Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

includes creating a scenario whereby the suspect can blame either a third party,
such as the victim or an accomplice, or can justify the offense based on particular
circumstances. 482 The discussion below of Aubry’s variations of interrogation
approaches lists several of the themes that an interrogator might consider
employing at this stage. Theme development is based on the argument that “in
order to persuade the suspect to tell the truth, it is essential to reinforce their [sic]
rationalizations for committing the crime versus focusing their attention on the
possible consequences.” 483 However, “at no time should the suspect be told that
if he committed the crime for an understandable reason that the consequences
would be less.” 484
Step 3 – Handling Denials
At this point the interrogator takes steps to discourage denials that the suspect
may embark upon, and returns to the “moral excuse theme” of Step 2. 485 This stage
is also important because, “depending on the nature and persistence of the denials,”
the interrogator “may become convinced of the suspect’s actual innocence” or
secondary role. 486 In general, according to the authors, an innocent person will not
allow the denials to be cut off, while a guilty individual will eventually “submit
to the investigator’s return to a theme.” 487 Thus, the investigator should cut off
the denials, discourage them, evaluate the suspect’s responses for indications of
truthfulness, and attempt to return to the selected themes. 488
Step 4 – Overcoming Objections
The guilty suspect, according to the authors, will now offer “reasons as to why
he would not or could not commit the crime.” 489 Instead of attempting to stop the
suspect from voicing objections, as is done with denials, the interrogator should
indulge the objections and then overcome them. 490 The technique is compared to
that of a car salesman, with the interrogator “selling the suspect on the idea of
telling the truth” and turning the objections around by incorporating them in the
interrogation theme. 491 The interrogator must recognize the objection, reward it by
acting as though the statement were expected and by not arguing with the suspect,
and then turn the objection around by reversing the significance of the objection,
pointing out the drawbacks if the objection was untruthful, and returning to the
interrogation theme. 492
482
Inbau, see note 109, p. 213.
483
John E. Reid and Associates, see note 473.
484
Id.
485
Inbau, see note 109, p. 213.
486
Id., p. 305.
487
Id., p. 213.
488
Id., p. 305-330.
489
Id., p. 213.
490
Id., p. 331.
491
Id., p. 333.
492
Id., p. 333-336.
188