It is crucial to ascertain what the interviewee knows, their willingness to discuss it, and any alibi they may present, prior to making any decisions on guilt, innocence, or probable cause. Interviewers should avoid steering the conversation solely towards their own areas of interest and instead promote dialogue about relevant topics, including the interviewee’s alibi.
Introducing Alternative Solutions
When the goal of the interview is to elicit a confession, the approach is tailored specifically for that purpose. If the interviewee refrains from admitting guilt, tactics like minimization, maximization, baiting questions, or introducing fabricated evidence might lead to false confessions. But what if there was a more reliable way? There are several other successful outcomes of an interview beyond simply obtaining a confession, which include:
- Uncovering additional investigative insights
- Revealing more information beneficial for prosecution
- Gaining an admission of guilt
- Clearing the subject’s name
- Exposing inconsistencies in the subject’s alibi
An alibi refers to a claim or proof that indicates the subject was not present at the scene of the crime during its occurrence. Exculpatory evidence is any information that could potentially absolve the subject from criminal involvement. This may encompass witness statements, phone records, receipts, surveillance footage, or materials collected from the crime scene. Conversely, false exculpatory statements occur when a subject makes claims of innocence that are later disproven. Depending on jurisdictional laws, these falsehoods may be admissible in court as indicators of a guilty mindset. Prosecutors may guide juries to infer guilt based on these fabrications. In some cases, such false statements might carry more weight than a confession since the act of lying can imply guilt.
Cross-examination by defense attorneys will try to undermine the credibility of the interviewer, attempting to lead juries to suspect coercion during confession. Nonetheless, juries typically find an interviewer credible if they can accurately pinpoint the subject’s lies.
Highlighting the Benefits of Science-Based Interviewing
During an interview, false statements made by the subject will be pointed to during the evidence presentation phase, particularly when their claims conflict with what is revealed by the evidence. Utilizing a scientifically grounded interview method—establishing rapport, allowing an uninterrupted narrative, asking appropriate open-ended questions, and strategically presenting evidence—will enhance truthful statements. It will also make false statements stand out! Prior to revealing any evidence, we advocate for a thorough and uninterrupted narrative from the subject. By fostering an environment where the suspect is comfortable speaking and employing active listening along with effective questioning techniques, interviewers can enhance the volume of information provided and compel subjects to remain consistent in their narratives. Inconsistencies will become increasingly noticeable.
Evidence should be disclosed progressively, starting with vague details (e.g., indicating that the subject left their residence) and moving towards more specific information (e.g., showing that the subject drove to the area where the crime took place), culminating in precise evidence (e.g., video footage capturing the subject entering the crime scene).
Questions should be structured to follow this progression: beginning with broad inquiries about their activities on a certain date and narrowing down to specific queries about leaving their residence and traveling to a particular neighborhood, followed by presenting concrete evidence (e.g., footage of the subject at the crime scene). This method of arranging evidence and questioning enhances both cues for deception and honesty while increasing the amount of information obtained from the interviewee.
When addressing discrepancies in a subject’s statements, interviewers have two main strategies: a reactive approach, which tackles contradictions as they arise, in a more confrontational manor. Or a selective approach that focuses only on certain contradictions. Both methods have their merits. They can be used independently or in tandem based on the evidence available and interview goals. When confronting subjects about inconsistent statements, it is vital for interviewers to request explanations without being judgmental or accusatory. Accusations often lead to defensives, silence, or invocation of their rights to legal representation. Employing science-based interviewing techniques alongside electronic recording ensures transparency in the process, demonstrating that there was no coercion involved and that subjects had ample opportunities to clarify any inconsistencies.
It is important to recognize that inconsistencies can indicate deception but may also reflect ordinary memory issues. Therefore, forming judgments about the accuracy of a subject’s account should be deferred until they have provided their complete narrative, all evidence has been shared, and they have had a chance to address any discrepancies. Interviewers should avoid confrontational stances with potentially deceptive subjects; rather, they should encourage continued dialogue, allowing lies to emerge in contrast to the existing evidence. Identifying false statements can significantly undermine a subject’s alibi and pose challenges for defense teams compared to confessions. However, recognizing truthful statements is equally vital; it can play a crucial role in clearing a subject from wrongdoing.
Ready to Master Science-Based Interviewing?
Unlock the secrets to detecting deception and uncovering the truth. Our comprehensive Interview and Interrogation class with Revelations Training provides hands-on training and expert guidance on how to use evidence in an interview, and other verbal lie-detection methods.
MASTER THE ART OF TRUTH DISCOVERY: JOIN OUR INTERVIEW CLASS!
