Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

Four High Profile American Cases 557
I wrote a detailed report and was formally cross-examined on my findings by
Texas Assistant Attorney General, Austen. The judge received the psychological
testimony by way of two lengthy depositions.
After having carefully considered the content and context of the Orange Socks
confessions, in conjunction with the psychological evaluation of Lucas, I testified
that it was ‘totally unsafe’ to rely on Mr Lucas’s confessions to the crime as being
a true indication of his guilt. Indeed, I believed, and still do, that the Orange
Socks confessions were false. It is highly likely that Lucas has made more
false confessions to murder than any other criminal suspect. In an interview
with myself Lucas estimated that he had made over 3000 false confessions to
murder, which is five times higher than the estimate of 600 by Mattox (1986).
Lucas has consistently given this figure to different people over the years (Brad
Shellady, private investigator, personal communication). This may, of course,
be a grossly exaggerated figure, but in view of the massive number of records
sent from hundreds of jurisdictions around the USA to the Lucas Task Force
its claim cannot be completely discarded.
I asked Lucas in 1996 how he felt about his large number of confessions and
the fact that he might be executed for the Orange Socks confession. Lucas told
me that he had no regrets about the confessions, in spite of the fact that he
might be executed as a result. His reasoning for this view was that prior to his
arrest in 1983 he was ‘nobody’; that is, he had no friends and nobody listened
to him or took an interest in him. Once he began to make false confessions all
that changed and he has thoroughly enjoyed his ‘celebrity’ (or notoriety) status
and now had many friends.
In 1996 Lucas completed a number of psychological tests. The actual scores
have been described in detail elsewhere (Gudjonsson, 1999d). Lucas was of
low average intelligence (he had a Full Scale IQ score of 89), which suggested
that he had no intellectual problems that could explain his serial confessions.
He was not particularly suggestible on the GSS 1 or GSS 2, and his memory
scores on the GSS 1 were within normal limits (45th percentile), whereas his
memory scores on the GSS 2 were considerably poorer (10th percentile rank
for immediate recall). The confabulation scores on both the suggestibility tests
were outside normal limits (10 and 7 on delayed recall for the GSS 1 and GSS 2,
respectively). Lucas proved to be highly acquiescent and compliant on testing.
The EPQ indicated a personality profile of an unstable (emotionally labile)
introvert, whose very high Psychoticism (P) score, accompanied by a very low
score on the Gough Socialisation Scale, were strongly indicative of personality
problems. The scores on the MMPI-2 validity scales fell well within normal
limits, with the exception of the F scale, which was highly elevated (T = 92).
Such a high F score often raises concern about the validity of the clinical profile
due to exaggeration or malingering of psychological symptoms. However, such
a high F score may suggest the presence of psychopathology rather than malingering
(Pope, Butcher & Sleen, 1993). This is the interpretation that I favoured
in the case and I do not consider Lucas’s clinical profile to be invalid. As far
as the clinical scales were concerned, there were elevations of scales 4
(‘Psychopathic deviate’) and 6 (‘Paranoia’). This suggests a person who is immature,
narcissistic and self-indulgent.