Police Interrogation Techniques
Discussion
Had quite a bit of semi-free time over the past couple of days, so have been watching a lot of police interviews on Youtube.
This is probably the most famous in Canada, a decorated Air Force Colonel in charge of Canada's biggest air force base confesses to multiple murders driven, amongst other things by his fetish for wearing women's underwear:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rdg-4xcZO6U
Full background:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Williams
Now, the detective (Jim Smyth) who leads the interview gets a huge amount of credit for teasing the confession out of what everyone assumes to be a very intelligent, "bad ass" military man, which seems fair enough, on the face of it.
However, if you look at the same detective in the Tori Stafford interview, he plays a very different role (that of "Bad Cop") and seems to time his intrusion into the interview (34 mins of Part 2) just as the original interviewer seems to be getting Rafferty to open up. After this intrusion, Rafferty stone walls every attempt to get him to talk.
Interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT-5xLo1scY
Background:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Victoria_S...
Which brings me onto the main point of my post, firstly, I don't think Smyth (or anyone else) could really have got the Colonel to confess to something that he didn't want to. The colonel just realised that the game was up and was the sort of person to not want to cover everything up.
Rafferty on the other hand was the sort of person to just want to cover everything up and so didn't provide any information, despite there being overwhelming evidence against his involvement.
The second point I wanted to discuss is the particular use of "Themes" in interrogating individuals, i.e. the interviewer suggests a plausible scenario, that fits the known facts, of how a reasonable person may have acted out of character in a moment of madness and inflicted a fatal injury on someone, with the idea that the guilty person latches onto this as an excuse for their behaviour and starts talking about what really happened, with the scenario as a starting point.
This is used in both the colonel's interview and Rafferty's and many others - it's supposedly a very strong technique to get people to open up about crimes they've committed. However, it seems to me that it often ends up putting words in a suspect's mouth, sometimes even convincing them that the scenario is the truth, when in fact it's not.
A good example is Terri-Lynne McClintic, Rafferty's accomplice. Smyth gets her to open up about the crime using themes, but she tells him a lot of true detail, but says Rafferty actually killed the victim. Several years later, Terri-Lynne admits she actually did it.
Has anyone else looked into this, and do you have any thoughts?
This is probably the most famous in Canada, a decorated Air Force Colonel in charge of Canada's biggest air force base confesses to multiple murders driven, amongst other things by his fetish for wearing women's underwear:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rdg-4xcZO6U
Full background:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Williams
Now, the detective (Jim Smyth) who leads the interview gets a huge amount of credit for teasing the confession out of what everyone assumes to be a very intelligent, "bad ass" military man, which seems fair enough, on the face of it.
However, if you look at the same detective in the Tori Stafford interview, he plays a very different role (that of "Bad Cop") and seems to time his intrusion into the interview (34 mins of Part 2) just as the original interviewer seems to be getting Rafferty to open up. After this intrusion, Rafferty stone walls every attempt to get him to talk.
Interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT-5xLo1scY
Background:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Victoria_S...
Which brings me onto the main point of my post, firstly, I don't think Smyth (or anyone else) could really have got the Colonel to confess to something that he didn't want to. The colonel just realised that the game was up and was the sort of person to not want to cover everything up.
Rafferty on the other hand was the sort of person to just want to cover everything up and so didn't provide any information, despite there being overwhelming evidence against his involvement.
The second point I wanted to discuss is the particular use of "Themes" in interrogating individuals, i.e. the interviewer suggests a plausible scenario, that fits the known facts, of how a reasonable person may have acted out of character in a moment of madness and inflicted a fatal injury on someone, with the idea that the guilty person latches onto this as an excuse for their behaviour and starts talking about what really happened, with the scenario as a starting point.
This is used in both the colonel's interview and Rafferty's and many others - it's supposedly a very strong technique to get people to open up about crimes they've committed. However, it seems to me that it often ends up putting words in a suspect's mouth, sometimes even convincing them that the scenario is the truth, when in fact it's not.
A good example is Terri-Lynne McClintic, Rafferty's accomplice. Smyth gets her to open up about the crime using themes, but she tells him a lot of true detail, but says Rafferty actually killed the victim. Several years later, Terri-Lynne admits she actually did it.
Has anyone else looked into this, and do you have any thoughts?
Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 14th July 19:27
Greendubber said:
dacouch said:
No comment
Good way to get charged these days as you're not offering anything in way of an account.If you watch the Rafferty interview, he repeatedly says he wants to speak to a lawyer and yet the interviewer continues to question him.
Also, a point I didn't realise before this, was that, in the US at least, an interrogator can lie to a suspect in order to get them to talk!
youngsyr said:
Greendubber said:
dacouch said:
No comment
Good way to get charged these days as you're not offering anything in way of an account.If you watch the Rafferty interview, he repeatedly says he wants to speak to a lawyer and yet the interviewer continues to question him.
Also, a point I didn't realise before this, was that, in the US at least, an interrogator can lie to a suspect in order to get them to talk!
k up.But the point is, it seemed like saying nothing at all was your best chance if guilty.
Greendubber said:
Good way to get charged these days as you're bot offering anything in way of an account.
Look at my posting history. I'm not anti police at all. But you are talking rubbish.
Best way to avoid a charge with 'most' offences is no comment. Unless you are banged to rights (confess), or there is a special charge, when you give a solicitor prepped statement (certain offences only).
Best advise is still to go no comment if you want to avoid/minimise the charge in most cases
Not popular but true.
Calm down, im just telling you what I see at work.
You're not offering any form of defence for the police to put to the CPS are you?
What do you think the CPS will do when there is a victim or witness saying you did XYZ and there's nothing to challenge that allegation from you? "Well he didn't give an account so he can't have done it".... It doesn't work like that.
Do you expect them to let you go? No you get charged to court to have a trial to let the courts review the evidence and decide.
You're almost better off coming out with s load of bks than going no comment. 'Yes I was taking this 10" knife to the 24hr sharpening shop when you stopped me at 3am' even though no such shop exists!
You're not offering any form of defence for the police to put to the CPS are you?
What do you think the CPS will do when there is a victim or witness saying you did XYZ and there's nothing to challenge that allegation from you? "Well he didn't give an account so he can't have done it".... It doesn't work like that.
Do you expect them to let you go? No you get charged to court to have a trial to let the courts review the evidence and decide.
You're almost better off coming out with s load of b
ks than going no comment. 'Yes I was taking this 10" knife to the 24hr sharpening shop when you stopped me at 3am' even though no such shop exists!Edited by Greendubber on Wednesday 15th July 05:55
Edited by Greendubber on Wednesday 15th July 06:30
There is a growing trend that going "no comment" is the "in" thing to do. Some of the regulars think they're hard as nails if they sit there going no comment. I've seen people decline a solicitor with a "I'm just going no comment innit". I've seen this end people up in court when they could have had a caution. The truth is, there is no "right" answer. Each case is different. Sometimes "no comment" is your best bet, and sometimes its the worst thing you could do. People are assuming that "no comment" is some secret strategy to get you off the hook. The only real but advice you should heed, is get some legal representation if you're unsure.
Oh and the British interviewing is nothing like the American!
Oh and the British interviewing is nothing like the American!
Greendubber said:
Calm down.
You're not offering any form of defence for the police to put to the CPS are you?
What do you think the CPS will do when there is a victim or witness saying you did XYZ and there's nothing to challenge that allegation from you? "Well he didn't give an account so he can't have done it".... It doesn't work like that.
Do you expect them to let you go? No you get charged to court to have a trial to let the courts review the evidence and decide.
Thoughts expressed by a lawyer friend of mine:You're not offering any form of defence for the police to put to the CPS are you?
What do you think the CPS will do when there is a victim or witness saying you did XYZ and there's nothing to challenge that allegation from you? "Well he didn't give an account so he can't have done it".... It doesn't work like that.
Do you expect them to let you go? No you get charged to court to have a trial to let the courts review the evidence and decide.
Suppose you have been into say, Chipping Norton in your red Mini on some innocent errand and it turns out there was a robbery while you were there and you end up as a suspect.
If the police ask 'were you in Chipping Norton this morning?' you can't say 'no' because they might have you on CCTV. On the other hand they may just
have a report of the robbers escaping in a red Mini. If all other owners of red Minis, including the crook, deny having been there and you 'admit' to have been there at the time of the robbery you are in serious trouble. At best you are likely to spend a long while in a police cell while the police do their best to get a confession out of you.
The other problem with answering questions is that if the police don't get the answer they want they can just repeat the question over and over. It's very difficult in that situation to resist the temptation to rephrase the answer at which point they announce that you've contradicted yourself.
Certainly don't say anything without a lawyer, however tempting it is to think 'I can easily clear this up'. And remember the 'no comment' response is not only for the guilty.
I've used it in a situation where I judged that any comment would increase the chances of me being charged. This was before the new caution and without representation . It concerned a minor rtc. My view at the time was that I could talk myself into a careless driving conviction (there were no independent witnesses) so restricted my comments to a statement that I had complied with all aspects of the RTA.
I can't see the point of it if you have an alibi or some other explanation that would have you out of custody in five minutes.
Having said that, the situation would have to be pretty unusual for me to have a chat without legal representation.
Oh and I agree. Interview not interrogation, even if there be overlap in some environments.
I can't see the point of it if you have an alibi or some other explanation that would have you out of custody in five minutes.
Having said that, the situation would have to be pretty unusual for me to have a chat without legal representation.
Oh and I agree. Interview not interrogation, even if there be overlap in some environments.
youngsyr said:
I hope that's not true - it's not the suspect's responsibility to remove suspicion of their involvement, it's the police's responsibility to gather enough evidence to charge.
If you watch the Rafferty interview, he repeatedly says he wants to speak to a lawyer and yet the interviewer continues to question him.
Also, a point I didn't realise before this, was that, in the US at least, an interrogator can lie to a suspect in order to get them to talk!
I believe the police do this to try to get people to implicate themselves. A mate was invited to a police station and when asked for his 'side of the story' he said he was happy to answer but only with a solicitor present.If you watch the Rafferty interview, he repeatedly says he wants to speak to a lawyer and yet the interviewer continues to question him.
Also, a point I didn't realise before this, was that, in the US at least, an interrogator can lie to a suspect in order to get them to talk!
The copper tried to convince him to talk saying stuff like 'I am only trying to help you'. My mate stood his ground, insisting on having a solicitor present and ended up getting arrested.
Why are some police officers so against suspects having legal represenatation during questioning?
Eclassy said:
I believe the police do this to try to get people to implicate themselves. A mate was invited to a police station and when asked for his 'side of the story' he said he was happy to answer but only with a solicitor present.
The copper tried to convince him to talk saying stuff like 'I am only trying to help you'. My mate stood his ground, insisting on having a solicitor present and ended up getting arrested.
Why are some police officers so against suspects having legal represenatation during questioning?
Oh right? Please, go on...I don't think we've heard this one? The copper tried to convince him to talk saying stuff like 'I am only trying to help you'. My mate stood his ground, insisting on having a solicitor present and ended up getting arrested.
Why are some police officers so against suspects having legal represenatation during questioning?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff