"The search for Kyron Horman entered its fifth day Wednesday as searchers continued to work to find the 7-year-old boy who disappeared after a science fair at his elementary school in a rural area of Portland, Ore." -ABC News
One thing is clear there is real emotion coming through their voices and body language.
From a statement analysis perspective it is clear what is going on here...
The police have asked the family to give these statements. It is also clear the FBI is working with closely with them and is guiding what is being said.
There was a similar case that occurred some 30 years ago in Ohio in a community about 15 miles from Lake Erie; it was a small community and it was clear at the time to the FBI the Perpetrator was someone who was a volunteer and had inserted himself into the investigation and search efforts so he could learn how close they were to determining he had kidnapped the girl.
The investigators are attempting to personalize this by having the family read a statement/note TO Kyron. They have likely told the family it is possible that Kyron may actually hear what they say, if he is still alive. The investigators want to show some of the emotional pain the family is experiencing because if the perpetrator is feeling guilty- adding to it will help them find him. They are looking for changes in behavior and appearances. They are contacting employers to see who has been absent from work since Kyron disappeared.
They also suspect the perpetrator is someone they have already interviewed, this is why they are thanking those that have been interviewed countless times- It allows and explains the need for more and more interviews with the same people. It is interesting he specifically mentions the bus driver, if the bus driver was seen in the school before the science fair in the morning it is very significant. If he was not, this could be a strategy to deflect the direction of their true 'person of interest' such as someone else who worked at the school.
It is likely the perpetrator is someone whom the family members come into contact with on a regular basis, but he is not close to the family, and the family may not even know his actual name. The investigators have probably told the family to carry on with their normal routines (as much as possible) and keep a log of everyone they speak with and come in contact with; it is likely the perpetrator will offer support. It may even be the first time this person has actually spoken with them, but they likely recognize them as someone 'familiar.' When this person speaks with them there will be genuine concern and emotion in his voice, gestures, and message- this is the only time the perpetrator can let his emotion and feelings be shown.
The Prayer Vigil was video taped and investigators were in attendance.
If they do not 'find' him in the next several weeks, they will look closely at anyone who moves away from the community (known to the investigation) in the coming months and years.
This was a crime of opportunity, made possible by the science fair. This does not necessarily mean that the perpetrator was not an employee of the school... it is just as likely- that because of the many visitors to the school that morning- he felt he would not automatically become a suspect.
It is likely the perpetrator was himself a victim of childhood sexual abuse. It is unlikely that the perpetrator has a record. It is likely the perpetrator exercises and takes pride in his appearance.
If Kyron is dead, the perpetrator is bothered and feels guilty about the way he disposed of the body and he wants him to have a proper burial. This will be the largest part of his remorse and guilt and he will think of this often and it will hard for him to accept.
This person has not appeared in interviews or on camera.
The final chilling thought... the person who did this will likely read this post. In the same way he has inserted himself into the investigation, made contact with the family, and has been interviewed... he will seek out any information that may tell him how close they are to finding him. As he reads these sentences he will become agitated and extremely nervous. He will think what mistakes?!?! We will have his IP address, location, Internet service provider, search words used in search engines, etc. and this can be cross referenced with the large database of people that has been created for this case.
Keywords inserted to increase the odds that search engines will lead the perpetrator to this post: babysitter, elementary, nurse, doctor, psychologist, principal, librarian, shop, cook, janitor, secretary, teacher, custodians, substitute, delivery, assistant, driver, coach, student, student teacher, friend, police, security, parents, paper, gym, work, scouts, sports, peer, friend, work, bus, home, apartment, house, volunteer, clerk, store, dad, mom, family, hobbies, gifted, camping, camp, prayer vigil, waitress, restaurant, neighbor, worker, construction, car, media, newspaper, truck, store room, basement, locker room, cafeteria, music room, stage, theater, library, shop, audio, visual, computer, education, office, conference room, study hall, detection, playground, woods, road, interstate, shallow grave, body, decomposing, rape, molest, brutalized, abuse, sexual offenders, psychology, anal, antisocial, sadist, bondage, arrest, genetic, evidence, closer, grand jury, FBI, Federal, Behavioral Science Unit, cruel, exhibition, pedophiles, hebephiles, personality disorders, photography, trophy, profile, profiler, behavioral, closing in, surveillance, testing, lab, results, suspect, person of interest, surveillance.
NO MEDIA INQUIRIES WILL BE RETURNED. NO PART OF THIS POST CAN BE COPIED, DISTRIBUTED, OR QUOTED UNDER COPYRIGHT LAW. WE ASK IF YOU ARE A MEDIA OUTLET TO NOT MAKE ANY REFERENCE TO THIS POST FOR A PERIOD OF TWO WEEKS FROM THE POSTING DATE.◦
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Kyron Horman Family Speaks: Why the person who did this will not get away with it! Mistakes were made!
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Set the Tivo/DVRs 'Science of Interrogation' on National Geographic Channel 5AM Tomorrow Morning
Thursday 6th May 2010
5:00am Science of Interrogation on National Geographic Channel◦
Saturday, May 1, 2010
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - April 2010: Confessions and the Constitution
If you work in law enforcement and question and interrogate people you should read this latest article in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - April 2010
Confessions and the Constitution:
The Remedy for Violating Constitutional Safeguards◦
Sunday, January 10, 2010
PART ONE: A Four-Domain Model for Detecting Deception: Comfort/Discomfort
Written by Guest Contributor Joe Navarro.
Joe Navarro is a 25 year veteran of the FBI where he served on the National Security Division's Behavioral Analysis Program. He is on the adjunct faculty at Saint Leo University and the Institute for Intergovernmental Research where he teaches nonverbal communications. For 35 years he has been teaching and utilizing the study of nonverbal communications as well as its practical applications in everyday use and in forensic settings. He has lectured throughout the world including Wayne State University School of Medicine and at the Baylor College of Medicine - Menninger Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences in Houston, Texas. Mr. Navarro brings together his academic background, scientific research, and practical experience catching spies to the art of observing and interpreting human behavior. Mr. Navarro is also the author of: Advanced Interviewing Techniques: Proven Strategies for Law Enforcement, Military, and Security Personnel
For 30 years, the literature on interviewing has emphasized the use of both verbal and nonverbal cues in detecting deception during the interview process. Much of that emphasis paralleled the immense amount of research during that same time period in the area of psychology and the study of nonverbal behavior.
Unfortunately, many people still misinterpret a significant amount of nonverbal behavior as indicative of deception when, in fact, it just may be nervousness or such behavior as face touching that also can indicate honesty.
Repeated studies have shown that traditional methods of detecting deception during interviews succeed only 50 percent of the time, even for experienced law enforcement officers.
In spite of this, investigators still need the ability to test the veracity of those they interview. To do so, investigators require a model that incorporates research
with empirical experience to differentiate honesty from deception.
They can use an alternative paradigm for detecting deception based on four critical domains:
- comfort/discomfort
- emphasis
- synchrony
- perception management.
Comfort/Discomfort
Comfort is readily apparent in conversations with family members and friends. People sense when others have a good time and when they feel comfortable in their presence. Experiencing comfort in the presence of strangers becomes more difficult, especially in stressful situations, such as during an interview. A person’s level of comfort or discomfort is one of the most important clues interviewers should focus on when trying to establish veracity. Tension and distress most often manifest upon guilty people who must carry the knowledge of their crimes with them. Attempting to disguise their guilt places a distressing cognitive load on them as they struggle to fabricate answers to what otherwise would be simple questions.
When comfortable, an individual’s nonverbal behavior tends to mirror the other person present. For example, if one person leans forward, the other tends to do so as well. Or, if one leans to the side with hands in pockets and feet
crossed, the other person may do the same. Subconsciously, people demonstrate their comfort with whom they are talking. When touched, people may touch back to emphasize a point. Some may display their comfort more openly, such as showing more of their torso and the insides of their arms and legs. People who speak the truth more often display comfort because they have no stress to conceal nor do they have guilty knowledge to make them feel uncomfortable.
While seated at a table, people comfortable with each other will move objects aside so that nothing blocks their view. Over time, they may draw closer so that they do not have to talk as loud, and their breathing rhythm, tone of speech, pitch, and general demeanor will become similar.
Subtleties of comfort contrast with discomfort. People show discomfort when they do not like what is happening to them, what they are seeing or hearing, or when others compel them to talk about things that they would prefer to keep hidden. People first display discomfort physiologically—heart rates quicken, hairs stand up, perspiration increases, and breathing becomes faster. Beyond the physiological responses, which are autonomic and require very little thinking, people primarily manifest
discomfort nonverbally instead of vocally. They tend to move their bodies by rearranging themselves, jiggling their feet, fidgeting, or drumming their fingers when scared, nervous, or significantly uncomfortable.
If, while the interviewer remains relaxed and poised, the interviewee continually looks at the clock, sits tensely, or does not move (“flash frozen”), the interviewer may discern a lack of comfort even though everything may appear normal to the untrained eye.
Interviewees show discomfort when they repeatedly talk about finalizing the interview or when disruptions appeal to them. People tend to distance themselves from those with whom they feel uncomfortable. Even while sitting side by side, people will lean away from those with whom they feel uncomfortable, often moving either their torsos or their feet away or toward an exit, which nonverbally exhibits displeasure.
These actions can occur in interviews due to the subject matter discussed. Likewise, people create artificial barriers with either their shoulders and arms or with inanimate objects in front of them. For example, by the end of one interview, a very uncomfortable and dishonest interviewee had built a little barrier in front of himself using soda cans, pencil holders, and various documents, ultimately planting a backpack on the table between himself and the interviewer. At the time, the interviewer did notrecognize the subject’s obvious intent of creating a barrier.
Other clear signs of discomfort include rubbing the forehead near the temple region, squeezing the face, rubbing the neck, or stroking the back of the head with the hand.
Interviewees often will show their displeasure by rolling their eyes out of disrespect; picking lint off themselves (preening); talking down to the interviewer; giving short answers; becoming resistant, hostile, or sarcastic; or displaying “micro gestures” with indecent connotations, such as “giving the finger.”
Eyes also serve as formidable communicators of discomfort, yet investigators often ignore them during interviews. People use their eyes as a blocking mechanism similar to folding their arms across their chest or turning away from those with whom they disagree. In a similar response, when people do not like something they hear, they usually close their eyes as if to block out what they just heard. They do this subconsciously and so often that others do not pay attention to it in day-to-day affairs. People may close their eyes before touching or rubbing them as if to further block or relieve themselves of what they just heard. Interviewers can capitalize on this behavior by noting when interviewees block with their eyes. This may point to questions that trouble the subject or to issues with which they are struggling. In most cases, eye blocking proves extremely accurate in highlighting issues problematic to the interviewee.
Additionally, when people feel troubled or frustrated or they have a subdued temper tantrum, their eyelids may close or flutter rapidly as an expression of their sentiment.
Research also has shown that when people are nervous or troubled, their blink rate increases, a phenomenon often seen with liars under stress.
In one case where investigators closely videotaped the interviewee, observers in another room catalogued the subject’s blink rate increase from 27 times per minute to 84 times a minute during stressful questions. Investigators should consider all of the eye manifestations that fall under the comfort/discomfort domain as powerful clues to how subjects register information or what questions prove problematic.
When interpreting eye contact, however, many misconceptions still exist. Little or no eye contact is perceived erroneously by some as a classic sign of deception, especially during questioning, while the truthful should “lock eyes.” This may be accurate for some but not for all. For instance, research shows that Machiavellian people actually will increase eye contact during deception.
This may occur because they know that many interviewers look for this feature. Also, some people learned to look down or away from parental authority as a
form of respect when questioned or scolded. Investigators should remain aware of changes in eye contact and eye behavior during interviews. They should establish the interviewee’s default pattern of eye behavior during benign questioning then look for changes or indicators of discomfort as the interview progresses, which often gives clues to deception.
Sources
Fred E. Inbau and et. al., Criminal
Interrogation and Confessions, 4th ed.
(Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc.,
2001), ix.
Charles V. Ford, Lies! Lies! Lies!: The
Psychology of Deceit (Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Press, Inc., 1996), 200.
Ibid., 217.
B.M. DePaulo, J.I. Stone, and G.D.
Lassiter, Deceiving and Detecting Deceit, in
The Self and Social Life, edited by B.R.
Schlender, (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill,
1985), 323-370.
Mark L. Knapp and Judith A. Hall,
Nonverbal Communication in Human
Interaction, 3d ed. (Orlando, FL: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, College Publishers, 1997), 277.
Paul Ekman, Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit
in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage
(New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co., 1985),
185.
Gavin De Becker, The Gift of Fear (New
York, NY: Dell Publishing, 1997), 133.
David G. Givens, The Nonverbal
Dictionary of Gestures, Signs & Body
Language Cues (Spokane, WA: Center for
Nonverbal Studies, 1998-2002); http://
members.aol.com/nonverbal2/diction1.htm
Joe Navarro and John R. Schafer,
“Detecting Deception,” FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin, July 2001, 10.
“Suggesting the principles of conduct laid
down by Machiavelli; specifically marked by
cunning, duplicity, or bad faith,” Merriam
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., s.v.
“Machiavellian.”
R.E. Exline, J. Thibaut, C.B. Hickey, and
P. Gumpert, Visual Interaction in Relation to
Machiavellianism and an Unethical Act, in R.
Christie and F.L. Geis (eds.), Studies in
Machiavellianism (New York, NY: Academic
Press, 1970).
Joe Navarro has a new book releasing soon, preorder it today, Louder Than Words: Take Your Career from Average to Exceptional with the Hidden Power of Nonverbal Intelligence
Join us tomorrow when we explore the second domain...◦
Friday, January 8, 2010
Truth or Consequences: Training Police to Lie
Written by Guest Contributor Valerie Van Brocklin.
Police lie. It's a regular part of their job. They lie to suspects and others in hopes of obtaining evidence. These investigative lies cover a wide range of deception -- a range that can get murky. Some investigative lies are legal, some are not, and some generate significant disagreement amongst courts, the public, and even officers themselves.
There are serious consequences here. Officers can
• Be sanctioned by the courts
• Have to defend against a lawsuit
• Be disciplined in the job
• Lose the public confidence
• Have evidence suppressed, a case dismissed and a criminal freed.
Are we properly preparing officers for the potentially career and case-ending decisions they face in this arena? Hardly. Read on to begin to change that. Proper training in this complex arena is critical.
Not All Lies Are Created Equal
Effective interrogation of a suspect nearly always involves a lie – expressed or implied. That lie is that it's in a suspect's best interest to talk to police and confess without an attorney present. It's not. A completely truthful officer would tell suspects this. A completely truthful officer would also find confessions extremely rare.1 And confessions, as Martha Stewart would say, are a good thing. Just ask the Supreme Court -- “Admissions of guilt are more than merely ‘desirable,' they are essential to society's compelling interest in finding, convicting and punishing those who violate the law.” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte , 412 U.S. 218, 225 (1973).
But just as important, “The police must obey the law while enforcing the law.” Spano v. New York , 360 U.S. 315, 320 (1959). So, what's the law when it comes to police lying to suspects to get confessions? Courts agree due process requires that confessions be voluntary. That means they can't be coerced. And courts agree coercion can be psychological as well as physical. Finally, courts across the land pretty much agree they'll decide whether the confession was voluntary or coerced based on a “totality of the circumstances.” Those circumstances can include such things as:
• Police conduct – what officers say and do and how they say and do it.
• The environment – are police questioning the suspect in a 6' X 8' windowless, stuffy room with Spartan furnishings where they stand between him and the only exit?
• The suspect's age and mental status.
• The length of the interrogation and whether police offer refreshment, bathroom or other breaks.
• Etc. – anything else that bears on the coercive nature, or not, of the interrogation.
One Person's Lie May Be Another's Coercion
Now that we have the basics on the law, we should all be able to agree on what deception is legal and what isn't, right? Let's see. You work the following case and we'll compare results.
Seventeen-year-old Deborah Margolin was brutally murdered. According to her brothers, she was sitting on the porch of her rural home when a stranger drove up and told her a calf was loose at the bottom of the driveway. Deborah went to get the animal – and never returned. Later the same day, her father found her mutilated body face down in a creek.
When you and other officers arrive, Deborah's brothers describe the stranger and his vehicle. You recall that Miller lives nearby, and he and his car match the descriptions. Miller has been previously convicted of a sex offense and arrested for statutory rape.
That night, you and another officer question Miller at his job. He agrees to accompany you to the station for further questioning. He's taken into an interrogation room and read his rights, which he waives. The interrogation is taped, so its circumstances are not in dispute. (This is an excellent reason to tape suspect interrogations.)
It's clear that you, the interviewing detective, make no threats and engage in no physical coercion. On the contrary, you assume a friendly, understanding manner (itself deceptive, que no? ) and speak in a soft tone of voice. You also give Miller certain information, some of which is false. You initially tell Miller Deborah is still alive. Later you say she has just died. In fact, she was found dead many hours earlier. Throughout the interview, you emphasize that whoever committed such a crime has mental problems and is desperately in need of psychological treatment. You tell Miller you believe he committed the crime and then you present yourself as a friend who wants to help if he'll just unburden himself. You state several times that Miller is not a criminal who should be punished but a sick individual who should receive help. One hour into the interview Miller confesses, then collapses, and is taken to the hospital.
This is a real case – Miller v. Fenton , 796 F.2d 598 (3 rd Cir. 1986). Do you think the brutal murder and the investigation were getting any media attention and public interest?
Before trial, Miller moved to suppress his confession on the grounds the detective's method of interrogation constituted psychological manipulation of such magnitude that it rendered his confession involuntary. The trial court denied the defense motion and Miller was convicted at a trial in which his confession was admitted.
End of story, justice prevails, right? Not quite. Miller appealed his conviction, arguing the same thing. And the 3-judge appellate court? They unanimously reversed the conviction. Based on the same facts, they rule the detective engaged in deceptive coercion that “shocked the conscience” and violated due process. End of story?
Not yet. The state supreme court reinstated the conviction -- but only by the hair's breadth of a 4:3 split decision. After that, Miller took his appeal through federal district court and the United States Supreme Court, and had his conviction affirmed on procedural grounds with neither federal court addressing whether the police conduct was unlawfully deceptive.
The moral of this agonizingly long story? Courts are judges, judges are lawyers – and “you can't get two lawyers to agree to kill a rat in a bathtub.”2 This is a complex arena officers must enter every day. An arena that even judges on the same court, looking at the same facts and applying the same law – with the benefit of briefs, the arguments of counsel and the assistance of law clerks -- disagree on.
And what are the possible consequences for officers if they get it “wrong” (that is, a court later disagrees with them) in the crucible of a high profile investigation of a horrific crime?
• The confession may be suppressed, along with any “fruits of the poisonous tree.”
• The case may be dismissed if there is insufficient evidence without the suppressed evidence.
• The officer and, by extension, the entire department may face public condemnation and the censure of the court in a written opinion. (Recall that the 3-judge appellate court in Miller wrote that the police deception “shocked the conscience.”)
• If the case is high profile and politically hot enough, officers may face job discipline over their use of deception, even if they cleared it with the local prosecutor ahead of time. (Just ask the FBI agents who questioned Richard Jewel in the Atlanta Olympics bombing case.)
Courts Agree to Disagree
To delve further into the arena in which officers find themselves, let's look at a few other court rulings. In State v. Cayward , 552 So. 2d 971 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1989) , police interviewed a 19-year-old suspect in the rape and murder of his 5-year-old niece. Prior to the interview, police checked with the local prosecutor who said it was lawful for them to falsely tell the suspect they'd had the victim's underwear scientifically tested and the results showed semen stains on it from him -- and to show him a false lab report of the results. The suspect came to the station voluntarily, waived his Miranda rights, and consistently denied any involvement during two hours of interview.
Police then told him about the test results and showed him two made up reports – one on a lab form and one on a police department form. The suspect confessed. We all know that isn't the end of the story. The Florida appellate court suppressed the confession. The court held the verbal lie was lawful but false physical reports of the lie violated due process. Notably, the court seemed much more concerned that such reports could inadvertently make their way into court records and be mistakenly viewed as true than with the coercive effect of the reports on the defendant. End of story on showing false documents to suspects? Not by a long shot. Remember judges are lawyers and …, well, you know.
In Arthur v. Commonwealth , 480 S.E. 2d 749 (Va. 1997), the Virginia Court of Appeals held that police showing a suspect “dummy” reports indicating his fingerprints and hair were found at the crime scene did not violate due process. The court addressed the Cayward court's concern by noting the police kept the false documents in a separate file from the actual investigative and lab reports.
In Sheriff, Washoe Co. v. Bessey, 914 P. 2d 618 (Nev. 1996), the Nevada Supreme Court criticized Cayward' s distinction between a verbal lie by police and one “embodied in a piece of paper” and concluded there was no real difference. The court upheld police creating a “falsified lab report” showing a defendant had committed a sexual assault against a minor, stating, “[T]here was nothing about the fabricated document presented in this case which would have produced a false confession.” The Nevada court seems to say that due process is violated only if the police deception would coerce an innocent person into confessing.
And in People v. Henry , 518 N.Y.S.2d 44 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987), the court upheld a confession obtained after police confronted the defendant with fake polygraph test results indicating he had lied to police. Moreover, in State v. Whittington, 809 A. 2d 721 (Md. App. 2002), police placed an invisible powder on a pen they gave to the suspect so when they later conducted a fake gunpowder residue test, it appeared to her she still had gunpowder on her hand. The court found this deception did not violate due process.
Still other courts have sided with the Cayward decision and reversed convictions based upon confessions obtained after the police presented fabricated evidence to the defendant. In State v. Patton, 362 N.J. Super. 16 (App. Div.) (2003), an officer, posing as an eyewitness, was “interviewed” on an audiotape that was later played to the defendant who, despite his early denials of involvement, confessed upon hearing the tape. Both the confession and the false tape were admitted at trial. The subsequent conviction was reversed on appeal.
If Things Weren't Complicated Enough
If courts not being able to agree to kill a rat in a bathtub didn't make life complicated enough, can lying as a regular part of the job affect officers? I've asked officers that question nation-wide. My favorite answer came from a Wisconsin officer, who replied, “Yeah, hopefully I've gotten better at it.” As to the ethical and legal use of investigative lies, hopefully officers do become more skilled. But do you know officers who have been affected in other ways by the lying they do? How? Here's what some experts say about the potential impact of police lying: 
We Must Ask
With all that is at stake for individual officers, departments, and the public in the use of investigative lies to apprehend dangerous criminals, with the courts not even agreeing what police conduct is lawful in this area, are we properly preparing officers to lie lawfully? Are we properly preparing them for the psychological slippery slope that lying as a regular part of the job can place them on? How many departments provide adequate, if any, training in this high stakes area of police work? How many departments or agencies have any guiding policies or procedures?
What We Can Do
First and foremost, we have to train officers in the ethical and lawful use of police deception. We have to train them on Supreme Court case law and the controlling cases and laws of their jurisdiction. This article barely scratches that surface. Despite the grim picture of courts disagreeing, there are basic agreements and parameters amongst courts within officers' jurisdictions that can provide guidance and these cases can form the basis of scenarios for training.
Next, we must provide officers scenario-based training in the use of such deception. These scenarios must:
• Develop officers' knowledge and mastery of the circumstances courts look at to determine whether police deception violates due process.
• Lead officers to devise lawful deceptions and to apply them non-coercively in various combined circumstances.
• Increasingly raise the stakes, make officers aware of the potentially corrosive effect of regularly lying, and give them specific strategies for protecting against such corrosive effect.
This training need is greatest for veteran officers, who are most likely to use deception in investigations and are most subject to its cumulative effect.
Third, the profession should address whether to develop policies and procedures for officers' use of deception. Policing has seen the need for such guidelines in the use of force and high-speed pursuits. The stakes for officers, departments and the public can be just as high in this arena. Such procedures might consider:
• Should investigative lies be used only if other means of gathering evidence have been unsuccessful or the officer can articulate that such means would be futile?
• Should officers have to obtain approval or a second opinion before using deception?
• Should the procedures be the same for deception used with a suspect as a witness?
• Should officers have to complete training before using deception?
• If taping of suspect interviews is not already required, should it be whenever deception is used?
If policies and procedures are adopted, they must be broad enough to provide officers with lawful flexibility and discretion in fighting crime but specific enough to ensure that if they are followed, officers can expect the full support of their departments. In a recent web cast on this topic, officers across the nation were asked,
If you were investigating a serious, high profile case and you made an ethically and legally tough decision to use an investigative lie that the media and public had a strong negative reaction to afterwards -- do you believe your department's leadership would support you?
Nearly two out of three – or 64% of respondents -- believed their departments would not support them. 3
Which leads to a final thing the profession must do – support officers in this complex arena. Oscar Wilde said, “The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” If an officer has followed procedures, or in their absence has made a tough but ethical decision, and the media, the public or a court later disagree on its legality, departments should support the officer. Remember, courts don't even agree on this stuff and they have attorneys and law clerks briefing it for them before they have to decide. We can acknowledge the court's or public's opinion, we can respect the disagreement -- and still support the officer's decision. That support must include training officers before they are confronted with these complex decisions and their high stakes consequences.
1 Laurie Magid, Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far Is Too Far, 99 Mich. L. Rev. 1168, 1198-99 (2001).
2 Karl S. Johnstone, Superior Court Judge, Retired.
3 This webcast is archived on www.officer.com .
Described by Caliber Press as “ the indisputable master of enter~ train ~ment,” Val Van Brocklin is an internationally acclaimed speaker and noted author. She combines a dynamic presentation style with over 10 years experience as a prosecutor where her trial work received national media attention on ABC'S PRIMETIME LIVE , the Discovery Channel's Justice Files , in USA Today , The National Enquirer and REDBOOK. Visit her website: www.valvanbrocklin.com.◦
Monday, January 4, 2010
Don't Talk to Cops
Someone was kind enough to include links to these videos in the comment section of a previous post.
I'd never want to teach criminals get away with crimes, and that is not what these videos are about; the second video is golden- but you need to watch the first video to understand it completely.
◦
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
"Meaning?"
Any time you are asking a question of someone else and you want more information simply ask, "Meaning?"
"Meaning?" is a great way to illicit more information concerning the subject just spoken about. It is a fishing question.
Perhaps you are interviewing an applicant and they say, "My old boss and I had a great relationship."
"Meaning?"
Or you are interviewing someone who saw a shooting and they say, "Yeah that guy was bouncing up and down as he was yelling and then I heard a gunshot."
"Meaning?" at which point the witness may describe the guys behavior or may start talking more about who shot who.
When do you say "meaning?" It doesn't have to fit the situation, they will automatically feel the need to keep talking- regardless of what they just said.
"Looks like it is going to rain."
"Meaning?"
It is used best if the person has just stated a fact that does not necessary have anything to do with the current situation- extraneous information.◦
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Spotting Lies: Listen, Don't Look
New research culls fact from fiction by telling cops to focus on what people say, not what they do, listen to this npr story.◦
Friday, September 25, 2009
Draw Me a Picture of the Murder Scene
We've looked at statements from suspects, interviewed and interrogated them, but have we asked them to draw us a picture?
Maybe we should according to leading lie researchers in the Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology, in an article titled, 'Drawings as an Innovative and Successful Lie Detection Tool.'
Researchers hypothesized that several tendencies would become evident in the scribbles and sketches of liars not found in those of non-liars. For instance, they suspected that liars, when asked to sketch out the particulars of a location where they hadn’t really been to meet someone they hadn’t really met, would provide less detail in their drawings. They also suspected that the drawing would seem less plausible overall, and would not include a depiction of the person they allegedly met.
Finally, they hypothesized that non-liars would use a “shoulder-camera” perspective to draw the situation – a direct, line-of-sight view that previous research suggests is more indicative of truth telling. Liars, they suspected, would use an “overhead-camera” perspective, indicating a sense of detachment from the situation.
Then they set up an elaborate "spy mission" where they were to meet someone. They orchestrated the mission where, at the end, half would have to lie and half would tell the truth.
Then they asked them:
"Draw the particulars of their experience."
What they found was:
Interestingly, significantly more truth tellers included the “agent” (other person in the situation) in their drawings than did liars (80% vs. 13%).
In addition, significantly more truth tellers drew from a shoulder-camera view than liars, who by in large drew from an overhead view (53% vs. 19%).
In verbal statements, more truth tellers also mentioned the agent (53%) than liars (19%).
Using the “sketching the agent” result alone, it was possible to identify 80% of the truth tellers and 87% of the liars – results superior to most traditional interview techniques.
The main reason drawing seems to be effective in identifying liars is that they have less time to work out the details. Someone who is telling the truth already has a visual image of where they were and what happened, but liars have to manufacture the details. It’s easier to concoct something verbally than to first visualize and then create it on paper.
Source: Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., Warmelink, L., Granhag, P., & Fisher, R. (2009). Drawings as an Innovative and Successful Lie Detection Tool Applied Cognitive Psychology DOI:◦
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Extraneous Information
Whenever you notice extraneous information be on alert!!! No matter if you are a 911 operator or a manager attempting to get to the bottom of who screwed up. YOU DO NOT WANT TO END UP THE DUNCE.
Did you know in one study, 96 percent of the 911 homicide callers that were eventually found guilty of the offense- the call contained extraneous information.
People add extraneous information to appear to be open to talking about matters, to appear to have more information that is credible, are leaking what really happened in an indirect way, or out of nervousness.
If you are hearing extraneous information- note if they are attempting to divert attention, indirectly leaking the truth, accounting for time, or giving you an previously unknown clue or area of concern. Investigate.◦
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
A Great New Interrogation Show in Development at the A & E Network!
If you've seen First 48, After the First 48, Crime 360
Cold Case Files, Man Hunters, Dog the Bounty Hunter....
You know A & E has got the "best" real crime shows.
They currently are working with the Nebraska State Patrol and will also be working with police departments across the country.
Live interrogations ...
Real interrogations ...
Hot interrogations ...
Homicides, Robberies, Auto Theft, Fraud
Arsons, Rapes, Gang Crimes, Cold Cases...
They will have them all....!
More information to follow!!!◦
Monday, September 7, 2009
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
You Are Suspious... How to ask the questions.
Okay, you suspect something. Something bad. You want to tear apart the telephone book. What should you do?
1) Do not attack with something like, "Are you cheating on me?"
You need to learn the art of gaining information without the other person knowing you are on an intelligence mission.
If you would ask straight out, "Are you cheating on me?" the other person is immediately on the defensive, and you'll get nowhere.
2) Ask a question where you could get either:
- A casual answer which means nothing has occurred,
- Or some sort of defensive answer, or some sort of nonverbal clue that he/she knows what you are getting at.
In the above example, let's say your boyfriend went out with some friends and did not come home until the next day. You tried his phone only a couple of times(hopefully) and now instead of asking "Are you cheating on me?" let's look at some questions you could ask:
- Did you have fun last night?
- Where did you end up sleeping?
- Did everybody crash there?
- Did you get any sleep last night?
NOTE: It is critical that you maintain control of your voice and ask the questions without an accusatory tone.
So you get a casual answer to one of the questions above, "Really?"
A well placed "Really?" is a great way to get a read on the non verbals and is not a direct confrontation.
It is not always easy, but is made easier if you think carefully how to approach the conversation.◦
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Practiced Liars
The most difficult group of people to detect lying from is career criminals; in a funny twist of fate they are also the best at detecting lies (without training).
Why is this?
Practiced liars, the people who lie every day, the nonverbal effects of deception simply wear off. It is where the phrase comes from, "You were living you life as a lie."
Think of the unfaithful husband who carries on an affair for years or decades, from the first day it started he was living a lie. As time moved on, it became easier for him to tell the lies he told to maintain his double life.
Con men do not simply snap and start stealing. They start small, and as lying becomes more practiced, it becomes easier, and more profitable.
The same goes for the spy or agent who first receives deceit training, then they develop and hone those skills.
What does this mean for us? Well the first lesson is it is better to catch them early on in their lie. Secondly, we need to continue to develop our skills and technologies.◦
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Lying and Contractions, what's the function...
School House Rock didn't cover contractions- they did conjunctions instead- too bad because contractions can tell us so much more when we are looking for LYING.
Take a look at these two sentences:
"I did not do it!" or "I didn't do it!"
Which one is more likely to be truthful?
Police and interviewers have long known this rule: Statistically, 60% of the people that use contractions are being truthful. The guilty want to make the NOT stand out. Thou does protest too loudly.
When I analyze transcripts of depositions and interviews using Linguistic Software this is one of the items the program pings on.◦
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
"You know I'd never do something that terrible to another human being."
If you get an answer like the above headline, to a question like, "Did you steal that old woman's purse?" You've got someone trying to pull your leg...
It is saying your too good to do that sort of thing. It is avoiding the direct question with an indirect answer. It takes the human element out of the question. The answer is distancing from the actual crime. Whenever someone abstractly denies wrong doing and they are taking the "high road" you are dealing with a liar.
Here is another one along the same lines, "Did you cheat on me with Linda?"
"I could never do something so wrong in the eyes of God..."
(whenever someone uses God be on the lookout, that is another sign, more on that in another post.)
Here is another example from the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin:
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,The , July, 2001 by Joe Navarro, John R. Schafer
"The young mother leaned back and cleared her throat. Her eyes teared and her voice quivered as she explained how her baby disappeared. Her clasped hands trembled slightly and her feet pointed toward the door. Her demeanor appeared too subdued. Reluctant to call the mother a liar, the investigator asked her if she had a reason to lie. She answered, "I never lie. My mother taught me always to tell the truth." The investigator had seen and heard enough--he asked the woman to take a polygraph examination. During the postpolygraph interview, the woman confessed that she had suffocated her baby. Both her verbal and nonverbal behaviors had revealed the gruesome truth."◦
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Touching of the Mouth and Ears while Listening?
I was watching a couple of back to back episodes of "The First 48 hours" (on A&E) and it is a good show to watch regularly if you are interested in this web site- there is at least 10 minutes of real life interrogation videos in each show.
What was different about the episodes last night was the camera wasn't mounted on the wall near the ceiling, but instead they had a camera in the room so the suspect and the interviewer could been seen just as good.
A couple of times I wanted to scream at the interviewer because they were making some big mistakes with their body language.
When I teach television reporters to interview I tell them you have to "show" the right reaction to get the best results. Sometimes you must present yourself in the most non judgmental way; in fact you have to build trust by becoming a chameleon so you are on their "wave length." You have to be in that mode 90-95% of the time when doing the interview, and save the other 5-10% when you really need it to get your information.
When we are listening and we are hearing something we do not like, subconsciously we might touch or even cover our ears. I can spot this from across a crowded restaurant, and when I see some printed materials on the table I know someone is being sold some insurance or is trying to get someone to switch banks/brokers/etc. Remember this, it is a big clue when evaluating your listeners.
When we cover our mouths while listening, it is saying we do not want to talk now. This is something that is being taught and is becoming widely known and used.
Bask to the shows last night. One investigator was getting a cold blooded confession. The investigator was tugging on their ear at the beginning of every sentence, moving forward in their seat (because they were excited because of such a clear cut home run of a confession) and was to quick to cover their mouth after asking the question. It was a melody and mix of lack of control by the investigator that was sending the wrong message. It became an unnatural conversation. It was like getting a good hand in poker and letting everybody know by starting to dance with your feet under the table. It was complicated by the tone of their questions, it was judgemental giving the impression that they were going to pounce with an old fashion parental scolding. They didn't ask themselves why am I getting things so good. The confessor actually smiled as the detective left the room. Mission Accomplished.
What should have happened is this: never tug at your ear when interviewing someone for television or because they are a suspect in a crime. Do not lean forward or back in a chair unless it is to make some sort of point. Cover your mouth only when you need to - when you need to send a clear signal I'm going to let you talk now, don't do it when they are babbling like a brook. It was done so fast you could be sending the signal to NOT talk- it can be interrupted like a signal you might get from a parent when you start to ask Aunt Jenny why she has hair on her upper lip- catch those words and put them back in your mouth. If someone is giving you information so freely that could send them to prison for the rest of their life, or even the death penalty, you have to ask yourself why. Why are they making my job as a detective so easy? I've already got to what I need to convict, perhaps I should should change the pace and tone of the conversation so we can get back to our normal roles as detective and criminal to see what is lurking below the surface.
There were two people involved in killing two people and almost killing another. Two of the victims were women who were tied up and duct taped was placed over their mouth and eyes, they were shot execution style. Thankfully one lived. The other one that was killed was involved in the drug trade and a contract was put out on his life. The confessor said he shot the drug dealer in his driveway, while his friend shot the girls in the house. He was probably being untruthful about some if not all of the story. He was distancing himself from the killings that were senseless and could carry the stiffest of penalties with any jury. What type of situation are you in when your best "play" is to confess to shooting a guy three times in the driveway?!?!
The detective got the confession without any techniques, simply something like this was said at the beginning of the interview, 'So you know two people were killed up there... and one lived, tell me what you know about it?'
I don't know the end result. I do know people are going to prison given the confessions and evidence, and sometimes that is enough... but I just feel uneasy unless I have the complete and real truth.
The First 48 Hours web site◦
Posts
