Interrogations and Confessions
CID, OSI, NCIS, and other military investigators dedicate a tremendous amount of time and money in an effort to get "confessions." They are taught that if they can get a suspect to "confess" to something, then they are almost guaranteed a Federal conviction and a guilty plea at a court martial. If you are suspected of a crime, demand a lawyer when contacted by investigators or your command.
Many military personnel agree to speak with investigators and make sworn statements, only to later learn that they were tricked or mislead into making incriminating statements. In a court martial, prosecutors and investigators will twist your words in an attempt to convict. In many situations, an experienced defense lawyer can fight the charges at a court martial, even when there is a "confession."
False and misleading "confessions" exist. Military investigators are taught that false confessions are real and that they commonly occur if interrogation tactics are misused. Although their field manual encourages them to record interrogations, investigators rarely video or audiotape interrogations. Why? Because they do not want the judge and jury to see their questionable tactics. On the witness stand, investigators will often deny that false confessions exist unless properly confronted by an aggressive lawyer that is familiar with their tactics. Investigators will tell the jury that it is not their policy to record interrogations. This is a lie. The Army CID investigative field manual states "videotaping all interrogations should be strongly considered as an investigative tool when practical."
Michael Waddington is an expert at challenging statements made to CID, NCIS, OSI, and other investigators. He knows and possesses their field manuals, classroom training materials, and Power Point lectures. Knowing their techniques is critical to challenging their interrogation techniques and their "confessions."
Below are excerpts from the Army CID Interrogation Field Manual.
Interviews and Interrogations
Interviews and interrogations are an investigator's means of obtaining testimonial evidence from or about persons connected with an incident. Interviewing skills are among the most basic and essential tools at an investigator's disposal. Although extensive investigations may reveal extremely incriminating physical evidence that will certainly lead to a conviction, there is only one way to ever truly know the full extent of the criminal acts committed by an individual. In almost all cases, the only place from which all of the answers can be obtained is from the person who committed the offenses.
An interrogation needs to be strictly planned and controlled. An interrogation should rarely, if ever, be conducted in a suspect-supportive environment. The location selected for an interrogation should be supportive to the interrogator and provide absolute privacy (free from distraction or disruption). Interrogation rooms should not be equipped with phones, outside windows, wall ornamentation, and so forth. In addition to these requirements, the room should be strategically arranged to ensure the most practical and conducive environment. If the room is equipped with a two-way mirror, the suspect should not face directly toward it. This serves as a constant reminder that someone may be monitoring the interview from another room and allows the interviewee to become distracted by his own reflection.
Trickery and Deceit
The use of trickery, deceit, ploys, and lying is legally permissible during the course of an interrogation under the following conditions. However, no form of trickery or deceit may be used to gain a knowing and voluntary waiver of legal rights, and no such lies, ploys, trickery, or deceit can be of a nature to shock the conscience of society or to cause an otherwise innocent person to confess. For instance, threatening a mother with the loss of her children may likely cause her to choose her children over the truth and consequently confess even if she is not guilty.
Conversely, it would be permissible to tell a suspect that his fingerprints were found on evidence or that a witness observed him at the scene because an innocent person would know that he was not there and refute the statement, whereas a guilty person may feel trapped by the overwhelming evidence and confess.
Rather than telling the suspect that his fingerprints were found on an item of evidence, the investigator should consider telling the suspect, "We have recovered several latent fingerprint impressions from the crime scene, and I am going to send them to the lab with your record fingerprints." Remind the suspect that he may find it very difficult to explain how his fingerprints were discovered at the scene if he continues to insist that he was never there.
Presenting potential evidence to cause a positive reaction from the suspect works well for many different situations. For example, reminding a suspect that a parking lot or store is equipped with surveillance cameras may cause him to believe he was recorded on tape. If the investigator does not know if the location was equipped with cameras, he can send another investigator to check. He can then tell the suspect that he just sent someone over to obtain any videotapes that may exist. Although the investigator does not know whether or not this evidence exists, he presents the potential for the recovery of evidence that will link the suspect to the crime.
In just about any situation where an investigator can develop a lie to apply evidentiary pressure to a suspect, he can just as easily identify potential evidence to apply the same pressure without lying. If challenged in court, the investigator can explain potential evidence to a panel without losing credibility, but it is difficult to explain deceit and lying as a "legitimate" interrogation technique without losing credibility.
Selection of an Interview or Interrogation Style
Direct Style
The direct style of interviewing is designed to prevent the suspect from getting entrenched in a lie, which will make getting to the truth more difficult. In this style, the investigator tries to maintain an atmosphere of monologue. The investigator lays out case facts. He works on the emotions, logic, and reasoning of the suspect in an attempt to get him to see his situation in a more realistic light, without enabling him to build a wall of lies. This style of interviewing is very structured and should be well-planned before initiating the interrogation. In addition to providing case facts to the suspect to make him feel he was identified as the person responsible for the crime, the investigator must decide what evidence will be withheld from the suspect to identify or corroborate admissions or confessions. In order for this style to work effectively, the investigator must present no uncertainty as to the suspect's guilt, but he should seem relatively uncertain as to motivation. If the investigator seems uncertain, the suspect will be significantly more likely to hold out hope that his involvement in the crime will go undetected.
Caution should be used when employing this style with weak-minded individuals or people with a less than average intelligence quotient (IQ) because they are more susceptible to rendering false confessions. Safeguards must be used to ensure that confessions are the result of guilt, not mental fatigue. All investigators conducting interrogations should ensure that a suspect who confesses is able to provide information he would not otherwise know unless he was involved in the commission of the crime. Investigators should also ensure that investigative personnel did not provide the information in the suspect's confession. Additionally, when an investigator suspects that an interviewee is making admissions merely to stop the interview process, he should consider providing information that is not true to see if the suspect incorporates this information into his statement. If a suspect attempts to incorporate this information into his statement, the investigator should recognize the propensity of the individual to accept responsibility for the things he did not do and should implement strong safeguards to prevent false confessions.
Observation of Behavior (Verbal and Nonverbal)
Interviewers observe verbal and nonverbal responses to recognize whether an individual is being truthful or deceptive. The nonverbal responses will either compliment or contradict the verbal response. Although an individual may provide verbal responses to direct questions, as much as 70 percent of all communication takes place at the nonverbal level. Through a comparison of the two, investigators are much more successful in determining if an individual is attempting to deceive them. Because nonverbal responses are typically generated at a subconscious level, they are more reliable than the spoken word. Observation and active listening will assist in determining if the interviewee is being truthful or deceptive. Very few people are so adept at lying that they can control both their verbal and nonverbal responses.
Verbal Indicators of Deception
Signs of verbal deception include the following:
Normally, an innocent person will use realistic terms such as rape, robbery, and murder. A guilty person will generally avoid harsh terms and use more socially acceptable terms, such as had sex, took, or died when discussing alleged offenses.
Vocal characteristics.
A non deceptive person will normally have a clear, steady voice and will remain this way regardless of the stress applied during the interview process. His vocal characteristics will be consistent with and support what he is saying is saying verbally. A guilty person tends to lose this quality and clarity when responding to questions that cause him to lie. His voice may change pitch or waver, and the speed of his response is usually drawn out as he takes additional time to formulate his response. Anticipate follow-up questions and look for consistency in their story. Once he has developed his response, he may speed up his responses, displaying confidence in his answer.
Interrogation Process
Establishing and maintaining effective rapport with suspects during an interrogation is instrumental in obtaining their cooperation and getting them to expose facts they would not otherwise feel comfortable disclosing.
Approaches
Various approach methods are used in interrogation. The following paragraphs discuss the different types of approach.
Flattery
One approach is to use flattery. This is used to build self-esteem within the suspect or feed his ego. It is accomplished by making favorable observations, telling the suspect positive things that his command, friends, or loved ones said about him. By complimenting his appearance, prior positive conduct, character, patriotism, or other attributes, the investigator makes the suspect feel better about himself. As long as this approach is delivered with sincerity, it will help the investigator build and maintain rapport and a sense of mutual trust and respect. After a suspect makes an admission, he may feel depressed or uncertain that this was a good course of action. The use of flattery at this point helps reinforce his decision to be honest and enables him to continue telling the truth. The subject knows he did something wrong and he does not need condemnation for his actions. He just needs understanding and respect. Flattery can help him maintain his self-respect, ease inner turmoil, and maintain a positive interview environment.
Suspect versus suspect
When investigating a crime involving more than one suspect, it is often effective to pit the suspects against each other. Seat the suspects where they can see each other through the door to the interview room, but where they cannot communicate. When a suspect realizes that other possible suspects to the crime have been identified and are also being interviewed, he will likely realize that the evidence against him is mounting and that another suspect may attempt to place himself in the best light by attributing the greater responsibility to one of the other suspects. This approach can have a dramatic psychological impact on a suspect and compel him to relate his story first in order to cast himself in the most credible and understandable situation possible.
Sympathy
This technique is designed to let the suspect know that the investigator understands what he did and why he did it. However, the investigator should be careful not to condone or condemn the offense, merely to understand the suspect's emotional state. To some extent, people want pity and understanding. The investigator should try to truly understand the suspect's motivation and emotional state, which will allow him to show sympathy and sincerity when talking to the suspect. The suspect will quickly identify attempts at sympathy that are void of sincerity as hollow words, resulting in more of an obstacle than a tool.
Cold Shoulder
This approach is used best on an egotistical individual after a lot of flattery. After building up the suspect's self-esteem, the investigator begins the interview process. However, when the suspect offers a denial that is clearly untrue, the investigator does not verbally respond to the statement. He merely realigns himself in his chair, leans back, and looks at the suspect in blank silence. Frequently, the suspect will realize how implausible his statement was and attempt to clarify it or, in some cases, retract it. The investigator may follow up with a plea to be treated with the same respect that he has provided the suspect and request that his intelligence not be insulted. This can, in many cases, result in an agreement to provide mutual respect and honesty.
Transference of blame
In some cases, especially theft, a suspect will feel that the victim's actions justified his crimes. For instance, a suspect may feel that the government owed him compensation for the many long hours he worked and attempt to gain restitution by taking items of value from the Army. Sometimes, the suspect feels that if a victim really wanted the items, he would have secured them better. Occasionally, it is appropriate for investigators to allow and encourage this justification. However a suspect might use this as a crutch to legally justify his actions, such as self-defense in an assault situation. The investigator must evaluate all case facts to determine if the claims being asserted by the suspect are reasonable and indisputable.
Michael Waddington is an expert court martial lawyer who specializes in handling court martial and military related criminal defense cases.
