Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

The Identification and Measurement of ‘Oppressive’ Police Interviewing Tactics 89
There were a number of typographical errors and omissions on the transcript
in this case, which failed to accurately convey the degree of control exercised
by the officer (in this chapter, all quotations will be presented in the format
provided to the courts; any alterations will be identified). From the outset this
officer ‘drove’ the suspect and maintained a pressurized atmosphere throughout
this brief interview. The robust challenge tactics included the officer repeatedly
interrupting the suspect and often dismissing his replies; there were 52 continual
dispute tactics from this officer in 22 minutes. The intimidation factor
included introducing evidence from, and using, the suspect’s girlfriend. It also
included maximization and a blatant manipulation of detail, where the officer
distorted what the suspect actually said to his own advantage (especially in
relation to matches). The officer implied that it was the suspect who suggested
that matches started the fire, which is a distortion of what was said, and he
repeatedly accused the suspect of having some ‘sort of problem’. The text has
been reproduced according to the transcript. Early on the questions relate to
the time the suspect was in the area with his girlfriend.
Det. Constable ‘Because [name of girlfriend] says to me that you said to her,
the fire must have started about three o’clock.’
Suspect ‘Well I presumed because . . . ’ (he was interrupted by the officer
and not allowed to complete his answer).
Det. Constable ‘Why presume three o’clock?’
The issue is not fully resolved before the officer changes his
line of questioning,
Det. Constable ‘You’ve got some sort of problem with the vicar haven’t
you...?’
Suspect ‘No, I’m getting on well with him.’
Det. Constable ‘That’s not what I understand and that’s not what [your girlfriend]
is telling me.’
Suspect ‘Well you know I’m getting on well with him I mean he’s linked
me up with my dad again.’
Det. Constable ‘Yes but you’ve got a problem with your dad haven’t you?’
Suspect ‘Not like we used to have, against each other.’
Det. Constable ‘Yes but you have got a problem with him haven’t you?’
Shortly afterwards,
Det. Constable ‘You’ve obviously set fire to that church for some reason.’
Suspect ‘I’m not guilty of...’(interrupted)
Det. Constable ‘[name of suspect], you have got some sort of problem.’
Suspect ‘ ...Ijust wouldn’t set fire to a church.’
Det. Constable ‘You’ve got some sort of problem and for some reason or other
you are trying to get it out of your system.’
A little later,
Det. Constable ‘So do you associate that church with your problem?’
Suspect ‘No.’
Det. Constable ‘Because there is no doubt, without going in to lots of detail,
you’ve had a chequered background in relation to your domestic
problems with family, haven’t you?’
Suspect ‘Yeah, but I wouldn’t link them with the church.’
Det. Constable ‘Why?’
Suspect ‘Not objective. Just wouldn’t link them to the church. My problems
are getting better now.’