Interview vs. Interrogation Series Article 1: The False Confession Phenomenon

By: Jeffrey Muendel

Hello again and I just want to start by saying I am especially excited to jump into my first mini series of articles on interview vs. Interrogation. The topic of interview vs. interrogation is a umbrella topic with endless sub topics falling under it. The first topic "The false confession phenomenon" has been very heavily publicized the past few years in the wake of modern day police reform. In this article I intend to dive into what it is, how and most of all why it happens.

What is a false confession ?

Very simple just as it sounds, A false confession is a claim that someone was responsible for a crime they did not commit. Your probably all wondering right off the bat, why in the world would someone of sound mental health confess to a crime they did not commit ?

What makes false confessions a phenomenon ?

The answer to that lies in the word "phenomenon" itself which is a fact or remarkable situation that is observed to exist or happen somewhat commonly. Especially when the cause or explanation is in question.

Is there any legal or legislative statute recognizing false confessions ?

Under criminal law there are three recognized types of false confessions. You have voluntary false confessions, compliant false confessions, and persuaded false confessions. Confessions obtained from anyone of those three types are automatically thrown out and dismissed in court. Any information and or evidence obtained through said confession, even if factual shall be thrown out or disbarred from court proceedings. The information becomes deemed inadmissible falling under the "fruit of poisonous tree doctrine."

False confessions, how do they happen ?

Coercive interrogation tactics implemented by the person conducting the interrogation is the most common reason. There are two main forms of coercive tactics during an interrogation. The use of actual physical force and "threats." I quote the word "threats" for a reason, "threats" don't have to be traditional in the sense of, you say you'll physically harm them if they don't comply with you. This will brings us to our next question!

Are ALL "threats" necessarily bad ?

???? I am going to come right out and say it, no not all ”threats” are necessarily bad and in many cases very much necessary and appropriate. Before your hair stands up and I strike a nerve just hear me out, I will explain.

Explanation:????

???? You have a “subject” (fancy word for prime suspect of interest) in “the box” (police jargon for the room in which your conducting the interview/ interrogation) and you have physical evidence or proof of that subject committing said crime (ie. D.N.A, Photographic, Fingerprints, video etc. So you know for as close to a fact as possible he is lying through his teeth to you.

???? Now you notice he is very nervous and asking questions like “how much trouble can someone get in for this.” What is wrong with using or “preying” on that and telling him something like "hey listen we have solid evidence you did this your on your way to going to go down hard for this. It is probably in your best interest to cooperate and truthfully and honestly tell me what I need to know. If you work with me we can go to the prosecutor, highlight your cooperation and hopefully get some leniency. If you don’t, no one is going to care, you’ll be hit with every charge and prosecuted and imprisoned to the max.”

???? Unacceptable “threats”:

???? Any threat of physical violence, sexual violence, methods of torture or illegal punishment are absolutely wrong, illegal, unethical and immoral. Using your position of authority over someone to bully them in this fashion is the definition of coercion. By doing this you are essentially forcing them to admit to the narrative you have created or believe to be true. When this occurs people will say whatever they have to avoid these things happening. This can and will instantly lead to a false confession. ??

?

Fabricating Evidence and influencing witnesses or suspects:

???? Influencing witnesses essentially creates bias and leads to a pre-determined outcomes. Offering incentive or a benefit for cooperating a story, event, narrative or implicating a particular person is essentially bribery and illegal.

?

Influencing a witness can also be done somewhat unknowingly and way more subtle:

???? A closed ended question specific in nature is the most subtle ways to bias or influence a person/ witness. An example of that type of question would be “ Did you see John walk into the gas station with a gun out and demand money from the cashier?” This type of question contains bias and very specifically directs the witnesses statement.?

???

How to avoid inadvertently unknowingly influencing a witness or suspect:

????? The answer is very simple you ask open ended questions. This does not include “focusing” a witness or suspect prior to beginning an interview or interrogation. An acceptable way to focus a witness would be in the beginning asking something like “hey the other night when you were on Broadway did you see or know anything about the gas station getting held up?” This will ensure your both on the same page and focused on the same topic at hand. If the witness/ suspect answers yes now you need to step back and let them fill in the details. Your questions should become very open ended and only detail oriented off of their answers.

???? For example if a witness tells you they saw the person who held up the store you can they will either proceed to give you details or you will have to ask. Here is where open vs close ended questions and not supplying but extracting the details you need becomes paramount.

???? ?For example you should ask “what did the person who held up the store look like can you provide me a description ?’’ Not “ Did you see a while male tall and skinny wearing a blue shirt with black lines, blue jeans and work boots holding up the gas station?”? ??

???? Feeding details can lead to confusing a witness/ suspect making them afraid to be “wrong” and contradict what your saying. When hey do this they are not telling what they actually witnessed which can lead to false confession and or arrest.

?

In Closing:

???? There are all sorts of different sub categories and things we can spider web out to. One article or book even cannot cover everything surrounding this topic. Conducting a proper interview/ interrogation is a very delicate crucial aspect of almost any investigation. The real takeaway here should be how important it is to have a knowledgeable seasoned professional properly interview and interrogate people, If you want to get to the truth. It is of the upmost importance to have an experienced and seasoned interviewer/ interrogator conducting these crucial question and answer sessions.

?

?

????

?