Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

208 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
the conceptualization of the two types of confession should be kept apart under
their fivefold typology, because combining them into one model is simplistic.
For example, how could voluntary true and false confessions, respectively, be
construed within the same conceptual framework considering the Ofshe–Leo
definition of voluntary confessions? The number of models of true confessions
discussed in Chapter 5 illustrates the complexity of the factors and processes
involved. The psychological processes involved in making true and false confessions
are undoubtedly different and require a different model of understanding.
The only way that true and false confessions can be incorporated into one
model is to focus specifically on the antecedents (social, emotional, cognitive,
situational and physiological) and consequences (immediate and long-term) associated
with the confession, as I have done in my cognitive–behavioural model
of confessions (see Chapter 5). An example of how my model can be applied to a
real life case of proven false confession is provided by Gudjonsson and MacKeith
(1994).
If Ofshe and Leo were to focus exclusively on police-induced confessions and
the process of the interrogation, then their model would be helpful in explaining
the techniques and processes that break down suspects’ resistance and move
them from a position of a denial to a confession. One limitation is that the model
is only helpful in distinguishing between true and false confessions after the
post-admission statement is made. A mere admission, ‘Yes I did it’, would be insufficient
for validating the confession. True and false confessions are construed
as arising out of similar psychological processes. Ofshe and Leo recognize that
there are important differences between guilty and innocent suspects in their
perceptions and thinking about the immediate situation, in their knowledge
about the offence and in decision-making. However, they argue that there is no
reliable difference in the demeanour of the two groups and
Although indicators of a suspect’s true state of innocence or guilt can be identified
in the suspect’s conduct in response to the interrogator’s tactics, the difference between
the guilty and the innocent only becomes reliably and objectively observable
after each has made the decision to confess. The differences between the suspect’s
true state of guilt or innocence can only be detected with substantial confidence by
analysing the contents of their respective confession statements—the statement
which follows the person’s admission of involvement (Ofshe & Leo, 1997b, p. 197).
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE CONFESSIONS
How can true confessions be differentiated from false confessions? In the absence
of good forensic, eyewitness or alibi evidence, or a solid confession from
somebody else, which essentially proves or disproves the veracity of the confession,
it is typically very difficult to establish the ground or historical truth of
the confession. In Part II I shall discuss in detail the psychological evaluation
of cases of disputed confession and how confession evidence is applied to legal
cases in England and the USA. This is followed up in Parts III and IV with the
presentation of actual cases. It will be shown that the focus of the psychological
evaluation is typically on the reliability and voluntariness of the confession