Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

Interrogation Tactics and Techniques 17
is only concerned about the suspect being able to tell his side of the story,
in case there were any mitigating circumstances.
(e) Play one co-offender against the other. When there is more than one person
suspected of having committed the offence, then each one will be very concerned
about the possibility that the other(s) will confess in an attempt to
obtain special consideration when the case goes to court. This fear of mutual
distrust can be used to ‘play one against the other’. The main ploy is to
inform one, usually the assumed leader, that his co-offender has confessed
and that there is no point in his continuing to deny his involvement in the
commission of the offence. This can be an effective technique with certain
offenders (Sigurdsson & Gudjonsson, 1994). However, this kind of tactic
has its dangers. For example, in one British case a police officer produced
a bogus confession and presented it to a co-defendant, who subsequently
confessed and implicated others in one of the worse miscarriages of justice
in British history (Foot, 1998).
Step 3: ‘Handling Denials’
It is recognized that most offenders are reluctant to give a confession, even after
direct confrontation, and their denials need to be handled with great care and
expertise:
Confessions usually are not easily obtained. Indeed, it is a rare occurrence when
a guilty person, after being presented with a direct confrontation of guilt, says:
‘Okay, you’ve got me; I did it’. Almost always, the suspect, whether innocent or
guilty, will initially make a denial (pp. 303–304).
Repeated denials by the suspect are seen as being very undesirable because they
give the suspect a psychological advantage. Therefore, they must be stopped by
the interrogator. This means that the interrogator does not allow the suspect
to persist with the denials. The suspect’s attempts at denial are persistently
interrupted by the interrogator, who keeps telling the suspect to listen to what
he has got to say.
Inbau et al. argue that there are noticeable qualitative differences between
the denials of innocent and guilty suspects, and these can be detected from various
verbal and non-verbal signs. For example, innocent suspects’ denials are
said to be spontaneous, forceful, and direct, whereas the denials of guilty suspects
are more defensive, qualified, and hesitant. Similarly, innocent suspects
more commonly look the interrogator in the eye, and lean forward in the chair
in a rather rigid and an assertive posture.
Inbau et al. (2001) recommend the use of the ‘friendly–unfriendly’ technique
(when the various attempts at sympathy and understanding have failed). The
‘friendly–unfriendly’ technique, also known as the ‘Mutt and Jeff’ technique
(Irving & Hilgendorf, 1980), can be applied in various ways. This commonly
involves two interrogators working together, one of whom is friendly and sympathetic
and the other being unfriendly and critical. A variant of this technique
is for the same interrogator to play both roles, at different times during the interrogation.