Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

82 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
is confronted at the outset with the allegation. This was often followed up with
the introduction of evidence, or, more indirectly, the introduction of implied
evidence, where the officers declined to be specific about the extent or exact
nature of the evidence. Exposure to such evidence was designed to overcome
the futility of denial (Irving, 1980) and to increase the pressure and anxiety on
the suspect (Inbau, Reid & Buckley, 1986). Such continued pressure was also
maintained where the officer made a direct appeal to the suspect’s conscience
or perhaps his good character.
The largest group of tactics in this category fell under the heading of challenges.
These included challenges in relation to the suspect’s previous convictions
(‘But you stabbed a boy three, four years ago with a knife?’); possible
accomplices (‘That is not the story your friend is telling us’); contradictions
in his story or in relation to witness information, (‘So why would the woman
from the shop phone the fire brigade if the fire brigade were already there?’)
or challenges that the suspect’s replies were simply not believable (‘I think you
have told so many stories you don’t know what the truth is anymore, do you?’).
Instances where the officers called the suspect a liar would fall into this section.
It was noticeable that on occasions a pantomime sequence would develop
with the suspect content to deny every challenge (e.g. ‘I wasn’t in on Wednesday
night–you were–I wasn’t–I’m telling you now that you were–I wasn’t in there
Wednesday night–We have got several people–I wasn’t in on Wednesday night–
Between 9 and 10 you went in–I wasn’t–We’ve got people . . . ’). Three or more
repetitions (on the same theme) represented a pantomime sequence.
Finally, it was evident from the judgments provided in R. v. Heron (1993,
unreported, Leeds Crown Court), and R. v. Paris, Abdullahi and Miller ([1993]
97 Cr.App.R. 99) [cases 19 and 20, respectively] that the continued and persistent
challenges and verbal assaults on the veracity of the suspects’ replies had a
marked and deleterious effect on the defendant’s willpower and resistance. The
judgments concluded that a relentless refusal to entertain the suspect’s point of
view was bound to undermine the most resolute of defendants and amounted to
‘oppression’. To capture this latent technique a continual dispute variable was
introduced to itemize every instance where the officers directly or indirectly
challenged, contradicted or undermined the substance of the suspect’s account.
Manipulation
The debilitating effect of physical isolation and confinement on a suspect’s resolve,
especially when coupled with aggressive and intimidating interviewing
tactics, was recognized by Lord Chief Justice Taylor, in R. v. Paris, Abdullahi
and Miller [1993] 97 Cr.App.R. 99, in relation to Miller. It was noticeable however,
that these tactics did not, on their own, succeed in eliciting a confession.
This was achieved in a subsequent interview by more ‘insidious questioning’
(R. v. Paris et al., 1993, p. 104). In that case the officers persuaded the suspect
to admit that it was possible he was at the scene, even if he could not remember
it, and as the judgment noted ‘Once he opened that chink, the officers kept up
the questioning to open it further’ (R. v. Paris et al., 1993, p. 104). Such questioning
involves creating possible scenarios or themes for the suspect to adopt,