Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

that he [finds] it intolerable to continue.” 206 Additionally, the interrogator can
use his authority as a leverage mechanism, and Walton recommends that he or
she interrogate “an uneducated or unintelligent criminal suspect as if [he or she]
were questioning a child.” 207 Walton also points to other techniques such as use
of hypnosis, catching the subject off guard, fostering the belief that the suspect is
not being interrogated, misrepresenting the law, distorting the seriousness of the
offense, using threats, leading the suspect to believe that the interrogators already
know everything, and sympathizing with the subject. 208
According to Walton, understanding the rules of dialogue that interrogation
participants follow, whether consciously or unconsciously, should, in theory, help
the interrogator understand both his approaches and responses to the suspect, as
well as the suspect’s various approaches and responses during the course of the
interview. This would allow the interrogator to adjust, take unexpected tacks, and
generally conduct a more successful interrogation. Walton formulates ten rules for
questioner (“proponent”) and suspect (“respondent”) in the interrogation dialogue,
assuming “that the respondent does not want to give out the information, or at least
all of it, but wants to appear compliant by taking part in the dialogue.” 209 Taking
Walton’s assumptions, the “rules” of the interrogation dialogue for questioner and
suspect are: 210
1. The respondent needs to take care not to inadvertently say
something that might give out the information he wants to
conceal, or to allow the proponent to infer it;
2. The proponent may coerce the respondent to reveal the
information through threats or sanctions, but only by the means
allowed;
3. The proponent needs to pose questions to the respondent, and
these questions can, and often should be, leading, loaded, and
deceptive;
4. The respondent should answer in formulations that are vague,
ambiguous, misleading, or confusing, if that will help serve his
ends;
5. The proponent should probe critically into the respondent’s
prior replies, and try to use them to extract information;
6. The respondent should take care to try to be consistent in his
replies and in the commitments that can be inferred from them;
7. If the proponent finds inconsistencies in the respondent’s
commitments, or implausible statements, or statements that are
206
Id., p. 1785.
207
Id.
208
Id., p. 1785-86.
209
Id., p. 1780.
210
Id.
154