Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

228 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
police station and insisted that the interview be stopped until he could attend
the police station.
That same afternoon there was a second interview in the presence of a solicitor
and an appropriate adult. Mr Z now retracted having entered the house
and seen the dead bodies of the two victims, but continued to admit that he had
once sexually assaulted the little girl. The police then confronted Mr Z with
the apparent special knowledge he had of the position of the two bodies in the
house. The police accused Mr Z of lying and suggested that he had murdered
the woman after losing his temper. After a one-hour break the third interview
commenced with the solicitor and appropriate adult also present. The following
day there was a very brief fourth interview before Mr Z was taken to a
Magistrates’ Court. No further admissions were made.
The fifth interview was most crucial. Mr Z had just returned from the
Magistrates’ Court after his detention was extended. He had now been in custody
for over two days. Mr Z had confessed to two police detectives in the car
on the way back to the police station from the Magistrates’ Court. When back
at the police station he said he wanted to be interviewed in the absence of
his solicitor and appropriate adult, but they were allowed to watch the interview
through a video-link. The interview was video-recorded and the confession
looked convincing (i.e. it appeared freely given, it contains apparent special
knowledge, and Mr Z appeared distressed and remorseful about crimes he was
confessing to). Immediately after this interview Mr Z told his solicitor in private
that he was innocent of the murders and rape, but he did not retract the confession
formally at the police station.
After Mr Z confessed to the murders during the fifth formal interview, one of
the officers left the room to get Mr Z a drink. In the presence of the other officer
Mr Z tells the officer twice that he that he did not mean to do it (i.e. commit
the murder). The officer tries to reassure Mr Z, hugs and comforts him. The
officer then tells him that he has to go through events of the murders once for
the benefit of the officer. The following conversation then takes place:
Mr Z ‘Yes, but does this mean I don’t have to go down or nothing?’
Police ‘You’re OK, all right. You’re going to be fine.’
Mr Z ‘I’m not going to go to prison?’
Police ‘You’ll be all right, don’t worry.’
Mr Z ‘Yes but you promised me I wasn’t going to go down.’
Police ‘You’ll be fine.’
There was also a conversation during the first taped recorded interview where
Mr Z expressed anxieties about going to prison and the officer tries to reassure
him:
No one is saying you are going to prison, OK. You may need a bit of help.
After Mr Z was released from prison and his innocence established, he agreed to
meet with my colleague Dr MacKeith and me. I assessed him psychologically. We
were allowed access to all the relevant papers in the case and taped interviews.
Mr Z told us that the reason for his having confessed to the murders was that