Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

Misleading Special Knowledge 533
way out of a situation he was finding it difficult to cope with and represented a
compromise between a continued denial and full confession.
During my assessment, Wayne proved to be abnormally compliant on the
GCS, whereas he rated his brother Paul on the same scale as being very low on
compliance. As was commented on by the trial judge in his summing-up to the
jury, Paul appeared to be far more ‘dominant’ than Wayne, which was supported
by my own assessment. It may be partly for this reason that Paul was able to
resist the interrogation, whereas Wayne broke down and confessed, while placing
most of the blame for the murder on his brother. Interestingly, unlike the
results from the GSS 1 when tested by Dr Kellan in 1986, when I tested Wayne
on the GSS 2 in 1994 he scored at the bottom of the test and demonstrated
great critical faculty and resistance to leading questions and interrogative
pressure. Why should this difference exist? One explanation is that, since his
conviction, Wayne had become more critical in his thinking and less trusting
of people, which is something that he told me he had experienced since his
conviction. A similar change in personality was noted in another case of a false
confession of the coerced–compliant type (Gudjonsson & MacKeith, 1990).
Finally, the emphasis by the Crown, trial judge and first Court of Appeal
hearing on the apparent special knowledge that Wayne is supposed to have
possessed about the murder is interesting, and if it had not been for the ESDA
and fresh palm print evidence the conviction would probably not have been
overturned.
DONALD PENDLETON
This case involves the failed appeal in June 2000 of Donald Pendleton. I had
become involved in the case as a result of referral from the Criminal Cases
Review Commission (CCRC). The case involved a murder in Bradford dating
back to June 1971. At his trial at Leeds Crown Court in 1986, Pendleton and
his co-defendant, Thorpe, were both convicted of murder. Pendleton did not give
evidence at trial. In 1987 he was refused leave to appeal.
Pendleton was arrested in the early morning of 23 March 1985 and he was
extensively interviewed and detained for three days without the presence of a
solicitor. He was introduced to his solicitor on the evening of the third day. During
the interviews he was placed under great pressure and eventually confessed
exhibiting a great deal of distress during the interviews. On the afternoon of
the second day Pendleton was taken to the crime scene, after which he provided
the most incriminating details. The interviews were very leading, with
Pendleton apparently having great problems with recalling what he had been
doing 14 years previously. After the visit to the crime scene his memory about
the murder improved considerably and this was commented upon by one of the
officers. Pendleton explained his improved memory as follows:
Well it helped seeing the place again this afternoon.
Subsequently Pendleton has maintained that he made a false confession to the
police due to the pressure he was placed under and his disturbed mental state
at the time.