Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

548 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
adding her own details to the answers. This is an interesting scenario, where her
low susceptibility to suggestions probably resulted in her confession appearing
more authentic and incriminating than it would otherwise have been.
So what were the findings with regard to psychological vulnerabilities? First,
the MMPI-2 profile that was obtained when I assessed her was very similar to
that found when she had been tested previously by Dr Ewing, although the
scores on the elevated scales became more extreme. This was undoubtedly due
to the increased distress as the trial date approached (I assessed her about
two weeks before her trial commenced). The profile suggested a depressed and
anxious individual who suffered from a pre-occupation with somatic symptoms.
There was evidence of marked social introversion, which had increased since
she had been assessed by Dr Ewing the previous year. This profile suggested a
highly anxious and introverted person. The score obtained on the Gudjonsson
Compliance Scale was very high (98th percentile rank), which suggested that
Hoyt was very eager to please and tended to avoid conflict and confrontation
with people. There was strong evidence on testing of poor self-esteem. There
was no evidence of antisocial personality disorder from the score obtained on
the Gough Socialisation Scale.
In terms of her personality and mental state, Hoyt’s greatest vulnerabilities
during interrogation were her high level of anxiety and compliance, which were
accompanied by low self-esteem and strong feelings of guilt relating to the death
of her children. I am in no doubt that with such a profile, even when the person
is not found to be suggestible, psychological manipulation by the police and
moderate pressure can result in a false confession. High anxiety and compliance
were found to be crucial in overturning the conviction of the appellant in the IRA
Funeral Murder Case and also in an English murder case (see Chapter 18). I am
in no doubt that Hoyt’s psychological vulnerabilities were exploited by the police
to maximum effect and this made her confess to the killings of her five children.
She would not otherwise have confessed so quickly (she seems to have broken
down within about two hours of her arriving at the police barracks). If Hoyt was
psychologically vulnerable during the interrogation and was subjected to police
impropriety, why did I not testify in the case when it went for trial in March
1995? The answer is that the psychological test findings needed to be considered
in the context of other factors in the case. The most damaging evidence against
Hoyt was her Sworn Statement to the police. On the face of it, the confession
it contained was overwhelmingly convincing and, unless its reliability could
be seriously challenged, Hoyt would be convicted. I explained this to her two
defence attorneys. During the taking of this statement, Hoyt seemed in good
control over what she was saying, she was apparently not suggestible, and she
even made various highly incriminating corrections when she felt the police
were misleading her. In other words, she appeared to be giving an account in
a way she wanted it to be told. She was not simply agreeing with the police.
This was her story and I knew that it would have a devastating effect upon
a jury.
There was another interesting and unusual aspect to this case. It is evident
from reading about the case that many people developed great sympathy for
Hoyt. She had a large number of ‘believers’. After being convicted many people
cried in court, including some jurors, and even the trial judge was overcome by