, the interrogator must communicate that he has the ability to “walk a mile” in the other person’s shoes, to feel the stress, conditions, and circ*mstances that were operating at the time of the crime. The suspect needs to sense that his feelings, motivations, and fears are being understood. Spending time developing this sense of mutuality and empathy will allow the guilty suspect to set aside his adversarial posture, forget his fears, and be more forthcoming in this supportive emotional environment. The interrogator must sound and appear sincere. He must come from a helping position, a position of genuine concern for the suspect and his predicament. He must believe that the “truth” is the product of and answer for the suspect and must show the suspect how being truthful will help him, not the interrogator. To do that, the interviewer/interrogator must have the ability to communicate and relate to a wide variety of people, to talk and deal with people from all walks of life, from the unskilled laborer to the upper echelon executive, from the illiterate street person to the

SUMMARY

college professor. This presents the interviewer/interrogator with a language problem: he must converse at a level of communication the suspect will comprehend, but at the same time he must not appear artificial or patronizing. For example, after we conducted a seminar on interviewing, one participant shared his problem in interrogating. The participant was a middle-aged, college-educated African American who was a security director for a major corporation. His manner was professional and his dress was impeccable. His problem was that although he had a very high success rate of obtaining confessions from white suspects, he had a very poor success rate with minority suspects. When asked how he communicated with minorities, he replied, matter-of-factly, that he tried to mimic their urban street dialect: for instance, in the case of African Americans he would use, “S’up Bro?” His usage of their dialect rang false! Ironically, he undermined his own credibility acting like a street guy from the “hood,” something he obviously was not. The good interviewer/interrogator constantly tries to obtain a better understanding of human behavior. He never stops studying it or seeking higher levels of insight. Why do people lie? Why do they decide to tell the truth? What obstacles must be removed to clear the path for a confession? That makes him the good counselor he must be, because he is counseling a person in making an extremely difficult decision: to tell the truth in spite of the consequences that might accompany it. He must learn how to demonstrate the advantages of telling the truth, while diminishing the suspect’s fear of punishment. He must believe in truth; he must live it and model it for the suspect. Thus, the successful interviewer/interrogator never sneers, ridicules, bullies, belittles, acts prejudicial, antagonizes, ridiculously bluffs, loses his temper, or makes promises he cannot keep. He is a professional, a seeker of truth. He has no axe to grind with the suspect. He is not there to judge. He is fair, understanding, and a good listener. Most of all, he is in control. He is the guide to lead the guilty person on a journey from denial to truth, and to assure the innocent that his innocence will be confirmed. Remember, the best salespeople are the ones who believe in the product they are selling. We sell truth!

SUMMARY • To be a good interviewer/interrogator, you must be a good communicator. • Interviews and interrogations are two separate processes. • Mixing these two processes is the formula for failure. Remember the differences.

Reference [1] E.T. Hall, The Silent Language, Hall Doubleday, New York, 1959.

C H A P T E R

Morgan Interview Theme Technique (MITT)

The author of this interviewing technique, Raymond Morgan, started his law enforcement career with the San Diego Police Department. After a number of years in street law enforcement he went to work as a Criminal Investigator for the San Diego County district attorney’s office. Assigned to the federally funded Organized Crime Unit, he began working motorcycle gangs as a facet of organized crime. His effectiveness in this endeavor led to numerous grand jury investigations and indictments of members of the Hell’s Angels and Mongols motorcycle gangs. Following the indictment and arrest of thirty-two members and associates of the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang in 1978, the mother chapter of the Hell’s Angels in Oakland, California, approved Morgan’s assassination. Shortly after this assassination approval, two members of the Hell’s Angels were arrested as they staked out Morgan’s home, their automatic weapons were confiscated, and they were charged by the U.S. Attorney’s office for conspiracy to commit murder and weapons violations. Morgan later moved his family to Idaho, where he finished his doctoral internship in Counseling Psychology and went to work for the Idaho Police Officers Standards and Training Academy as a Behavioral Science Instructor and taught Criminal Justice at Boise State University. He was called on by law enforcement agencies throughout Idaho to conduct preemployment psychological testing, polygraph examinations, criminal interviews, and criminal profiling in crimes of violence. Following the development of his

Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques

2011, Elsevier Ltd.

5. MORGAN INTERVIEW THEME TECHNIQUE (MITT)

interviewing technique, he went to work for Naval Criminal Investigative Service and taught criminal interviewing to law enforcement officers in the United States and in several foreign countries. He retired from NCIS in 2005 and remains active in law enforcement training. In his law enforcement preemployment testing, he used a personality assessment test known as the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). This is a projective test where the law enforcement applicant is shown a series of sketches and is asked to tell a brief story about each sketch. Experimentally Morgan used several of the TAT sketches in a criminal case involving the sexual abuse of a 4-year-old female. In the interview and administration of the TAT sketches to the father of the sexually abused 4-year-old, the father told the following story to one of the sketches: “Looks like a man cheating on his wife, wishing he’d never done it. If he feels as guilty as he looks, he’ll never do it again.” Morgan then used the father’s response to the TAT sketch to obtain a full confession. Morgan realized from this criminal case that the administration of a few sketches in the interview by an investigator could be another very effective tool in the detection of deception and began to develop the Morgan Interview Theme Technique (MITT). A further in-depth explanation of the TAT initially used by Morgan follows.

FIGURE 5.1A

The Thematic Apperception Test was developed in the 1930s by the American psychologists Henry A. Murray and Christiana D. Morgan at Harvard University to explore the underlying dynamics of personality, such as internal conflicts, dominant drives, interests, and motives. The TAT is a projective personality test. A projective test in personality assessments is a test designed to let a person respond to ambiguous stimuli (sketches), presumably revealing hidden emotions and internal conflicts [1]. In the TAT, an individual views ambiguous scenes of people and is asked to describe various aspects of the

5. MORGAN INTERVIEW THEME TECHNIQUE (MITT)

scene; for example, the subject may be asked to describe what led up to a scene depicted on the sketch, the emotions of the characters, and what might happen afterwards. The examiner then evaluates these descriptions, attempting to discover the conflicts, motivations, and attitudes of the respondent. In the answers, the respondent “projects” their unconscious attitudes and motivations into the sketch, which is why these are referred to as “projective tests” [2]. Similarly, in the MITT, an individual is shown vague sketches and asked to make up stories about them. The stories should include what happened prior to the scene in the sketch, what is happening now in the sketch, and an ending. Research indicates that when people make up stories from their imaginations, they must draw on their own life experiences. Therefore, approximately 30% of what a person tells in the form of a story is actually related to his or her own past history. Initially Morgan utilized several sketches from the twenty sketches in the original TAT sketches, and later he developed his own sketches that resemble various types of crime scenes. He called his method the MITT (Morgan 1986/2007). He divided the sketches into four basic types: Irrelevant, Relevant, Apprehension, and Guilt and Remorse sketches. The relevant sketches are then subdivided into sketches depicting nonviolent crimes, violent crimes, and sexual crimes. The MITT has 42 total sketches, of which 5 are Irrelevant, 18 are Relevant Nonviolent, 8 are Relevant Violent, 6 are Relevant Sexual, 3 are Apprehension, and 2 are Guilt and Remorse sketches. Five sketches are generally presented to the suspect during the MITT administration. Morgan begins the MITT process by handing the suspect an irrelevant sketch (Figure 5.1B) and requesting that he make up a story about the sketch to include, “What led up to what you see in the sketch, what is happening now in the sketch, and what is the outcome or end of the story?”

FIGURE 5.1B Irrelevant MITT Sketch IR 1.

5. MORGAN INTERVIEW THEME TECHNIQUE (MITT)

He also developed gender-specific irrelevant sketches: a woman looking out a window, and a man in a suit (Figure 5.2A and B). This is the second sketch presented to the suspect. He originally used the female sketch for women and the male sketch for men, reporting that this gender-specific sketch helped suspects to project themselves into the stories. Morgan currently uses the same gender sketch for all suspects in investigations where there are multiple suspects of both genders to be consistent in his presentations.

FIGURE 5.2 (A,B) Gender specific irrelevant sketches.

Next, the suspect is given a relevant sketch that is as close as possible to the actual crime (Figure 5.3). Truthful suspects will often observe the sketch for what it is, openly stating to the interviewer that it reminds them of the crime under investigation, and their stories will frequently deal with the crime being investigated. Deceptive suspects, on the other hand, will often completely avoid the obvious, separate themselves from their story, and on occasion project blame to others. The investigator will also frequently see changes in the suspect’s nonverbal behaviors when the suspect sees the relevant sketch for the first time.

5. MORGAN INTERVIEW THEME TECHNIQUE (MITT)

FIGURE 5.3 A sketch Morgan uses very effectively in child sexual abuse cases. Relevant Sexual Sketch RS 4.

The relevant sketch will force the deceptive suspect to recall his involvement in the crime being investigated, and it will always produce apprehension anxiety (fear of being caught) in the deceptive suspect. Further, it often produces both unconscious verbal and nonverbal indicators of deception. The relevant sketch is followed by an Apprehension sketch (Figure 5.4). This sketch allows the deceptive suspect to project his anxiety and fears of being caught into his story. In an industrial loss case (missing money), Morgan listened as one of four possible suspects in the theft of the money told this story for MITT Apprehension Sketch A-1.

FIGURE 5.4 MITT Apprehension Sketch A 1.

5. MORGAN INTERVIEW THEME TECHNIQUE (MITT)

Boy! I don’t know, he looks like he’s in trouble somehow. What led up to it? There are too many things that could lead to trouble. He’s tired and he hasn’t had anything to eat. He doesn’t have any money. So the hand on his back is going to help him and buy him some food and send him on his merry way I guess, because in real life you wouldn’t give him a job. You might feed him but that’s about it. That’s a hard one!

Morgan reports that this suspect confessed to stealing the money in the confrontation stage of the interview. The last sketch shown to the suspect is the Guilt and Remorse sketch. Often deceptive suspects will project their own feelings of guilt or remorse for the crime they committed into their story. Morgan developed these gender-specific sketches: in each sketch a male or female is holding their head in their hands (Figure 5.5A and B).

FIGURE 5.5A

MITT GR 1.

FIGURE 5.5B

MITT GR 21.

The MITT administration is utilized in the Forensic Assessment Interview after the interviewer has completed the background and personal data and issued a score for Posture/ Demeanor. The authors then introduce the process to the suspect in the following way: Before we start the actual interview I’d like to show you a series of sketches. This is something I do in all my interviews and I’ve found that it helps stimulate the open and honest conversation you and I are about to engage in. I am going to give you the sketches one at a time and I’d like you to make up a story about each

5. MORGAN INTERVIEW THEME TECHNIQUE (MITT)

one. Tell me what happened before the scene you see on the sketch, what is happening in the scene, and make up an ending to the story for me. For example, if I were to show you a sketch of an adult male driving a vehi cle you might tell me that the adult male “went to the store to buy cigarettes,” that’s what happened before the scene on the sketch. You then might tell me that “he is now driving back to his home,” that’s what is happen ing now in the sketch and finish the story by telling me that “he arrives home safely,” thus the end of the story.

Morgan used the TAT as part of his personality assessment of law enforcement applicants. His development of the MITT in criminal interviews, however, was for a very different purpose. He recognized that any investigator who used the MITT in an interview could easily gain insight from the verbal and nonverbal responses of the suspect and add another effective tool to his endeavor to determine truth or deception. Recognizing the variables in human behavior, we offer the following generalizations regarding suspect responses to the MITT. 1. Truthful suspects generally recognize the relevant sketch as a similar crime scene to the one they are being interviewed about and openly state the obvious or create a story about the crime. Deceptive suspects generally do not want to talk about the crime, and even though they may ask the interviewee if it is a crime scene, when instructed that it is their story, they will sometimes make up a story with no crime in it. 2. Truthful suspects often have upbeat stories. Deceptive suspects more frequently have downbeat stories. 3. Truthful suspects often create logical stories. Deceptive suspects often create illogical stories. They may even see relevancy to the irrelevant sketches. 4. Truthful suspects often have no trouble making up endings for their stories. Deceptive suspects frequently have trouble making up endings because they do not know how their current situation will end. Morgan would utilize the five-sketch sequence shown in Figure 5.6 in an industrial loss of money case where the administration of a polygraph is not an option.

FIGURE 5.6A Irrelevant sketch (child looking at a violin).

FIGURE 5.6B

5. MORGAN INTERVIEW THEME TECHNIQUE (MITT)

Irrelevant sketch (gender specific).

FIGURE 5.6C Relevant sketch.

5. MORGAN INTERVIEW THEME TECHNIQUE (MITT)

FIGURE 5.6D Apprehension sketch.

FIGURE 5.6E Guilt and Remorse sketch (gender specific).

The entire procedure takes about 5 minutes. There are several advantages to utilizing the MITT in your forensic interview: 1. In about 10% to 15% of the cases, you will be able to identify the person who committed the crime, based on their stories to the sketches. For example, in the case you will review later in this chapter, four suspects were interviewed using the MITT. When presented with the sketch of the arson, only one suspect created a story that had nothing to do with fire. 2. Based on the stories to the MITT sketches you may be able to develop information that can be used during an interrogation. For example, in the arson investigation, the suspect looks at Apprehension Sketch A-3 (female taking a polygraph examination) and starts his story with, “It looks like a person wanting to . . . it’s a person testifying in court.” It appears the suspect was about to say, “It looks like a person wanting to confess.” During the confrontation stage of the interview this suspect may be told that it is obvious he wants to tell the truth and put this act behind him. 3. The process tends to break the ice for truthful suspects, reducing their level of anxiety, while increasing the level of anxiety for the deceptive suspect.

5. MORGAN INTERVIEW THEME TECHNIQUE (MITT)

4. It gets everyone talking, and therefore has a positive effect on the rest of the interview process. 5. It will assist the investigator in narrowing the focus of the investigation in multiple suspect cases. In the FAINT interviews, the authors give a single overall score for the MITT of a þ1 (appears truthful), 0 (inconclusive), or –1 (appears deceptive), which will be added in with the remaining scores of the Forensic Assessment Interview. When multiple suspects are being interviewed, a score of 2 may be given when one or more suspects have already received a 1; however, as demonstrated later in the administration of the MITT, one particular suspect is clearly more deceptive than the previous interviewees, resulting in the 2 score. Here are the MITT portions of the FAINT interviews of four suspects in an arson case in which the fire was set in the back room of a store where all of the interviewees were employed. Each interview excerpt is followed by the FAINT scores the interviewee was given.

MITT SUSPECT 1

FIGURE 5.7 Irrelevant Sketch IR 1 (child looking at a violin sitting on a table).

S: Is the girl smiling in the picture? I: It’s your picture; you can say anything you want. S: Okay, it looks like the girl is home. It looks like her dad or mom may have bought her a violin and now she’s staring at it, and then . . . it’s something she always wanted, and then . . . she learns how to play it and plays it beautifully. (smiles)

MITT SUSPECT 1

FIGURE 5.8 Irrelevant Sketch IR 5 (gender specific: male in suit). S: Okay, it looks like a man walked out of an elevator out into a hallway. Now he’s looking out in the hallway to see if that’s the way he needs to walk and that’s the way he takes.

FIGURE 5.9 Relevant Sketch RNV 9 (sketch of office where the curtains are on fire). S: Looks like a lady just walked into an office and discovered it was on fire. She’ll grab a fire extinguisher and call the fire department.

5. MORGAN INTERVIEW THEME TECHNIQUE (MITT)

FIGURE 5.10 Guilt or Remorse Sketch GR 1 (gender specific). S: Looks like a boy . . . had something on his mind, and he’s sitting at the kitchen table worried about something and I guess his parents come in and talk to him about it.

FIGURE 5.11 Apprehension Sketch A 3 (person taking a polygraph test). S: Okay, it looks like a lady is taking a lie detector test (looks up for approval/smiling). She’s now in the pro cess of the test. Now . . . afterwards it will tell if she’s lying or telling the truth.

MITT SUSPECT 2

Score: þ1 Saw a fire in the relevant sketch, stories were upbeat, made sense, and stories had endings.

MITT SUSPECT 2

FIGURE 5.12 Irrelevant Sketch IR 1 (violin). S: . . . I’m not good at this. I: It’s okay, take your time. S: . . . To me it just looks like she’s just thinking about music. I: How’s it come out? What happens in the future? S: To me she looks like somebody who really wants to play an instrument like that. And she’s just think ing real hard about it. And that’s her, her future. She gets . . . if you really want something and think about it you’ll get it in the end.

FIGURE 5.13 Irrelevant Sketch IR 4 (gender specific: woman looking out a window female suspect).

5. MORGAN INTERVIEW THEME TECHNIQUE (MITT)

S: . . . It looks like a woman. Her husband hasn’t come home yet. She’s wondering if he is okay. He comes 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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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 suspect 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

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´ (Suggestibility) 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 personality 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 that 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

2011, Elsevier Ltd.

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 fabricated one [3]. In the late 1980s, psychologists Stellar, Raskin, Trankell, Koehnken, and Epsin did empirical 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

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

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 the accused person makes references about other comparable situations with another person. • If a witness describes that he talked later with another person about the criminal act, this criterion is not fulfilled, because the other person had nothing to do with the act. He pointed a gun at me and said, “If you cooperate you won’t get hurt. I am sure you know this happened to someone else from your office and because he cooperated I did not hurt him” 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. After the person left he said, “Give me those

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

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.

12. Accounts of subjective mental state • Reference to internal-psychological states. • This criterion is accomplished when the statement reports in a differentiated way the emotional or sensory reactions of the person in reference to the criminal act. • A simple reference to a threatening situation cannot justify the presence of this criterion. He pointed a gun at me and said, “If you cooperate you won’t get hurt. I am sure you know this happened to someone else from your office and because he cooperated I did not hurt him” 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. 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. I felt my legs trembling, I almost collapsed. I thought he was going to kill me. How would my family exist?

13. Attribution of perpetrator’s mental state • If the statement contains specific elements concerning the psychological state of the accused person it is a sign that the statement is based on real experience (i.e.: heavy or rapid respiration). • This has to be reported in a spontaneous way, not as a response to a question. He pointed a gun at me and said, “If you cooperate you won’t get hurt. I am sure you know this happened to someone else from your office and because he cooperated I did not hurt him” 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. I could feel his breath on my neck. He was breathing rapidly. His cheek touched mine. It felt cold and clammy. 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. I felt my legs trembling, I almost collapsed. I thought he was going to kill me. How would my family exist?

Motivation Related Contents: The previous categories described the contents and elements from cognitive psychological aspects. The following criteria concerns the motivation and the presentation of the self as by the suspect, and whether he tries to put himself into a favorable light in an attempt to convince the interviewer he is being truthful. 14. Spontaneous details: spontaneous corrections

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

• •

When there are spontaneous corrections (not grammatical ones) it is a valuable sign of the credibility of the statement. Fabricated statements rarely have spontaneous corrections.

He pointed a gun at me and said, “If you cooperate you won’t get hurt. I am sure you know this happened to someone else from your office and because he cooperated I did not hurt him” and I put my hands up in the air, and said, “What do you want?” I didn’t just put my hands up, he told me to put my hands up in the air. 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 stom ach and came very close to me. I could feel his breath on my neck. He was breathing rapidly. His cheek touched mine. It felt cold and clammy. 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. I felt my legs trembling, I almost collapsed. I thought he was going to kill me. How would my family exist?

15. Admitting lack of memory • If a statement is based on reality the writer will not be afraid to admit gaps in memory. • We have to be careful if the witness does this in response to a precise question. In that case we cannot differentiate between a real or false statement. He pointed a gun at me and said, “If you cooperate you won’t get hurt. I am sure you know this hap pened to someone else from your office and because he cooperated I did not hurt him” and I put my hands up in the air, and said, “What do you want?” I didn’t just put my hands up, he told me to put my hands up in the air. 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. I could feel his breath on my neck. He was breathing rapidly. His cheek touched mine. It felt cold and clammy. I am not sure if the gun was a revolver or automatic. 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. I felt my legs trem bling, I almost collapsed. I thought he was going to kill me. How would my family exist?

16. Raising doubts about one’s own testimony • It would be counterproductive for a person who is not telling the truth to question his own statement. • This criterion is accomplished when the person reports in a spontaneous way that what he said before is so unbelievable that he himself wouldn’t believe it if somebody told it to him. He pointed a gun at me and said, “If you cooperate you won’t get hurt. I am sure you know this happened to someone else from your office and because he cooperated I did not hurt him” and I put my hands up in the air, and said, “What do you want?” I didn’t just put my hands up, he told me to put my hands up in the air. 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. I could feel his breath on my neck. He was breathing rapidly. His cheek touched mine. It felt cold and clammy. I am not sure if the gun was a revolver or automatic. After the person left he said, “Give me those papers,” and he took the papers from my hand. I tightened

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

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. I felt my legs trembling, I almost collapsed. I thought he was going to kill me. How would my family exist? It seemed like it was a nightmare. I had to pinch myself to make sure it was really happening.

17. Self-deprecation: self-accusation • If the person presents himself in a negative light, he admits his own errors, for instance, says: “It was my fault; I should have locked the door and not have let him enter,” or “His caresses felt nice, but afterwards it wasn’t nice anymore, it hurt,” the presence of this criterion reinforces the hypothesis that they are reporting a real experience. • A person who didn’t experience what he is saying has the tendency to describe the act in a black-and-white way. He would like to convince people that he is pure (white), and the accused or accuser is completely evil (black). . . . 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. I felt my legs trembling, I almost collapsed. I thought he was going to kill me. How would my family exist? It seemed like it was a nightmare. I had to pinch myself to make sure it was really happening. If I had left the papers in the office they wouldn’t have been stolen.

18. Pardoning the perpetrator: discharging the accused person • This criterion is present when the statement shows a neutral attitude toward the accused person. • This attitude would be incompatible in the case of motivation for a false allegation. . . . 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. I felt my legs trembling, I almost collapsed. I thought he was going to kill me. How would my family exist? It seemed like it was a nightmare. I had to pinch myself to make sure it was really happening. If I had left the papers in the office they wouldn’t have been stolen. Maybe someone is forcing him to do this.

Offense-Specific Elements: 19. Detailed characteristics of the offense: crime-specific characteristics • To fulfill this criterion, there has to be a sequence in the statement that has to do with criminology or victimology. • The writer has no idea that what he says has anything to do with criminology or victimology. An example of this would be grooming behaviors used to manipulate the intended target/victim. He took me to a fancy restaurant. Gave me a beautiful watch.

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

It is not necessary to find all of the nineteen cited criteria present in every statement. A lack of criteria does not mean the statement is untrue. This is especially so when analyzing a statement of a young child or mentally incapacitated person who may not have the verbal skills necessary to write or give a statement of high quality. The number of criteria found in a given statement does permit the analyzer to make a qualitative evaluation of its validity. If the statement meets a combination of given criteria, which proves it to be of a high quality, it supports the assumption that the statement is based on reality and is true. There is no numerical scoring or cut-off established for this method. The evaluation of the nineteen criteria is the “heart” of the analysis. However, it represents only a part of the whole opinion of the expert. The diagnostic process finds its value when the criteria is combined with other important elements, such as the birth of the statement, how the statement was developed, the personality traits of the person giving the statement, and their motivation for giving the statement. In 1992, Stellar and Boychuk introduced the concept of Statement Validity Analysis (SVA), which takes into account information in addition to CBSA. The evaluator reviews all of the relevant case information and then analyzes the statement’s quality using the CBSA criteria. In 1997, Stellar and Volbert proposed that the evaluator must ask the critical question, “Is this witness with his/her intellectual or physical capacities able to produce this statement without having experienced what was stated?” In other words, could the previous statement in this chapter have been written by a person who alleged the secret documents were stolen at gunpoint, who could have given such a high-quality statement with so many of the criteria present indicative of reality, and yet still be lying? To answer this important question, the evaluator has to consider three elements: • Personality Diagnosis – was the person giving the statement, considering his cognitive and physical characteristics, able to clearly and correctly perceive what happened and able to recall what happened? • Genesis and Development of the Statement – taking into consideration the occasion and origin of the statement, and to whom it was given for the first time. • The reaction of the person receiving the statement for the first time must also be considered, as well as what questions they could have asked that might have influenced the statement. • If the person made more than one statement, the consistency between different statements must be analyzed, as well as the development of the statement. • Motivation Analysis – It is necessary to analyze the different motivations that could cause a person to make a false allegation against somebody: for example, to protect someone else, for vengeance, to make oneself look better, or to cover up a different crime. We must differentiate between the individual’s motivation and motivation that may have been created by the environment (i.e., someone’s desire to create misinformation). In considering motivation for false allegations, we have to be aware of the following points: • Does the language correspond to the experiences of the witness? • Are the emotions exaggerated in comparison to the event described in the statement?

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

• • • • • •

Are Are Are Are Are Are

the emotions totally missing where you would expect them to be? there indicators for any suggestion in the environment? there other kinds of conflicts between the accuser and the accused person? there indicators in the genesis of the testimony for explaining a false allegation? there indicators in the statement for a violation of natural laws? there contradictions in the different statements (or different witnesses)?

In 1999, the German Supreme Court issued a standard for expert testimony in statement psychology. One of the major points of this standard is that the expert has to consider the “Zero Hypothesis” [1], which assumes that the statement is not truthful until one finds enough indicators to prove differently. In that case, the alternative hypothesis, that the victim’s statement is based on real experience, is accepted. Courts in Germany and Switzerland order forensic psychologists to give expert opinions about the credibility of statements. The forensic psychologist’s task is to objectively evaluate the quality of the testimony. Although this process was originally created to determine the credibility of a child, it is also currently used to analyze the statements of adult witnesses. The analysis must be performed in a systematic and transparent manner. The assessment of a statement made spontaneously and consisting of long sequences, without interruptions by questioning, ensures better validity than an assessment of a statement consisting of many long questions with short answers. Every interview should be videotaped to ensure transparency and accuracy.

Warning A forensic psychological opinion in statement credibility has high validity only when the interview corresponds to a very strict scientific standard, and when the evaluation is done competently.

In the late 1980s, Avinoam Sapir* immigrated to the United States and began teaching a method of statement analysis he created, Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN) [2]. Sapir, with a background in code breaking for the Israeli intelligence service, and a polygraph examiner in the Israeli Police Department in Jerusalem, holds a bachelor’s degree in both psychology and criminology, and a master’s degree in criminology. He developed the SCAN technique by conducting extensive research into verbal communication, looking into the linguistic behavior used by people in communication. There are two components to the SCAN system: obtaining a pure statement, and analyzing the quality of the structure and content of that statement. Sapir has found that the deceptive suspect, who does not intend to tell the truth, will express himself briefly as he tries to run away from the critical issue. He may minimize or attempt to ignore the facts of the crime. This will cause him to edit his statement. When we ask a person to write what they know about the crime and how they would explain it, they cannot write everything. They must edit it, telling us what they think is important for us to know [5]. In order for a person to establish commitment to what is being said, two requirements must be fulfilled: *

For information on seminars in SCAN offered by Avinoam Sapir, go to www.lsiscan.com.

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

1. The person needs to connect the statement to himself by using the word “I”; 2. The person needs to connect the statement to the past by using first person singular, past tense. The most psychologically difficult “voice” for a person to lie in is the first person singular, past tense: “I did not touch my daughter’s vagin*,” versus “I would not touch my child’s vagin*.” When looking at the suspect’s answer, evaluate the psycholinguistic differences between truthful and deceptive suspects [5]: Truthful 1. Rich in details. 2. First person singular, past tense. 3. Proper introduction of the victim: “My daughter. . . .” 4. Uses possessive pronoun: “My daughter. . . .” 5. No gaps in time. 6. Appropriate emotions in the right place (post-incident). 7. Will deny doing the crime before being asked. 8. Flow of story proper.

Deceptive Lack of details. Deviates from the first person singular, past tense. Improper introduction of the victim: “She. . . .” Lack of possessive pronoun: “The child. . . .” Missing time: “Two hours later. . . .” No emotions. Only makes denials to direct question. Incorrect flow of story.

The first step in SCAN is to obtain an open or “pure” statement. This is similar to the CBSA requirement of a spontaneous and lengthy statement without interruptions. The purpose of obtaining a pure version of events in the form of an open statement from the suspect is to enable the assessor to break the suspect’s linguistic code. In the FAINT interview, question 7, “Write in detail what you know about this and how you would explain it?” serves this purpose. Once an open statement is obtained, the assessor will evaluate the flow of the statement. Point 8 in the box just shown describes the flow of the statement. Sapir identifies that a statement has three parts: the pre-incident (what happened prior to the onset of the incident), the incident itself, and the post-incident (what happened after the incident was over). Sapir has found that the flow of a truthful statement is generally composed of 20% pre-incident, 50% incident, and 30% post-incident. Simply put, a truthful statement is where the post-incident is a greater portion than the pre-incident, and the incident is usually the greatest portion of all.

Flow of a Truthful Statement Pre-incident: Incident: Post-incident:

20% 50% 30%

Incident > Post-incident > Pre-incident

The reason the “flow” of the statement occurs in this manner is that deceptive suspects do not want to have to talk about the incident. Therefore, they have a tendency to devote a lot of time in the pre-incident as they attempt to avoid getting to the part of the statement dealing

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

with the incident, where they must lie. Once they arrive at the part of the statement where they must lie to conceal their involvement, they tend to lie by omission, resulting in a short narrative about the incident itself. The post-incident deals with what happened after the incident. In statements of false allegations, such as rape and molestation, this part of the statement is where a truthful person tells about the investigative process and their embarrassment about what was done to them, etc. The deceptive suspect does not have these experiences, which results in a very small post-incident portion of the statement. Sapir also looks for signs of credibility in the statement. Credibility is established by proper use of pronouns and using first person singular, past tense to write about what happened. If a person is not willing to write “I” in the statement, it is problematic. For example, when asked to write what happened the previous day (deposit was stolen from his workplace), from the time he awoke until he went to bed, a suspects writes: I woke up at 7 am. I got out of bed and went into the bathroom. I brushed my teeth, showered, and got dressed. I went downstairs ate breakfast and went to work. Punched in at 8:30 and worked the register till noon. Went to lunch until 1 pm and then went back and ran the register until 5 pm. Then I punched out and went home. I ate dinner and watched TV until about 10 pm and then went to sleep. Notice the pronoun “I” is in the statement before the suspect arrives at work and after he leaves, however during the critical time period when the theft would have occurred there are no “I’s” in the statement. Consider the statement, “I am not having sex with that woman!” This is quite different from “I never had sex with that woman!” This person may have had sex with the woman in the past, but now that he has found out he is under investigation, he has terminated the relationship. “I am not having sex with that woman!” is technically a truthful statement; however, when stated in the first person, past singular, it is a patent lie. In question 7, in the Forensic Assessment Interview, we request the suspect to write or tell us, “What is this about, and how you would explain it?” As in MITT, we give our assessment of their answer as þ1 if we believe it is truthful, 0 if we cannot decide (inconclusive), or 1 if we assess it to be deceptive. To receive a þ1, the answer must allow the interviewer to ask a very specific relevant question regarding the suspect’s commission of the crime under investigation, for example, “This is about the theft of money from the bank in the form of stolen checks.” “This is about whether I am being truthful” or “This is about a problem at the bank” would not meet this criterion and therefore would receive a 1. In analyzing a written statement, pronouns also serve other important roles. Pronouns signify possession. This can be very important in cases of theft, property, and abuse. In an arson case, a suspect wrote the following statement. Please write what you did from the time you woke up, until you went to sleep, on Friday, January 7, 2000. I got up. I took a shower. I got dressed. I went downstairs to the kitchen. I ate a bowl of cereal and left for our store. It was about 6:30 a.m. I got into my car and drove to our store at 5200 Bridge Road. I opened and began setting up our registers for business. Nothing unusual occurred during the day. I did get a phone call from Joe, but we didn’t really talk about anything of importance. At 4:30 p.m. closed the store. Cleaned up. Left with seven other employees. As the door was locked I heard the phone ring. Went in the store to answer the phone. When I went in the store the phone stopped ringing. After a couple of minutes went back out, locked the door and everyone went home. I went home to make dinner, but around 6 p.m. got a call that there was a problem at the store so I went back. When I got home I ate, watched TV and went to bed. I think it was about 10 p.m. That’s about it.

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

This statement would have been scored a 1, because after reading it you would have had no idea as to what crime had been committed. Also, examine the use of pronouns in this statement, as well as where they are left out: I got up. I took a shower. I got dressed. I went downstairs to the kitchen. I ate a bowl of cereal and left for our store. It was about 6:30 a.m. I got into my car and drove to our store at 5200 Bridge Road. I opened and began setting up our registers for business. Nothing unusual occurred during the day. I did get a phone call from Joe, but we didn’t really talk about anything of importance. At 4:30 p.m. (suddenly leaves pronoun out) closed the (our store suddenly becomes the store) store. (leaves pronoun out) Cleaned up. Left with seven other employees. As (leaves pronoun out) the door was locked I heard the phone ring. (leaves pronoun out) Went in the store to answer the phone. When I went in the store the phone stopped ringing. After a couple of minutes (leaves pronoun out) went back out, (leaves pronoun out) locked the door and everyone went home. I went home to make dinner, but around 6 p.m. got a call that there was a problem at (leaves pronoun out) the store so I went back. When I got home I ate, watched TV and went to bed. I think it was about 10 p.m. That’s about it. Sapir identifies the quality of a relationship between the writer and others by how the writer introduces people in his statement. A truthful suspect wants the reader to understand his statement. People in the statement are therefore properly introduced. Failure to do this is indicative of a possible problem in their relationship. For example, if a person wrote, “I woke up at 7 am, got dressed and had breakfast with Kathy,” but never told you that Kathy was his wife, that is problematic. In analyzing a statement, Sapir looks for missing time. He maintains that the deceptive person would rather lie by omission than commission. Therefore, we do not look for lies in the statement to determine deception; we look for missing time and missing information. Words and phrases such as after that, later on, I don’t remember, started, and began are all signs that information or time may be missing. I got up. I took a shower. I got dressed. I went downstairs to the kitchen. I ate a bowl of cereal and left for our store. It was about 6:30 a.m. I got into my car and drove to our store at 5200 Bridge Road. I opened and began setting up our registers for business. Nothing unusual occurred during the day. I did get a phone call from Joe, but we didn’t really talk about anything of importance. At 4:30 p.m. (suddenly leaves pronoun out) closed the (our store suddenly becomes the store) store. (leaves pronoun out) Cleaned up. Left with seven other employees. As (leaves pronoun out) the door was locked I heard the phone ring. (leaves pronoun out) Went in the store to answer the phone. When I went in the store the phone stopped ringing. After a couple of minutes** (missing information) (leaves pronoun out) went back out, (leaves pronoun out) locked the door and everyone went home. I went home to make dinner, but around 6 p.m. got a call that there was a problem at (leaves pronoun out) the store so I went back. When I got home I ate, watched TV and went to bed. I think it was about 10 p.m. That’s about it. “After a couple minutes went back out” indicates missing information as well as a missing pronoun. This was when the writer went back into the store and set the fire. **

Underline added for emphasis.

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

Sapir maintains that if a person tells us why something is happening in an open statement, it means that it must be sensitive to the person because he felt the need to explain it. Sentences with words such as since, so, or because often indicate these areas of sensitivity. I got up. I took a shower. I got dressed. I went downstairs to the kitchen. I ate a bowl of cereal and left for our store. It was about 6:30 a.m. I got into my car and drove to our store at 5200 Bridge Road. I opened and began setting up our registers for business. Nothing unusual occurred during the day. I did get a phone call from Joe, but we didn’t really talk about anything of importance. At 4:30 p.m. (suddenly leaves pronoun out) closed the (our store suddenly becomes the store) store. (leaves pronoun out) Cleaned up. Left with seven other employees. As (leaves pronoun out) the door was locked I heard the phone ring. (leaves pronoun out) Went in the store to answer the phone.† (Tells us why something is happening ¼ Sensitive Information). When I went in the store the phone stopped ringing. After a couple of minutes (missing information and leaves pronoun out) went back out, (leaves pronoun out) locked the door and everyone went home. I went home to make dinner, but around 6 p.m. got a call that there was a problem at (leaves pronoun out) the store so I went back. When I got home I ate, watched TV and went to bed. I think it was about 10 p.m. That’s about it. In a suspected homicide case, a mildly retarded man reported he was feeding his 4-week-old baby food, for the first time. As he was doing this, he was using a paper towel to keep cleaning the baby’s mouth and face. The towel was getting slimy, so he had to keep folding it. Eventually, it was a small wad of paper, which he allegedly “accidentally” dropped into the infant’s mouth, while trying to clean out some spittle. Due to problems with his fine motor skills, he reported he accidentally forced the paper down the baby’s throat when he tried to remove it. As a result of his action, the baby died. When he was asked by one of the authors to tell what this incident was about and how he would explain it, he gave the following “open statement”: I would say around 2:00 p.m. Jessica left the apartment to go to her sister’s. She went to Mary’s and both Mary and Jessica walked up. They were going to play bingo that night. They go quite often. Jessica goes 4 or 5 times per week; her mother goes everyday. When Jessica left she left me and the baby and my dog. The baby was asleep in the living room in a playpen. The baby slept all afternoon. When he woke up he began crying. I wanted to feed him, so I mixed up cereal and formula like it said on the box. I think it was Gerber oatmeal. I had to mix 1 or 2 tablespoons with Enfamil in a dish with warm water. I used a plastic measuring spoon to measure it. I was told by friends to feed the baby the formula and cereal. He was waking up every 15 minutes when we were feeding him by bottle, so I decided to start feeding him cereal and formula on this day. I placed the mix inside a plastic baby dish; the one that you put water inside to keep the food warm. I then took cereal into the living room. I picked up the baby and sat in my usual chair. I then got up and sat in a different chair. The arms of the chair are higher and it was hard to feed the baby. The baby was on my lap with my left arm under his head or back of the neck. The cereal was on the right side in the arm of the chair. I began feeding the baby with my right hand. I put almost all of the food into the baby’s mouth. There was 4 ounces of formula and 1 or 2 tablespoons of oatmeal in it. I think I spent about 20 minutes feeding the baby. I spilled some of the cereal onto the baby’s shirt and over his mouth. That chair certainly messed me up. I never said that the chair messed me up before. I had a paper †

Underline added for emphasis.

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

towel with me. I think that after I took the food into the living room and put it on the arm of the chair. I returned to the dining room to get a paper towel. I put the paper towel on a stand that was next to the chair. I had to keep getting the towel to wipe his face and shirt. He was crying whenever I spilled it on his mouth. The third time I dropped it on him and also the fifth time I dropped it on him. I kept cleaning him off each time I spilled it on him. He was still crying. I always kept him real clean. The towel was filling up with the cereal and it was getting wetter and wetter and got slimly and small. You have to keep moving it around to get a clean spot on the towel. He was crying as I was wiping his mouth. Somehow, while cleaning him off, I dropped the towel into his mouth. I tried to get it out with my finger, but I was pushing it further in. I probably put my finger in 4 or 5 times, but I couldn’t get it out. Then I tried other stuff when I got out of the chair. I was standing up; I turned him over. I had my hand on his chest. I then hit him on his back and squeezed on his stomach a little bit. I didn’t squeeze hard because he was a little baby. I couldn’t get it out, so I ran downstairs with the baby. I opened the door to Jessica’s mother’s apartment. All of them were standing there: Mrs. Mary Smith (Jessica’s mother) and Jessica’s father, her brother and his girlfriend, Terry Jones. I think I said that the baby got a piece of paper stuck down his throat. I think I gave the baby to Jessica’s mother. The baby ended up on the couch with Billy doing whatever they told him to do. Some lady was telling us to hit the baby with the heel of the hand on the baby’s back and also squeeze the baby. About 5 minutes later the ambulance people arrived. I think there were 3 or 4 ambulance people. They must have taken the baby off the couch and layed him on the table. They were ripping open packets of stuff and shining a light down his throat. They finally got it out with tweezers and set it on the dining room table. It was all bloody and messy, so I threw it into the trash can that was by the table. It was under a desk. They later showed it to me at the police station. It had cigarette ashes all over it. I didn’t see anyone get it out. I just figured it was cigarette ashes because the trash can is always full of cigarette ashes. No one told me what the black stuff was on the towel, so I just figured it out. I didn’t take it out of the trash can. I don’t know who did it. When they were leaving I went upstairs to get my coat and came back down. I wasn’t even half way down the steps when they were leaving. I could have gone with them if I wanted to, but I wanted to go get Jessica. There was nothing I could do for Jimmy while he was at the hospital except pray. I went back upstairs for more cigarettes for Jessica and myself. She would probably need cigarettes at the hospital. I then left and walked to the bingo hall. I asked for Jessica, but she wasn’t there. I then went to Jessica’s sister and asked Mary’s boyfriend where Jessica was. He told me that she was at the bingo hall. I went back to the bingo hall and Jessica was there. I motioned for her to come to me. I told her that the baby was in the hospital. I’m not sure what she did. I don’t remember whether she went back to tell Mary or whether she got her coat. In analyzing this actual statement it is immediately noticeable that the suspect began by saying, “I would say around 2 p.m. Jessica left the apartment to go to her sister’s house. She went to Mary’s and both Mary and Jessica walked up. They were going to play bingo. They go quite often. Jessica goes 4 to 5 times a week, her mother goes everyday. When Jessica left she left me with my dog and the baby.”{ Sapir reports a high correlation between a suspect using the word “left” in the first sentence of a homicide case, and deception. Perhaps this is because it usually leaves the suspect alone with the victim, giving him opportunity to commit the crime. Since the suspect didn’t say who Jessica (his wife) was, using what Sapir terms “a proper social introduction,” according to SCAN, it indicates a problematic relationship. {

Underlines added for emphasis.

. . . wanted to feed him, so I mixed up cereal and formula like it said on the box. I think it was Gerber oatmeal. I had to mix 1 or 2 tablespoons with Enfamil in a dish with warm water. I used a plastic measuring spoon to measure it. I was told by friends to feed the baby the formula and cereal. He was waking up every 15 minutes when we were feeding him by bottle, so I decided to start feeding him cereal and formula on this day. I placed the mix inside a plastic baby dish; the one that you put water inside to keep the food warm. I then took cereal into the living room . . . . I had a paper towel with me. I think that after I took the food into the living room and put it on the arm of the chair. I returned to the dining room to get a paper towel. I put the paper towel on a stand that was next to the chair. I had to keep getting the towel to wipe his face and shirt. He was crying whenever I spilled it on his mouth. The third time I dropped it on him and also the fifth time I dropped it on him. I kept cleaning him off each time I spilled it on him. He was still crying. I always kept him real clean. The towel was filling up with the cereal and it was getting wetter and wetter and got slimly and small. You have to keep moving it around to get a clean spot on the towel. He was crying as I was wiping his mouth. Somehow, while cleaning him off, I dropped the towel into his mouth. I tried to get it out with my finger, but I was pushing it further in. I probably put my finger in 4 or 5 times, but I couldn’t get it out. Then I tried other stuff when I got out of the chair. I was standing up; I turned him over. I had my hand on his chest. I then hit him on his back and squeezed on his stomach a little bit. I didn’t squeeze hard because he was a little baby. I couldn’t get it out, so I ran downstairs with the baby. I opened the door to Jessica’s mother’s apartment. All of them were standing there: Mrs. Mary Smith (Jessica’s mother) and Jessica’s father, her brother and his girlfriend, Terry Jones. I think I said that the baby got a piece of paper stuck down his throat. I think I gave the baby to Jessica’s mother. The baby ended up on the couch with Billy doing whatever they told him to do. Some lady was telling us to hit the baby with the heel of the hand on the baby’s back and also squeeze the baby. About 5 minutes later the ambulance people arrived. I think there were 3 or 4 ambulance people. They must have taken the baby off the couch and layed him on the table. They were ripping open packets of stuff and shining a light down his throat. They finally got it out with tweezers. Compare the changes of language in this statement given to the police by an alleged victim of rape: I was walking around with Gloria. Ed see Gloria there talking I was on my way home he told her he would give us a ride to my house. I was going to get a coat but I didn’t I told Jessica to go to her house and get her clothes and bring the baby with her back to my place that I would have her bed made. She didn’t come back. Ed came and broke in my apartment. I was in the shower I didn’t hear him come in when I was taking a shower I felt someone looking at me from behind. It was Ed and I yelled at him told him to get out! I asked for Gloria he told me she wasn’t coming back. I ran to the bedroom to try and call the police but the phone was in the kitchen. I didn’t get to the phone he came in the bedroom and (raped) me when he was in me meaning he had already entered me, the phone rang I was trying to get him off me he get the phone and gives it to me it was Gloria. I was trying to get to tell Gloria that he was in my house. I told her “He’s here, he’s back” then he hung up the phone he pushed me back on the bed and gets on top of me again. Then by the time Gloria got to my house he had his clothes back on she Gloria knocks on the door. He opened it Gloria asked him where was I and if I was okay. She goes in my bedroom where I was at she and her mother ask me if I was okay. I tell her mom “No” she asked me if he did I said “Yes” she asked if he raped me. They ask me if I want the police I told them no to leave me alone. Gloria told me no that they couldn’t leave me alone because he might come back and hurt me. They took me to her house and I spend the night I took a shower I call my boyfriend, told him what happened. Then today, I went to make a full report of what happen.

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

When the suspect began the story with unimportant information about bingo games, it could also be determined there was a high chance the statement was going to be deceptive, and that unimportant information (to play bingo) was very important to the suspect and the story. When the suspect used the possessive pronoun “my” in identifying the dog, and failed to use a possessive pronoun when talking about his son (“the baby”), the statement became highly problematic. It is also interesting that during the entire “incident” portion of the statement, “the baby” disappears and only “pronouns” are used to describe him. Once the “incident” is over “the baby” is back, and in the post-incident “the baby” actually has a name, “Jimmy.” In SCAN changes of language without a change in reality are signs of possible deception. There are many changes in language in this statement, without apparent changes in reality: In this confirmed truthful victim’s statement, notice that prior to being under attack, she uses the possessive pronouns “my”; however, once under attack she no longer uses “my” and instead uses “the.” As soon as the initial rape is over, she immediately uses “my” again, and when he reinstitutes the attack she switches back to “the.” In this statement the changes in language (my-the-my) are justified by the reality of what is happening in the statement, and in this case serve as an indicator of truthfulness. Out-of-sequence information in a statement is viewed as problematic and another possible sign of deception. SCAN maintains that a person should not tell you the end of the story in the beginning, because that would indicate he is not reliving what happened. In the statement concerning baby Jimmy, there were portions that were clearly out of sequence: I picked up the baby and sat in my usual chair. I then got up and sat in a different chair. The arms of the chair are higher and it was hard to feed the baby. The baby was on my lap with my left arm under his head or back of the neck. The cereal was on the right side in the arm of the chair. I began feeding the baby with my right hand. I put almost all of the food into the baby’s mouth. There was 4 ounces of formula and 1 or 2 tablespoons of oatmeal in it. I think I spent about 20 minutes feeding the baby. I spilled some of the cereal onto the baby’s shirt and over his mouth. That chair certainly messed me up. I never said that the chair messed me up before. I had a paper towel with me. I think that after I took the food into the living room and put it on the arm of the chair. I returned to the dining room to get a paper towel. I put the paper towel on a stand that was next to the chair. I had to keep getting the towel to wipe his face and shirt. He was crying whenever I spilled it on his mouth. The third time I dropped it on him and also the fifth time I dropped it on him. I kept cleaning him off each time I spilled it on him. In this portion of the statement the suspect writes, “I picked up the baby and sat in my usual chair. I then got up and sat in a different chair. The arms of the chair are higher and it was hard to feed the baby.” Because there were only three people living in the house – the suspect, the baby, and the mother – if he changed the feeding location from “his usual chair” to “the other chair,” he is now in the wife’s chair. He then blames the incident on that chair, which is symbolic of his wife, whom he actually blames for his decision to kill the baby. Later he writes, They were ripping open packets of stuff and shining a light down his throat. They finally got it out with tweezers and set it on the dining room table. It was all bloody and messy, so (Explaining why he is doing something indicates this is sensitive information. In this case he is attempting to get rid of the evidence) I threw it into the trash can that was by the table. It was under a desk.

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

They later showed it to me at the police station. (Out-of-sequence information: telling us what will happen at the police station while still in the apartment) It had cigarette ashes all over it. I didn’t see anyone get it out. I just figured it was cigarette ashes because (explaining why he is doing something indicates this is sensitive information) the trash can is always full of cigarette ashes. No one told me what the black stuff was on the towel, so I just figured it out. I didn’t take it out of the trash can. I don’t know who did it. When they were leaving I went upstairs to get my coat and came back down. After the statement was analyzed and a FAINT interview was conducted, the suspect was informed that he was not being truthful. He subsequently confessed that his baby was causing relationship problems between him and his wife; they (baby and wife) never bonded. She was always going to bingo now, leaving him home alone to care for the baby, and therefore he decided to kill him. Sapir introduced the VIEW Questionnaire, which could be issued to suspects in a case, allowing the investigator to focus an investigation based solely on the analysis of what was written. This questionnaire was redesigned by one of the authors, with the assistance of Mr. Sapir, and is referred to as the SCAN Questionnaire. The SCAN Questionnaire uses four types of questions: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Open questions to obtain information Specific questions to force the guilty to lie Projective questions to assess unwitting verbal cues After-interview questions to help identify truthful suspects Page One: INSTRUCTIONS:

We would like you to read the following instructions very carefully before you start answering the questions. We would like you to realize that: • Every word is important and each one may be checked later on. • This is not a draft and you have only one chance to write down your answers, so before you write we would like you to think as to how you are going to phrase your answers. • Please write your answers as detailed as you can to enable us to understand your case. • Use only pen while writing – no pencils or typing is allowed. • Write in a clear handwriting in order to enable reading. • You are not to make any corrections. If you feel that you would like to change your answers, please do it on the page provided, or put a circle around the mistaken words or sentence(s) you want to remove and continue on. Your correction will be taken into consideration. Page Two: We have reached the conclusion that something took place (theft of cash, sabotaged copier, etc.). How would you explain this? Please write in detail your ideas that would account for this. Page Three: If you were going to conduct the investigation, how would you do it?

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

Page Four: List the five most important causes that could have created this situation. Page Five (Optional Page depending on if the crime was recent enough to allow memory of events): Describe in detail your work day on date, covering the time you came into work until the time you ended your day. or Describe in detail your day from the time you woke up until you went to sleep on date. Page Six: It doesn’t mean you are right, and whatever you say is confidential; if you had to suspect someone of doing this, who would you suspect and why? Who would you least suspect and why? What do you think should happen to the person that did this when they are caught? Would you give them a second chance? Do you think this was deliberate (crime took place) or could it be accidental (lost)? Page Seven: Do you know for sure who did this? Did you do this? How do you think the investigation will turn out concerning you, and whether you did this? Page Eight: Would you like to change any of the information you provided? Is there anything we did not ask you about that you think is important for us to know? Page Nine (After Interview-Interview): How do you feel now that you have completed this form? Should we believe your answers? If your answer to the last question was yes, give us one reason why. What would you say if it was later determined you lied on this form? While filling out this form what were your emotions? Were you afraid? If you were asked to pay for , how much would you be willing to pay? To evaluate the questionnaire the last page (After Interview-Interview) is first analyzed: If the suspect answered question 2 (Should I believe your answers about whether you did the crime?) with “YES” and then answered any other question with: • “I told the truth” • “I did not lie” • “I did not do the crime” Then the suspect is placed in the “truthful” group. If they did not, place the suspect in the “problematic” group. If the suspect answered question 2 “NO” they automatically go in the “problematic” group.

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

Reissue the SCAN Questionnaires to all suspects in the problematic group, with one change to the questionnaire on the second page. Instead of saying “We have reached the conclusion that something took place. How would you explain this? Please write in detail your ideas that would account for this,” we now say, “We have reached the conclusion you have not told us everything you know about the crime. How would you explain this? Please write in detail your ideas that would account for this.” Having to answer the questionnaire a second time is irritating to truthful suspects, and they are more likely to answer question 2 on the last page that we should believe their answers, and to now allow us to eliminate them as a suspect by answering at least one of the other questions in the After Interview-Interview: • “I told the truth” • “I did not lie” • “I did not do the crime” We can now analyze the answers to the projective questions on the questionnaire, using the same criteria we would use in the FAINT Interview: “What should happen to the person that committed this crime when they are caught?” and “Do you think they should get a second chance?” Analyze page two of the questionnaire, using the concepts of statement analysis. Also, go through all of the questionnaires and identify if there is a strong focus by the group on a specific suspect, and whether there is any consistency in the group as to who should be eliminated as a suspect. Although it is not always correct, we cannot ignore the age-old formula: LD þ WD þ Q ¼ D. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks, it is probably a duck!

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

In an actual case involving the theft of some very expensive fur coats, eleven employees were issued SCAN Questionnaires. Following are the SCAN Questionnaires from four of the suspects. Please review their SCAN Questionnaires and analyze their answers in an attempt to identify the culprit. Suspect 1: Page One: Instructions Page Two: We have reached the conclusion that furs were stolen from your company. Please write in detail what you know about this and how you would explain it. I am not totally sold on the furs being stolen. The only thing I know is that the people wlaked out and the buzzer went off. We went outside and they were gone. Should I know more yes because I am in charge of the sales floor, but I don’t. I am sorry Page Three: If you were going to conduct this investigation how would you do it? I really don’t know, but then again it is not my place to know. I am not in the investigation field. Page Four: List the five (5) most important causes that would have created this situation. I don’t there is 5 reasons. Let’s face it if someone did steal the furs it has ot be for the money. Page Five: Do you know for sure who took any of those missing furs? No. Did you take any of those missing furs? No. It doesn’t mean you’re right, and whatever you say is confidential, but, if you had to suspect someone, who would you suspect, and why? If it has to be someone I swear Bill because it looks like he took money, so if you can take one thing you can take anything. Who would you least suspect, and why? Jane, if it were her she would not go with all this.

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

What do you think should happen to the person who took the furs when they are caught? They should be fired. Would you give them a second chance? No. How do you think the investigation will turn out concerning you, and whether you took any of those missing fur coats? Clear, because I don’t steal. Would there be any reason evidence would turn up indicating you took any of those missing fur coats? No. Do you think those missing furs were stolen, or misplaced? I am not sold totally, but it is starting to look like they were. Page Six – After Interview-Interview: How do you feel now that you have completed this questionnaire? I guess okay. Should we believe your answers concerning whether you took any of those fur coats? Yes. If yes, give one reason why. Because I don’t steal. What would you say if the investigation proved you took a missing fur? It’s wrong. What were your emotions while filling out this questionnaire? How did you feel? Well, I feel a little angry because if someone did take the furs that is money out of my pocket. Were you afraid? No.

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

If you were asked to pay for missing furs, how much would you be willing to pay? I can’t answer that because I didn’t take them. Would you like to change any of the information you provided? No. Suspect 2: Page One: Instructions Page Two: We have reached the conclusion that furs were stolen from your company. Please write in detail what you know about this and how you would explain it. I (first) learned that coats were missing or unaccounted for when we did an inventory back in March. Since I had just started, this was a new experience for me. We went through a process of looking through the sales books and discovered one or two pieces were in lay-away. The main reason the inventory that took place in June was taken because a Canadian Lynx was noticed missing. It was noticed missing when Jane decided to return all of the Lynx pieces to the manufacturer and get newer styles. Unfortunately I have no explanation how it disappeared. The only thing that bothered me through this was the fact nobody seemed surprised that there were pieces missing. Some were more upset than others. Jane was very upset, but she too was not surprised. Page Three If you were going to conduct this investigation how would you do it? To be absolutely honest, I am not really sure. The thing that I would concentrate on is finding holes in my system and plugging them up. And what I mean by this changing some everyday routines, when we have unusual people come, they do not come unsupervised, they get counted not once but twice. No employees should be allowed to bring any type of bag into the store. No employee should be allowed to leave the building during working hours without management approval. I would tighten the reins a little. Page Four List the five (5) most important causes that would have created this situation. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Lack of observation on the sales floor. Sales people not following instructions correctly. Lack of internal communication. Somewhat of circus like atmosphere @ times.

Page Five Do you know for sure who took any of those missing furs? No, I do not know for sure.

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

Did you take any of those missing furs? No, I did not take any furs. It doesn’t mean you’re right, and whatever you say is confidential, but, if you had to suspect someone, who would you suspect, and why? My suspicions take me in two directions. One would be James. He is in a desperate situation as far as money. My other person is Gloria. She acts very suspicious. Who would you least suspect, and why? The person I would suspect the least is Ed. He is very concerned about his work and is always on time. He doesn’t do drugs, not at least to my knowledge. What do you think should happen to the person who took the furs when they are caught? Definitely fired, and also prosecuted to the fullest extent. Would you give them a second chance? Not on your life. How do you think the investigation will turn out concerning you, and whether you took any of those missing fur coats? The invstigaiton will turn out nothing against me. I fact, it will prove that I had nothing to do with the missing furs. Would there be any reason evidence would turn up indicating you took any of those missing fur coats? There would be no reason evidence would turn up I took any of those missing furs. Do you think those missing furs were stolen, or misplaced? I think stolen only because we looked in every nook & cranny. Page Six – After Interview-Interview: How do you feel now that you have completed this questionnaire? I feel sad that we had to have an investigation but if it solves the problem it was worth it. Should we believe your answers concerning whether you took any of those fur coats? Yes, I have nothing to hide.

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

If yes, give one reason why. Yes, because as long as this business is in business and I have a future it will God willing be mine to run. What would you say if the investigation proved you took a missing fur? I would say it was a bad investigation. What were your emotions while filling out this questionnaire? How did you feel? I was concerned with finding a solution. I felt that it is terrible we had to come to this. Were you afraid? No, not at all. If you were asked to pay for missing furs, how much would you be willing to pay? I wouldn’t pay anything. Would you like to change any of the information you provided? No, I would not like to change any of the information I provided. Suspect 3: Page One: Instructions Page Two: We have reached the conclusion that furs were stolen from your company. Please write in detail what you know about this and how you would explain it. Miscount

In and Out

Misplaced

I can see missing one day and find the next.

Page Three If you were going to conduct this investigation how would you do it? More attention downstairs. People watching door more carefully. Page Four List the five (5) most important causes that would have created this situation. Watching door. Check for alarms. Check in and out. The same things I said before. Page Five Do you know for sure who took any of those missing furs?

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

No. Did you take any of those missing furs? (Ye) No of course no. I’m sorry. It doesn’t mean you’re right, and whatever you say is confidential, but, if you had to suspect someone, who would you suspect, and why? No one. Who would you least suspect, and why? Everybody the same. What do you think should happen to the person who took the furs when they are caught? The bosses job. Would you give them a second chance? The bosses job. How do you think the investigation will turn out concerning you, and whether you took any of those missing fur coats? Make me sad that’s all. Would there be any reason evidence would turn up indicating you took any of those missing fur coats? I don’t think so. Do you think those missing furs were stolen, or misplaced? Misplaced and maybe some stolen by customers. Page Six – After Interview-Interview: How do you feel now that you have completed this questionnaire? I feel sad. I feel very upset. Should we believe your answers concerning whether you took any of those fur coats? It depends on you. It’s your opinion.

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

If yes, give one reason why. Because this is my answer. What would you say if the investigation proved you took a missing fur? No reason to believe this. What were your emotions while filling out this questionnaire? How did you feel? I feel angry. Were you afraid? No. If you were asked to pay for missing furs, how much would you be willing to pay? How can I pay for something that is not my concern? Would you like to change any of the information you provided? No. Suspect 4: Page One: Instructions Page Two: We have reached the conclusion that furs were stolen from your company. Please write in detail what you know about this and how you would explain it. Manager ask to look in vault for missing coats. And they are concern for theyer machindies. Page Three If you were going to conduct this investigation how would you do it? 1. Check with manufacturer. 2. Check at shipping. 3. Then ask everyone. Page Four List the five (5) most important causes that would have created this situation. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Not counting coats coming. Not counting coats going out. Check paperwork coming. Check paperwork going out. Check inventory I and out from New York, new coats.

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

Page Five Do you know for sure who took any of those missing furs? No. Did you take any of those missing furs? No. It doesn’t mean you’re right, and whatever you say is confidential, but, if you had to suspect someone, who would you suspect, and why? Kathy from New York. A gut feeling. Who would you least suspect, and why? The new manager. I have a good feeling about him. What do you think should happen to the person who took the furs when they are caught? Ask why they did it. Would you give them a second chance? No. How do you think the investigation will turn out concerning you, and whether you took any of those missing fur coats? Never in my life. If I need something I just ask for it. This is like a family here, which is hard to find elsewhere. Would there be any reason evidence would turn up indicating you took any of those missing fur coats? No, not a concern in my part. Do you think those missing furs were stolen, or misplaced? Maybe misplaced, maybe stolen Page Six – After Interview-Interview: How do you feel now that you have completed this questionnaire? Fine. Hoppe someone find out soon so everything can be ok!

6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

Should we believe your answers concerning whether you took any of those fur coats? Yes. If yes, give one reason why. I’ve been here 6 ½ years. What would you say if the investigation proved you took a missing fur? It won’t, I told the truth. I did not do it. What were your emotions while filling out this questionnaire? How did you feel? I feel fine. Were you afraid? No. If you were asked to pay for missing furs, how much would you be willing to pay? No cause I never took the furs. Would you like to change any of the information you provided? No. It was our professional opinion that Suspect 1 and 4 could be eliminated from the investigation. On page 6, both suspects answered, “Yes” to the question, “Should we believe your answers concerning whether you took any of those fur coats? Suspect 1 then answered the question, “If you were asked to pay for the missing furs, how much would you be willing to pay?” with “I can’t answer that because I didn’t take them” “I didn’t take them” eliminates this suspect from the investigation. Suspect 4 answers the same question with “No cause I never took the furs.” This suspect also answers the question “What would you say if the investigation proved you took a missing fur?” with “It won’t, I told the truth. I did not do it.” “I did not do it” also would eliminate this suspect from the investigation. Suspect 2 was also eliminated from the theft of furs, however it was believed that this suspect had stolen from the company. The authors came to this decision based on the belief that the shortest answer is the best answer and any deviation should be questioned. On page 5, when asked, “Did you take any of those missing furs?” the shortest answer would have been “No.” Instead, the suspect answered, “No, I did not take any furs.” He again uses the phrase “any of those missing furs” to several other questions in the questionnaire. The need for this extra verbiage indicated that he had taken something other than furs. During interrogation he admitted stealing cash from the business.

SUMMARY

After reviewing Suspect 3’s SCAN Questionnaire it was concluded that she in fact stole the missing furs, and that she would confess. On page 5, when asked, “Did you take any of those missing furs?” she answered, “(Ye) No. Of course not. I’m sorry.” Amazingly, she had begun to answer the question “YES!” She was not sorry for the mistake in answering the question on the questionnaire; she was sorry for what she did. Hence, the conclusion she wanted to confess, which she did very quickly. Also, on page 5, notice that this suspect is the only one who suspects no one, vouches for everyone, and refuses to answer the questions concerning what should happen to the person when caught, and if they should get a second chance. All of these are tell tale signs of her culpability. As a result of the research, observations, and insights of the aforementioned statement analysis pioneers, serious application of forensic statement assessment has proven to be a highly effective means to gauge the veracity of witness and suspect statements. Its use today, by many law enforcement and intelligence agencies worldwide, is a fitting tribute to these investigative interviewing trailblazers.

SUMMARY • Two major systems of statement analysis are in use today: CBSA and SCAN. • Both of these systems help identify deceptive suspects who write their statements from fabrication, rather than from real memories. • The deceptive suspect would rather run from the truth than tell an outright lie. • In statement analysis we see the deceptive suspect’s failure to commit to their statement, and attempts to omit the portion of time when the crime was committed.

Acknowledgment The authors would like to thank Daphna Tavor, a Swiss based psychologist trained in the art of CBSA, SCAN, FAINT, and forensic psychophysiology, for her assistance in providing explanations of CBSA and possible exam ples of the application of CBSA in a suspect’s statement not involving a sexual allegation.

References [1] M. Steller, Assessing credibility of children’s statements about sexual abuse, Paper presented at the Institute of Forensic Sciences, Istanbul University on June 29, 2000. [2] T. Lesce, SCAN: Deception detection by scientific content analysis, Law and Order Magazine 38 (8) (1990). [3] D. Tavor, Lecture conducted on Criteria Based Statement Analysis, Centurion, South Africa, April 10, 2003. [4] L. Greuel, et al., Glaubhaftigkeit der Zeugenaussage, Psychology Verlags Union, Beltz, 1997. [5] D. Tavor, Speech at the 25th Anniversary Congress for Law and Mental Health, Siena, Italy, July 2000.

C H A P T E R

Question Formulation:

Irrelevant, Relevant, and Comparison Questions The questions we use in the Forensic Assessment Interview fall into four categories: Irrelevant, Relevant, Comparison, and Projective (this last category is complex and is discussed in the next chapter). One would not play a round of golf with just a driver and a putter, but would rely on a variety of differently functioning clubs to achieve the goal of the game. It is exactly the same with the question types we use in the Forensic Assessment Interview. As each club has been specifically designed for a particular golfing situation, so it is with the questions we use. Each type of question has its place; each one is important.

IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS Irrelevant questions are questions that have no connection whatsoever to the matter under investigation, and therefore should pose no threat to the suspect. These questions usually are about the suspect’s background. In short, they are not questions that innocent or guilty suspects have a reason to lie about. It should be noted that irrelevant in this case does not mean trivial; these questions are hardly unimportant to the overall interview process. These “neutral” questions serve four very useful purposes. First, they establish the professional authority present in the room: it is the interviewer who asks the questions, and the suspect who must answer. Second, because both truthful and deceptive suspects will be at a heightened emotional state during an interview, these questions allow the interviewer to assess the suspect’s normal behavior for this heightened emotional situation. Third, they allow the interviewer to identify something he may have in common with the suspect, which serves to immediately establish rapport. Fourth, they serve to minimize resistance by structure, a strategy used by deceptive suspects to try to escape answering a sensitive question by answering the interviewer’s questions with a question. If during this initial portion of the interview the conversation can change into a nonthreatening discussion about a recent sporting event, or some other thing shared in common, such as military service or school experiences, it will allow the interviewer an excellent opportunity to monitor the suspect’s situational “norm” truthful demeanor, as well as establish rapport with the suspect. It should go without saying that politics, religion,

Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques

2011, Elsevier Ltd.

7. QUESTION FORMULATION

and sex are usually emotionally charged topics that should be avoided. Irrelevant questions should cause no sympathetic nervous system physiological arousal. Here are some examples of irrelevant questions: What is your name? Where do you live? How old are you? What is your marital status? What is the highest grade you completed in school? Were you ever in the military? Remember that sometime during this part of questioning the interviewer must make the transition from what appears to be a trivial, closed-ended interview into something shared and in common with the interviewee. This will afford the interviewee some time to speak about nonthreatening things and allow the interviewer to assess the suspect’s situational “norm” behavior.

RELEVANT QUESTIONS Relevant questions are closed-ended questions dealing directly with the matter under investigation that must be answered in the shortest fashion, usually “Yes” or “No.” These relevant questions will inquire into direct involvement, secondary involvement, or knowledge about the incident. These closed-ended questions must be formulated so that the innocent can answer them truthfully, while the guilty are forced to lie or admit their guilt. As such, these questions are designed to threaten the deceptive person only and cause sympathetic nervous system physiological arousal to occur. Examples of direct involvement relevant questions: Did Did Did Did Did

you you you you you

divert those funds for your own use? set that fire? take that money reported missing from the safe? force that woman to have sex with you? fire the shot that hit that man?

Examples of relevant questions concerning secondary involvement: Did you plan with anyone to divert that money? Were you present when that shooting took place? Did you help anyone take that money? Did you plan with anyone to set that fire? Do you know for sure who harmed Mary? Did you see who harmed Mary? Did anyone tell you who harmed Mary? Relevant questions must not contain words that are so evocative of emotion that the language itself might cause psychophysiological responses, regardless of whether the person is lying or telling the truth. Therefore, avoid emotionally charged words such as “kill,”

RELEVANT QUESTIONS

“rape,” or “steal.” For the same reason, avoid using intimidating legal words such as “burglarize,” “extort,” “bribe,” or “rob.” Legal words in and of themselves can be ambiguous and allow the guilty interviewee to hide behind a rationalization (e.g., “I didn’t take a bribe; I accepted pay for a special job”). During the interview, keep relevant questions short and focused. Make sure that the interviewee understands the language and that it remains within his comfort zone. Whenever possible, use language that focuses the relevant question on the act itself, rather than language that connotes guilt or innocence. Questions framed around guilt and innocence may allow the suspect to rationalize that, although he may have committed the act, he did nothing for which he should feel guilty. Consider the question, “Did you steal that missing money from your employer?” The guilty suspect could rationalize that he is telling the truth when he answers “No,” because he was promised a raise at the beginning of the year that he never received. This mental justification permits him to rationalize that he didn’t “steal” the money, because the company owed it to him and he was just taking what actually belonged to him. To make the perpetrator in this mindset face his wrongdoing, it is much more effective to focus on the physical act by asking, “Did you remove any of the money that your company reported missing?” In homicide interviews, avoid the question, “Did you cause the death of (victim)?” especially if the suspect had some type of relationship with the deceased. In reinterviewing an innocent man who failed a polygraph test when asked, “Did you cause the death of your daughter?” we asked him what he had been thinking about that might have registered as a positive reaction for lying. The man said he was thinking that he had caused her death because he felt responsible for it by not being there when she needed his protection most. His daughter was 4 years old and was taken from his house during the night. She was found sexually molested and beaten to death the next morning. He explained that as her father, he should have been able to protect her. He felt it was his failure, his fault that his daughter had been killed. When asked on a reexamination if he beat her to death, he answered “No,” and the polygraph confirmed his innocence. As you can see, this notion of the cause of guilt and responsibility is open to a wide range of interpretation. The interviewee can internalize guilt without being the perpetrator or directly involved in the crime. An interviewee can feel responsible for not having acted to protect someone he cared about or loved. Consider these hypothetical circ*mstances. A boyfriend and girlfriend had a fight. The girlfriend got out of the car and walked away. The boyfriend left in anger but came back for her, didn’t find her, and went home. Later he found that on her way home she was raped and murdered. How did the boyfriend feel? Did he see himself as responsible? Did he feel guilt for his anger? If he had not given in to his anger, she would not have gotten out of the car, and she would still be alive. The interviewer must make sure he is dealing with only one issue and aspect of the crime at a time. Imagine if the victim above had been raped by one perpetrator, but killed by his accomplice. The complex relevant question, “Did you rape and kill. . .” could be successfully denied by both, thus raising a second instance of ambiguity. In a multiple-issue crime, questioning should focus on the most serious act first. Considering the theory of Psychological Set, the guilty party could fail to leak deceptive behavior to what is perceived to him as the lesser crime, because he is waiting to be asked about the more threatening one. Cleve Backster labeled a subject’s internal ability to physiologically ignore a lesser threat

7. QUESTION FORMULATION

as anti-climactic dampening [1]. This anti-climactic dampening also explains why the deceptive suspect physiologically reacts more strongly to the relevant question than to the comparison question (see the next section), even though he is lying to both. In all cases, extensive preparation for the interview may mean the difference between success and failure. Because relevant questions are meant to force the guilty party to lie, the interviewer needs to know as much about the crime and the interviewee as possible. That will enable the questions to be well framed and clearly focused. Such relevant questions generate the mental conflict and tensions that most threaten the guilty suspect and cause the observable psychophysiological changes that occur. Thus, the more known about the crime, the better prepared the interviewer will be, and the more productive the interview.

COMPARISON QUESTIONS John E. Reid is usually credited with developing the comparison question used in forensic psychophysiology truth verification examinations [2]. The comparison question, in the opinion of the authors, is one of the most important question types for a successful determination of truth or deception. This question creates a mental environment for properly identifying truthful suspects. These are questions that are broad in scope and deal with issue themes similar to, but less threatening than, the relevant question issue. They are questions one would expect every innocent person would truthfully answer “Yes.” In reality, comparison questions create a conflict and threat for innocent people, making them feel as if they must lie to be perceived by the interviewer as innocent of the substantive allegation. To get an understanding of and feeling for how comparison questions work, read the following questions and answer each truthfully in your own mind as you do so. Examples of comparison questions: General comparisons: In your entire life, did you ever tell a lie to get out of trouble? In your entire life, did you ever do anything for which you could be arrested? Theft comparisons: Prior to working for your current employer, did you ever steal anything from a job? In your entire life, did you ever steal anything? In your entire life, did you ever steal from someone who trusted you? In your entire life, did you ever cheat? Arson comparisons: In your entire life, did you ever deliberately damage anything? During the first 19 years of your life, did you ever play with matches? Homicide comparisons: During the first 22 years of your life, did you ever go out of your way to get even with anyone?

COMPARISON QUESTIONS

Between the ages of 19 and 23, did you ever lose your temper? Sex comparisons: During the first 20 years of your life, did you ever have an unusual sexual fantasy? In your entire life, did you ever masturbat*? In your entire life, did you ever lie about a sexual matter? You probably answered all, or most, of these questions “Yes,” in your mind. However, almost every suspect who is innocent of the crime or “truthful” will hedge or answer them “No.” To understand this, let’s look at the dynamics involved with the area of “comparison” questioning. Assume you are an “innocent as later verified” suspect in the theft of $10,000 from the safe in the office where you work. The relevant question might be, “Yesterday, did you remove that missing safe money?” Because, you are innocent of the crime and did not take the money, you answer “No.” However, because you are a still a “suspect,” even though you answered truthfully, this question may still hold some threat for you – no one likes to be accused of anything. Now the detective asks you, “What type of person would steal $10,000 from his employer?” Then he elaborates, “This is the act of a thief. An honest person does not wake up one day and decide to steal money. A person who would do this is a person who has stolen from other jobs and from people who trusted him throughout his life. It is a pattern of criminal behavior that has evolved over a long time. This is the kind of person who would do this act. This is the type of person who, even if they did not take the missing safe money, should not be in a sensitive position like yours. I want to determine for sure that you are not that type of person. That is why I would like to know, in your entire life, did you ever steal anything?” Now, if you are the “guilty as later verified” subject who had in fact taken the $10,000 in question, you would not be concerned about this line of inquiry into your past stealing. Because you are there being questioned about the $10,000 you actually took, you feel guilty and threatened by those relevant questions. The threat is immediate and real, because you may go to jail for the $10,000 you took. That you are being asked about ever stealing things in the past seems psychologically unimportant to you at his time. However, if you are that “innocent” suspect, think about what is going through your mind as you are asked the comparison question. You do not know what to do: lie or tell the truth. If you tell a lie about prior petty thefts, will you be detected? If you are detected, will the detective think you were the one who took the $10,000? What if you tell the truth about stealing as a child? Will they think you are exactly the “type of person” who would steal the $10,000, now that you have told them about the 50 cents you took from your mother’s purse, or the candy bar you ate without paying for it on your last job? Even if they do not, the detective has already said, “That is the type of person who, although he did not take the $10,000, should not be in a sensitive position like yours.” It is important to understand that at some time in their lives almost all individuals have stolen something, lied about something important to someone who trusted them, cheated someone, deliberately hurt someone, or done some other act of which they are thoroughly 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

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 experimental 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 interviewing 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 comparison 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 questions than to the comparison ones, it is a sign he is deceptive.

SUMMARY

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

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 accomplish 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 suspect 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 questions must be consistent for each suspect. 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

2011, Elsevier Ltd.

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 successful. 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 investigator 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 talking 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 terminology 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 identifying 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 committed 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 during the interview process; their hope is that the investigation will go away, unresolved.

8. PROJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF UNWITTING VERBAL CUES

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 suspect 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 vagin*, but didn’t rip her clothes or smack her, would that be bad touching?” “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 cognizant 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 investigation 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 separated 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 Wants truth known. Talkative. Tries to narrow or assist investigation. Uses appropriate and strong terms. Expresses real feelings. Admits the opportunity. Argues actual innocence. No use of “personal coding.” Consistent “how and why.”

Deceptive Wants truth hidden. Not talkative. Has no information/tries to broaden investigation. Uses mild/evasive terms. Detached/distant. Denies opportunity/makes sweeping declarations to exclude self. Argues legal innocence. Uses “personal coding.” 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

What is the purpose of this interview today? If you did this you should tell me now. Did you do it? Do you know who did it? Who do you suspect of doing it? Is there anyone you could vouch for, who you do not think would be involved? Who would have had the best opportunity to do this if they wanted to? Do you think this was done deliberately? How do you feel about being interviewed? How do you think the investigation will turn out on you? Have you ever thought about doing this? What do you think should happen to the person who did this? Do you think the person should get a second chance? Tell me why you wouldn’t do something like this. Why do you think someone would do something like this? 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 inconclusive. Excluding inconclusive results, their average accuracy was 91 percent for truthful suspects and 80 percent for deceptive suspects [1]. The FAINT interview expands on the BAI interview by introducing the MITT sketches, adding projective questions as well as questions developed by Avinoam Sapir in his SCAN interview [2], utilizing comparison questions to help identify truthful suspects, simplifying the assessment of nonverbal behavior, and offering a system for quantifying observations. Try to understand how truthful and deceptive suspects perceive the questions in the FAINT interview and their motivation for the responses to the questions in the ways described next. 1. “Finish this sentence for me. This investigation is about. . .?” (Projective) Truthful: Respond quickly, telling the interviewer what the investigation is about, using strong terminology. Deceptive: Slow in responding, often state they do not know what the matter is about, or use vague and evasive terms to describe the crime.

2. “Why do you think you were selected to be interviewed today?” (Projective) Truthful: Explain why, often admitting they had the opportunity to commit the crime. Deceptive: Often are unsure of why they were selected, or make general statements like “Everyone is.”

8. PROJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF UNWITTING VERBAL CUES

101

3. “How do you feel about being interviewed?” (Projective) Truthful: May admit nervousness, but show a positive attitude about the investigation and their desire to help find the truth. Deceptive: Often express hostility toward the process, or exhibit a negative and uncooperative attitude.

4. “Please write/tell me in detail whatever you know about this and how you would explain it.” (SCAN) Truthful: Are talkative, informative, and seem open in their presentation. Their statement will be rich in details, properly describing and explaining the incident under investigation. Because the incident was in the past, their statement will be in the first person past tense, thereby showing commitment to what they are writing/saying. They will often deny doing the crime at this time, even though the question was not asked. Deceptive: Have little or no information to offer. Will lie by omission, running from the lie by leaving out critical portions. The statement may lack pronouns, indicating a lack of commitment, or have excessive pro nouns indicating “cutting and pasting” of the story.

5. “If you were the investigator, how would you conduct the investigation?” (SCAN) Truthful: Give constructive information to help solve the crime, because that will clear them. Deceptive: Offer no or very little information, because they do not want the crime solved.

6. “What are the five most important causes that created this situation?” (SCAN) Truthful: Use strong terminology in explaining, such as “greed,” “thief,” “sick person,” etc. Deceptive: Often give reasons that have nothing to do with crime, such as personal problems.

7. “Did you ever think about doing something like this?” (Projective) Truthful: Usually quickly deny such thoughts. Deceptive: Hesitant in their denial, or make statements like “Everyone thinks about it, but I’d never do it.”

8. “During the first (back 2 years from age when crime was committed) years of your life, did you ever (steal anything; cheat anybody; hurt anyone)?” (Comparison) Truthful: Threatened by the question. Usually hesitate, make minor admissions, or use evasive language in denying it. Deceptive: Not concerned with the question. It’s not what they are here about, or worried about. Usually they will quickly deny doing anything like that.

9. “Did you (do the crime)?” (Relevant) Truthful: Not threatened by the question, because they are innocent. Quickly deny committing the crime. Deceptive: Threatened by the question. They also deny, but not as quickly or strongly. Often they will answer with evasive questions (“Why would I take money? I have money in my savings account”). Ask you to repeat the question to buy time, or challenge your question (“Are you calling me a thief?”).

10. “Whatever you tell me is strictly confidential and it does not even mean you are right, but who do you suspect?” (Projective)

102

8. PROJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF UNWITTING VERBAL CUES

Truthful: Often reluctant, but generally help narrow the investigation by telling you whom they suspect. Deceptive: Usually do not suspect anyone, or try to broaden the investigation by stating anyone could have done it, or claim the act really did not take place.

11. “Other than yourself, who can you say definitely did not do it?” (Projective) Truthful: Help narrow the investigation by naming someone. Deceptive: Usually will not vouch for anyone, or will vouch for everyone.

12. “What do you think should happen to those who did commit this crime when we catch them?” (Projective) Truthful: Often describe swift and strong punishment. Deceptive: Usually do not know, have not thought about it, or state it is not their job to make that decision. Sometimes they will give a truthful answer, because they have accepted what their punishment should be.

13. “Would you give them a second chance?” (Projective) Truthful: Will almost always say “No.” Deceptive: Consider a second chance, often talking about it, depending on the circ*mstances.

Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques, Third Edition - PDF Free Download (2024)

References