Real Interrogations

The main thing that I took from this website and that I found interesting is how they had 5 most watched videos on the home screen and they were all titled after five different aspects of an interrogation that are undoubtedly important when interrogating a suspect. The first video was entitled Intimidation. Their reasoning behind why this is important is that using intimidation can sometimes be the only way of getting information out of the toughest criminals. Other techniques may not be successful with tough suspects and simply trying to scare them may be the only way to go. The next video is called Deception. They described their use of deception as the starting point for getting crucial information from the suspects. You can look at it as a domino effect of sorts because once you fill their head with false information (such as having them on video tape when you really don’t or saying witnesses saw them at the scene when they really didn’t), they will really start to believe that the investigators are on to them and they may just start talking. Empathy is the subject of the third video. They describe the use of empathy during interrogations as important when trying to establish a form of trust between the interrogator and the suspect. Having a sense of trust in the room may help with getting the suspect to talk simply because they feel as if they can open up to the investigator. Making them feel comfortable may work for some suspects better than others, just like intimidation works best for certain people as well. Next in line was the video entitled Lie Detector. For obvious reasons, being a good lie detector as an interrogator will only benefit you. Suspects will undoubtedly lie to you on a regular basis and being able to tell when they are lying will save investigators a lot of time. Lie detecting helps keep the investigation/interrogation on the right track and moving towards credible leads. The last and most interesting video to me personally was called Weakest Link. The use of weak links in getting information and names out of people is very crucial. If you know as an investigator that someone is involved in the crime in some way and knows who else could potentially be involved, determining if they are the weak link and using that towards your advantage could help you get very important information for solving the crime. You have to be able to know how to use the weaker individuals for giving up names and other important information.
Something that surprised me was the amount of yelling that went on in a lot of the videos that I watched. A lot of the time, the yelling would start because the interrogators believed that the suspect was lying and they felt the only way to really get their point across was to yell and use the intimidation technique. The five most watched videos mentioned above were made out to all be of equal importance and usefulness, but I kind of felt from what I saw that intimidation was definitely their favorite technique overall. It also surprised me that during one of the videos, an investigator said that they pretty much need to pretend to be someone they’re not a lot of the time as interrogators. It doesn’t necessarily surprise me that they do this, because that makes sense. It more surprises me at how often they probably have to do this on a daily basis. I feel like it would get old real fast having to put on an act every day. It would get old, but it is more than likely worth it in the end considering you are trying to solve crimes.
Psychology plays a very large part in all of the videos that I watched. As far as the 5 main videos, the main focus was to get inside the suspects head and mess with them. The purpose behind these techniques is to make the suspect think that the investigators know more than they do and to make them feel as if there is a sense of trust when there more than likely is no trust whatsoever. It’s all about the mind games and doing as much as they legally can to get the information they are looking for from subjects.

This website is a real treat I would have to say, just because it gives us an insight of the different techniques that police officers and detectives use in the area of interrogation. They can use force, deception, and even different forms of intimidation to somehow get answers out of people. Literally they try and scare the answers and stories out of the suspects just to get what they want.

I learned that police have to do almost anything they can to get what they want to hear from the suspects they are interrogating. Whether it be that they have to yell and scream at the person, or calmly ask some simple questions. Both ways of interrogation can be affective in some ways, I believe that when a police officer yells at someone who is permissive it will scare them half to death and the people would easily come right out with the answers, but when it comes down to the people who think they have more power and cannot open up I think it would be a tough job trying to get through their thick skin and skull.

What I really thought was appealing and interesting, was during the video the weakest link, the make the person feel as if they are the enemy and makes them feel somewhat uncomfortable that reals them into the situation and they start to fail and come down to the real answers and give up either names, places, or other things that may help the police. They tend to give more information than asked for in the initial question.

Psychology plays a role in interrogations because it goes along with how we think and process things, so I think a lot of biological psychology and social psychology is involved here. The mind is full of different things and new things enter every day when we encounter different situations. So when police officers sit people down in a small room with absolutely no windows or other people inside of it our mind starts to shut down and get scared. Then things change when they start to ask us all of these questions and put different situations in our mind to where we go crazy we start to think in different ways and emotions start to flow. When it is social psychology we are talking about we put into mind the different ways we communicate with others and I think this is a perfect example of that.

In this blog post, I learned even more about the interrogation techniques used by investigators. I feel like it helped a lot to first read about these things in the textbook, then see them in action with real footage of interrogations. It helps because, while we get to see the tactic used by the investigator yelling at them, being empathetic towards them, etc., we also get to see the reaction by the suspect.

The thing I found most surprising about these videos was the one discussing polygraphs and lie detector tests. It’s interesting that suspects have been known to tamper with polygraphs, try to beat the system, etc. One example I found quite ridiculous: a suspect put peanut butter on the roof of their mouth. Do they really think they can get away with tampering with one of these tests? It’s interesting that they think they aren’t going to be seen punching a hole in the polygraph tube while the investigator isn’t in the room. It’s almost like they’re proclaiming their guilt!

In terms of relating this to psychology, I can see many terms demonstrated in these videos. While watching the intimidation video, it reminded me of two tactics: certainty of guilt and loss of control. The investigator repeatedly raised his voice to the suspect, proclaiming his guilt over and over, which seemed like it almost broke down the criminal. This is definitely an example of certainty of guilt, because the investigator’s goal in this video is to make the suspect feel like there is no more use in lying and they have already been proven wrong, thus eliciting a confession. This also may feel like a loss of control for the suspect because of the hostile situation. As the investigator yells at him, he may lose a sense of emotional support and familiarity he would feel in a comfortable situation, thus breaking him down psychologically.

In the polygraph video, I noticed another term from our textbook pop up. As the investigator pulls out the voice recognition device, he explained to the suspect that it “never failed,” etc. etc. He then came back later letting the suspect know that this device had proven his guilt. Whether or not this was true, the investigator was using evidence ploys to try to make the man feel helpless. The psychology behind this is that, since there is now incriminating evidence, there is no point in lying any longer, thus prompting a confession from the criminal.

In the video on empathy for the victim, I immediately thought of the good cop-bad cop approach. While this video did not show the bad cop part of it, I could definitely see how this approach would benefit. The empathy shown by the good cop seemed to make the suspect more relaxed and more willing to confide with the officer. Combining this with a more hostile, intimidating cop could make the suspect feel emotional support from the good cop, making a confession more likely.

Lastly, I just wanted to share a fact I found interesting while taking the serial killer quiz: the FBI says that there have only been about 400 serial killers over the last century, with the number of victims being between 2,500 and 3,800 victims.

This website had videos of actual interrogations. There were different techniques they interrogators used in each different interrogation video.
The first one dealt with intimidation. The interrogator would use a loud and stern voice when talking to the suspect. They would say things like “I KNOW YOU DID IT!” and “DON’T LIE TO ME!” Using this technique essentially scared the suspect into telling the truth. This way is a good way to get information from a suspect when every other technique seems to fail. The video however only should success with this technique when done with men, so women may respond differently.
Another technique that was used in an interrogation was deception. The interrogator would say things that occurred, even if they didn’t. For instance they told a girl that she was under surveillance for days because they thought she was guilty. Even though that was not true, she eventually told the police the information they were looking for. Although there is some controversy of whether police should be able to make up lies to get information, this seems to be a good and effective technique.
The weakest link technique was used in another video of an interrogation. This technique is when the police tell the suspect that even though the other people involved in the crime told them not to the police information, it is better for them to tell the truth. This convinces the suspect that they are better off to tell the truth and get off easier, then to lie about it. This seems to be effective, when the suspect is involved in a crime with many other people, and they are trying to receive a lesser punishment especially if they are clearly guilty.
Empathy is another technique used in an interrogation. Empathy is when the interrogator acts as a counselor, or person the suspect can talk and open up to. Sometimes during this process, they must find someone the suspect will talk to. This can take up to several different interrogators who talk to the suspect before they finally open up. This is a more subtle and effective way of interrogation.
The last way interrogations can be done is with a lying detector. A polygraph is the type of lying detector machine often used. This is a good and clear way to find out if a person is lying or not. Suspects may try to cheat their way through the test such as putting peanut-butter on the top of their mouth or putting devices on their body. This is probably the most reliable technique, as people who lie tend to talk differently or speak in a different tone.
All in this website showed me real life examples of interrogations and different ways they can be done. I think the most effective technique varies from suspect to suspect. It surprised me how effective the lie detector actually is, and how it can pick up peoples’ lies. Psychology has a lot to do with interrogations, because it involves finding out what a particular person will respond to during an interrogation. Understanding what will work for a certain person is probably the most important part of the interrogation, and will give the best answers and results.

When watching these videos I noticed that they were talking about many of the interrogation techniques that were discussed in chapter two of the text. One of the ways I tied this in with psychology is the type of technique that worked best on the suspect. One suspect may need to be intimidated to get the truth out of them while another may need to feel connected to the interrogator. This could have something to do with how they grew up or the psychology behind their personality. I still have a hard time grasping the idea of deception, that it is ok for the interrogators to lie to the suspect in order to get a confession out of them. I realize that the end goal is to find out who is guilty, but if someone was telling me they had all of this evidence pointing to me I would feel hopeless. I think that this technique of interrogations may be more likely to lead to false confessions and wrongful conviction. I was also wondering if certain individuals like certain techniques of interrogation better than others and if they would be more likely to use the same technique. That would most likely fall under what type of personality the interrogator has, so this would fall under psychology of personality. In the case of intimidation, good cop-bad cop, a man is more likely to be the aggressor and the woman is more likely to show empathy. Looking at how women and men are raised differently due to gender roles, women are more nurturing than men. So a woman using empathy in order to get a confession may work a lot better for her than using intimidation. I found all of the videos to be incredibly interesting; watching the suspect’s demeanor change with each different interrogation technique used was fascinating to me. For instance when the interrogators used the technique of empathy the suspects would often be quiet and seem calm. They often looked at the ground or had their head hung. It’s almost like after making a bond with the interrogator, it made the suspect feel a little ashamed about them knowing what had actually happened. Unfortunately I could not get the quizzes based off of interrogations to work, it just kept sending me to more videos. But I did take a few of the other quizzes on the site, and I was honestly surprised by the amount of knowledge that I had about serial killers. I did not know that I had that amount of information pertaining to them in my head. All in all I thought that this website was incredibly interesting and it was useful to watch “real” interrogations being conducted.

While looking at the investigation website I realized that a lot of what I have about interrogations and techniques was illustrated in one of the videos I watched on interrogations. The video was separated into four different sections. The first was called Lie Detector. This segment focused on the use of computerized voice stress analyzer. This machine was used to focus on the FM in one’s voice. If a person was lying, the FM in a person’s voice would drop. The investigator who was running the machine stated that it cannot be beat, and is more accurate than the polygraph. Before the segment ended a investigator shared his experience about how he has seen suspects come in with peanut butter, or pennies in their mouth, or an object in there shoe to try and throw off the detection of the machine.

The next section was called Deception. This segment was about how investigators use this technique in order to get more information out of the suspect. For instants, an investigator might say that he/she knows that you killed person X because they have had you under surveillance for about a week now. Whether this true or not, the suspect thinks that they already know some much about them so they will give up information, and /or tell the truth. One of the investigators at the end of the segment said, “Sometimes you have to lie to get the truth”. I had mixed feelings about that last statement. I kind of feel that it was manipulation, which is, but then I thought, well these are criminals so the whole feeling sorry for them kind of goes out the window. In another sense I also felt that a technique could be misleading, especially if a suspect actually is not guilty, but feels that investigators, somehow, have this information about me, so there’s not much I can do. I think that in cases like that, it generally happens to younger, adolescent suspects.

Next segment was called Establishing Empathy. This section represented the “good-cop” portion of interrogation techniques. The investigator talked about how it is important for the suspect to be able to connect with you, because if they feel comfortable they will be more willing and open to talk to you. There must always be comfort. If an investigator tries to act as though they are better than the suspect, and are out to scare them, then more than likely the suspect will not open up, and there will only tension between the suspect and investigator. This section also briefly talked about how the demographics of the suspect are also important. For instance, if the suspect is not comfortable talking to a female investigator, he/she will be provided with a male. If the suspect does not feel comfortable talking to a white investigator, than he/she will be provided with a person form another race, etc. Whatever aspects that are going to be able to get closer to the truth, than investigators will do just that. I related this segment with that of counseling. If a client calls in to meet with a therapist, generally the receptionist or assistant will ask the client has a preference in which they talk to; race, gender, age, etc.

Next section was about intimidation, the intimidation that took place within the interrogation rooms. If investigators are having difficulty with their suspects providing information or confessing, generally most investigators have to show themselves as intimidating. Kind of in a sense that contradicts with showing empathy. But if investigators need the truth they will usually yell, or become aggressive. Not necessarily hitting, or harming the suspect, but getting in their face, yelling violently at them, because they are fed up with the constant lies. Some things that an investigator might say is, “You did it didn’t you! You killed her!” Anything to cause a little tension and scare within the victim might just be enough to get the truth out.

Lastly, the final section was called the weakest link. The section was about pin pointing a suspects “weak spots” in order to the suspect to start providing information. An example that the segment showed was an investigator interrogating a woman about her involvement in drug transporting/or deal. The investigator laid into her that “men were the enemy”. When he let that be known, the woman opened up and talked about the man that was involved beat her, and that he had cops under his payroll. This gave enough information to the investigators to know that there were more people involved, and that one of the people was a man. I found this to be a very good psychological strategy. After watching the videos I took a few of the investigative quizzes. I the serial killer quiz, Jack the Ripper, famous females, crimes of the 20th century, and famous crimes quiz. I was surprised by the things that I already did know, and the things that I had learned. My favorite quiz that I took was the famous female quiz. I think that many times the last people in the world that people suspect to become serial killers are women. But after taking that quiz I learned that there were a lot more women out there that have done some pretty crazy things. Not that I was excited about these findings, but I thought that this one aspect that shows that women are a lot smarter, creative, and a sometimes a little more deviant that what many people would assume.

These videos were very interesting and directly related to what we learned in chapters 2 and 3. The first video I watched had a lot to do with the good-cop bad-cop technique. One of the officers would be very forceful and a lot of times yelling at the suspect, while the other acted surprised that the suspect lied to them and played more on their soft side. I was very surprised at the extent the cops' yelling would go to. If I was a suspect I would be very scared, and I think the intent is for them to be so intimidated that they just want the interview to end. The next videos i watched were about lying to the suspect. The officers would tell the suspect that they had a piece of evidence that wasn't true in order to get a confession or a DNA sample. I always wondered if this was legal and found out that it is because it is an "investigative technique". My favorite quote at the end of one of the video was "we have to lie in order to get the truth." There was also information on another technique. Instead of scaring the suspect into a confession, the detectives would spend their time connecting and almost sympathizing with them. They would say things like "I know you aren't a cold blooded killer, but you have been through a lot and got drug into an unfortunate situation." One detective said he didn't try to be overbearing because he would never get anywhere with a suspect that way, and instead he would act like he was talking to his best friend. The suspect needs to feel comfortable with who they are interviewing with, and this means putting them with either a man or a woman, a Caucasian person, or an African American, or who ever they most relate with. Lastly, I watched a video that involved polygraph testing. I learned of another technique used in detecting lies, which is the computer analyzed voice stress test. It works by detecting the AM and FM in a person's voice. The more stressed out a person is, the more FM is apparent in their voice. One detective said during an interview that this was more accurate than the polygraph, but I don't know if he was just trying to intimidate the suspect. I thought it was funny that people would try to do certain things in order to throw off the voice detecting test, such as put peanut butter on the roof of their mouth or pennies in their shoes. All in all, I had a good experience with this web site. It was really interesting watching these videos after reading the chapters and finding the similarities between what I read and what I saw. Psychology plays such a big part in the interviewing process. You really have to have an inborn understanding of how people work and what makes them tick, as well as have a good sense of when they are lying.

This website was very interesting. I have grown up watching all different kinds of criminal based shows: CSI, Law & Order, Criminal Minds, etc. So, I did not learn a lot from watching these interrogations besides that it is a little like what they do on the shows. I enjoyed watching the clips and seeing how interrogation happening in real life. It was a little surprising to me how loud some of the cops were when they were yelling at the suspects. It was surprising but not at the same time, just something I knew in the back of my mind, but did not fully expect to see or hear.
I saw a lot of what was said in chapter two and three. One needs to make sure they are not forcing a false confession out of someone. They cannot be “bullying” the suspect too much but they also do not want to be so lenient that the suspect, if they are the real perpetrator, does not get away with what they have done. It is also a good thing if officers of the law are good at detecting or reading lies. A lie detector can also be helpful with that.
I thought the video called “Empathy” was very interesting. I like how they try to connect with the criminal. It shows that even though someone has done wrong they still have the same basic needs every person needs. They need people; they need a connection with another person. Personality psychology teaches us that humans are very social beings. We need to be needed and wanted. Humans want to connect with others, so using empathy as a way to get information about the crime or get a confession from the perpetrator. I thought it was all very interesting.
Psychology has everything to do with this. The way you decide to interrogate someone has a lot to do with reading their personality and profiling them. One has to decide what kind of tactics will work on a person. Good-cop, bad-cop routine, intense pressure such as yelling, being empathetic, giving them false information, even being supportive and telling them they understand why they did what they did. This is all psychology, reading their body language to determine if they are lying or giving a false confession. Psychology helps read people in all kinds of situations. It can help understand if a person is truly guilty or if they are just hiding information, not giving the whole truth. In these cases they could then be tested with a lie detector to help solve the case.
The website addressed some of the same concepts we have been reading about in the textbooks along with a portrayal of these concepts in a natural interrogation room, and explained by actual law enforcement officials. It’s one thing to read about the topics, and as I found out from the website an entirely different understanding when applying these concepts. Often times I discovered that interrogation processes such as social isolation of the perpetrator, making them realize they were not the ones in charge, and controlling every aspect of the setting became very drastic. As the videos I pointed out stated, they control everything from who conducts the interview, were it occurs, race of the interviewer and gender of the interviewer all in attempt to get the suspect to respond to questions.
I tried to take the quizzes, but the site would not let me, or maybe it was just a problem with my computer. I wish I would have been able to participate in them.

I learned that I don’t know much about some of the most famous serial killers in history despite my ambitions to work with serial killers in the future. I had no idea that Ted Bundy confessed to killing twenty nine people, and I’m reading “Defending the Devil” for my book report which discusses his case at trial from his lawyers point of view. I knew that Manson had a cult following, but I was surprised to find out that many of his followers actually committed murders alongside him, as well as a few actually committing murders on their own as a sort of scary tribute to Manson. Also, while taking the quiz for the Jack the Ripper killings, I was shocked that his murders happened so quickly. Four victims in four months, and then nothing else, which I also find odd because usually serial killers are fulfilling some kind of psychological need by committing their crimes, and they don’t stop, especially if they’re getting away with them.

I was also surprised to see that many of the interrogations I watched were quite violent and loud. I always imagined them to be far more calm, which I suppose is a product of my avid CSI watching. It did seem that the police officers who conducted interrogations had one of two main styles. They were either very forceful and commanding, yelling and hitting their fist on the desk and constantly lying to the suspect, or they were incredibly calm, and sat down right next to the suspect and tried to convince them that they were simply there to talk and only needed a few questions answered. This probably also varies based upon the potential crimes committed and the responsiveness and cooperation of the suspect.

Psychology ties into virtually every topic, because it is important to understand how humans think, so that we can use that knowledge to determine how they might act, why they acted the way they did, and we can also predict their actions to certain stimuli. This becomes incredibly important during interrogations. You have to first look at the crime the suspect potentially committed. What is their possible motivation, do they have any mental conditions that may have contributed to their actions? Then during an actual interrogation, you can use the suspects own personality traits to determine the most effective and quickest way to gain honest answers from them. For example, if a person is more introverted, they may respond better to a calm interrogation that starts slowly as opposed to a screaming police officer, especially if they have any aversion to authority figures. You can also consider the psychology and physiology of fabrication of both the suspect and the interrogator, as well as the psychology of the interrogator. What sort of manipulation, or coercion is the police officer using in order to elicit answers from the suspect. Is he attempting to confuse, intimidate, or otherwise force the answers he needs from the suspect. What does heavy intense continuous interrogation do to a person’s ability to answer questions correctly based upon their own memory? Is the interrogator asking leading questions that could potentially contaminate the suspect’s memory? There are so many ways to tie in psychology and the law.

The most interesting part of this website were definitely the interrogation videos. I watched the video on intimidation and saw how the investigators act very tough and confrontational to the suspects, while the suspects remained quiet and acted nervous. I kept thinking that if this were an outside situation, the suspect’s probably would not act that shy and reserved if someone came at them in a confrontational way. The idea of the ‘good cop-bad cop’ approach was used by these investigators by having one cop seem more intimidating and yell, while the other cop sat beside the suspect and seemed to be more understanding.

Another video I watched was the lie detector video. That was the most interesting to me because I learned how suspects would try almost anything to thwart the lie detector. I found it interesting they went as far as cutting the tubes and putting peanut butter on the roof of their mouth to try and make the lie detector not work. My question was, didn’t know they know they were being taped when they tried to cut the tubes? Something else I found interesting about the lie detection video was the idea of Computer Voice Stress Analysis. While watching the video I at first thought the investigator was just using a regular lie detector test, but was trying to trick the suspect into believing it was something more powerful. After watching the full video, I realized that the Stress Analysis test really did exist by using AM/FM sounds to detect when someone is lying or not.

Psychology can be attached to these videos in a variety of ways. Social psychology was used between the investigators when they were using intimidation to try and make the suspects confess. Social psychology was also used in the video where the cop slowly gets the woman into giving the name of the suspect by continuously telling her she was safe and they were ‘not like all men’.

Finally I took the serial killer quiz and learned more about the different serial killers that exist. I was surprised that the MacDonald triad for serial killers is that they display bedwetting, arson, and cruelty to animals. I had heard of cruelty to animals as one example, but not the other two. I also learned from taking this quiz is that there have been approximately 400 serial killers in the US in the past century. This number may not seem like a lot, but multiply that by the number of victims result in these serial killers, and the number actually does add up. I find serial killers interesting to study because I always wonder what is going on inside their head, so this website was very interesting to me with all the information about serial killers.

This website was extremely interesting to look at, as I was able to learn more about concepts in the book. This site helped me put concepts in the book into real stories that have occurred. It was really interesting to see the different techniques as well as to learn more about different crimes through the quizzes.

It was apparent that investigators try to use every technique possible in an attempt to get their suspect to confess and provide them with information. I would assume that they get to know their suspects personality before they interrogate them. As this would help investigators decide what technique would work best for their particular suspect. Once they are in the interrogation room it appears that they have a so called “game plan” on how they are going to get information; and if their techniques does not work they try something else. I watched intimidation, empathy, deception, weakest link, and lie detector. All of these videos expressed different techniques investigators use. The intimidation video made me feel uncomfortable watching it because there was so much yelling and it was very loud. The suspect did not show any discomfort, this expresses how every person is different and that some techniques work well with some, but not with everyone. This technique almost made the suspect feel comfortable telling them what happened after he had been yelled at for a while. The next video I watched was empathy; this was interesting because it expressed the need that we have to talk to other people. Basically what investigators do is make the suspect feel comfortable and think that the investigator is on their side, when in reality they aren’t. Eventually the suspect feels they can trust the investigator and they tell them everything. During this video they showed a clip of a women investigator interrogating a young man. The investigator felt like the suspect felt comfortable talking to her because in a strange way he may have felt like she was a mother figure. The young man had been interrogated by other men but he never felt comfortable enough to tell them what happened.

The third video I watched was deception; this was interesting because they make the suspect feel like they already know they are involved. This caused the suspect to become flustered in trying to find a way around their questions. Eventually the suspect gets caught in their lies and they tell the investigator hints or short statements that imply they were involved. Then investigators recognize what they said and they eventually get the individual to tell everything. I think we see this technique and the intimidation technique in movie and TV shows more than the others because they are entertaining. The last video I watched was lie detector, this clip expressed concepts that we read in chapter 3. The most interesting part of this video was that the suspects lies get caught up when a third party gets involved. Usually the machine side with investigators and the suspects feels as though there is nothing else they can do because a machine proved they are guilty. This causes the suspect to explain their involvement in the case.

I took several quizzes and I seemed to do terrible on them however it was interesting to learn more about different crimes and techniques. Overall I learned more about what we have read in the text book. I found the videos to be intriguing because each one showed different ways people lie as well as techniques investigators use. A huge factor that comes into effect during an interrogation is the personality or disposition of the suspect, as this influences the way an investigator interrogates them. I noticed that most of the investigators were aware of the way they worded their sentences, as this can impact the final verdict. For example if an investigator used the intimidation technique on someone who is very timid, shy, and quiet; they are likely to scare the person into lying about who committed the crime simply because they do not want to be yelled at anymore. Overall the videos and quizzes were very interesting and each scenario expressed psychological techniques that are used during and interrogation.

After watching the interrogation videos, I saw firsthand some of the tactics that police use to elicit a confession from a suspect. The first and best tactic any interrogator can use regardless of race or gender is empathy. Empathy is not much of a tactic as it is an emotional bond that can be established to show trust between the two parties. One of the best examples in the videos of empathy being displayed was the male suspect coming clean to the female interrogator. Previously, the suspect was mum when being interrogated by the two male officers who appeared to be performing a good-cop bad cop approach, but when the female officer was placed in the room and began questioning the suspect he began to open up. The female officer explained that the suspect was raised by his mother and perhaps had more of an emotional tie to females. Thus presenting him with a female interrogator who was able to sympathize and downplay his crimes brought out some emotions not found by the male officers. This in short shows the relationships that can be established even during criminal proceedings such as interrogations. If the suspect feels as if he can trust an officer and not be bullied or manhandled emotionally, one might be able to elicit more of a confession.

Another tactic I saw being used was the evidence ploy strategy. Basically an officer will fabricate some sort of evidence that may place the suspect at the scene of the crime. For example, saying that they have surveillance footage of the suspect and they already know he is guilty. This can be used if a suspect is not cooperating or the officers have not gotten any information out of the suspect. Simply making up evidence may bring about some much needed information or at least get the suspect talking if he/she hasn't already. Coming from the perspective of a suspect, if an officer claimed to have evidence of me leaving the crime scene or some DNA evidence placing me at the scene, one would most likely show some unseen facial expressions that the interrogators could play off of. One loophole I noticed that could possibly be exploited was if a suspect asked to see said surveillance footage of him/her at the crime scene. I'm not aware of legal procedures forbidding an officer to show footage, but if the officer was obliged to show footage and didn't have any, the momentum could swing in the suspect's favor.

It was very nice to see the interrogation techniques from our textbook put into real life context. This helped me to review what I had read in our chapters and see the differences in the procedures. I was a little disappointed that there were only 5 interrogation videos and I could not get the Interrogation Techniques Quiz or the Wrongly Accused Quiz to work. It would send me deeper into the website.
The videos were listed after the type of technique the interrogators used. This made it easier for me to discern between the different types. It was also interesting to see which investigators used which procedures. One example was the Empathy video. The female investigator seemed to take on the “mother” role to connect with the suspect. She believed just sitting down and talking to the suspect was the best way to get them to give them information. Also, another investigator mentioned about how interrogations were all about making the suspect comfortable, “We checked our ego at the door.” This was the complete opposite from the investigators in the Intimidation video. They believed the best thing was to get a little loud and aggressive in order to get the suspect to talk. I knew that different police departments used different techniques such as these, but I never realized how different those techniques could really be.
One thing that surprised me was how aggressive the investigators were in the Intimidation video. I thought they were going a little overboard with everything. The first clip with the 2 investigators was the one that I thought was a little too aggressive. One of the investigators said, “You have the right not to talk to them, but you don’t have the right to lie to them.” I felt like the investigator losing his temper was what surprised me the most. I feel like he should have been able to handle the situation without yelling at the suspect. I also feel like he could have still been intimidating while still being professional.
I believe psychology has a lot to do with the false confessions that can happen in a situation such as the one in the Intimidation video. Our book states that a lot of false confessions come from interrogations in which either the police are being very coercive or in which the suspect has been in the interrogation room for hours. I cannot tell how the suspect has been in the room just from a clip of only a few seconds, but it was very easy to see when police are being coercive. I also believe if that if the suspect confessed, the whole tape should be shown to jurors to see if the police really coerced the confession out of the suspect rather than the suspect actually admitting to the crime.
Another aspect that I saw that psychology that was discussed in our textbook was the equal-focus camera perspective. In almost all of these videos, you can see both the detective and the suspect; however, you can only see the back of the detective’s head. In one of the videos that is mentioned above, you can see the suspect and one of the detectives. If these videos were shown in a trial, then jurors would be able to distinguish for themselves whether or not the confessions were coerced or voluntary.

In all these videos I can see all the different types of interrogation tactics to get the truth from the suspect. We see the officers playing “good cop, bad cop” and trying to get the suspect to bond with the good cop. In all cases the officers are trying to get into the head of the suspect and try to convince them to talk and give up the truth. One of the officer said “sometimes you have to lie to get the truth” which is very true. It’s all about making the suspect uneasy and keeps the power on the officer’s side. In some of the cases officer will have to yell and scare the offender to make them feel the guilt of what they did. Then if one officer can’t get the truth out them, bring in somebody else that can. For some offenders you must create a bond with them and get them comfortable with you. They are more willing to talk with somebody they feel comfortable with. One officer said that if they suspect doesn’t feel comfortable with this officer bring in another one that might open up to. You can catch a suspect off guard by saying that you know things that you really don’t. After saying that the suspect will start to think how did they find out and scare them. Officers will trick offenders into believing that they have evidence that will send them to jail. From the book they showed examples of having two officers in the room and drilling the suspect with never ending questions. In most of the videos the interrogations were all conducted in small rooms and trying to make the suspect nervous.
These videos showed uses of lie detector and the different ways police will use them to get the truth. When an officer chooses to use the test the offender can’t argue with the results because the officers know that you lied. One lie detector was the stress analyzer that measured how your voice reacted to questions and I had never heard of these being used. It’s strange to see how people will try to beat the tests by bring in tools to help them pass the test. It’s one thing for an officer to tell the offender that they know they’re lying, but now they have paper that proves that they know.

I learned a lot of techniques used in interrogations. These were a little more “real life” than the examples in the book. One technique they talked about was deception. I had no idea how often interrogators lie to suspects. The investigators on these videos talked about how they lie to elect a response. They said that information is power, especially when the suspect doesn’t know how the investigator received the information. The investigator will first tell the suspect facts about them (the suspect) and about their relation to the crime. They do this to gain credibility, because the suspect begins to think that the investigator knows a lot of information about them and their relation to the crime. Next the investigator will lie about certain evidence related to the suspect. The book calls these evidence ploys. They cite real or fabricated evidence that clearly establishes guilt. In one of the videos, an investigator told a suspect that they found gunpowder on his hands. This was fake evidence to try to elicit a response from the suspect.

Another technique investigators use is empathy. The investigators on the videos talked about how important it is to establish a connection with the suspect. They said that it’s human nature to want to connect with someone. If the suspects feel a connection with the investigator, they will feel more comfortable with them, and be more open to share information. This technique of interrogation was mentioned in the book, under the “good cop” aspect of the good cop-bad cop approach. Here, one investigator is intimidating, showing anger and threatening the suspect with the worst possible punishment. The second investigator shows understanding and sympathy toward the suspect, in hopes that this empathy will lead to a confession. One investigator on the videos emphasized how important it is for the suspect to feel comfortable. He even said they choose the race and gender of the investigator based on the race and gender of the suspect, or at least on the comfortability of the suspect. In one case, a female investigator interrogated a male suspect about a murder case. She said that they knew the suspect was raised solely by his mother. The female investigator felt she was acting as a mother figure to the suspect, and this allowed him to talk more freely that with other male investigators. Another investigator said it’s very important to have respect for the suspect so that they will respect you. I think this shows that different investigators have different techniques that they feel work best.

The investigators on the videos also talked about their use of polygraphs. They said that these tests are more psychological than anything. It is a way to show the suspect that the investigators know they are lying. The test backs up them up, and is more convincing to the suspect. One investigator was about to give a suspect a voice stress analyzer test. He told the suspect that this type of test cannot be beaten. This is obviously not true; polygraphs and other such tests cannot be 100% accurate. The investigator said this so that the suspect would believe there was no way out. The investigator hoped that once the suspect saw that he had failed the polygraph, he would believe that he had no hope of being found innocent, and would give a confession. I had no idea that these tests were more used for psychological purposes than actual lie detection.

Psychology is a big part of interrogations. Investigators can form their techniques around how people process information (cognitive psych). By putting suspects in a small room with no windows and straight back chairs the suspects begin to feel a loss of control. The main goal is to remove the psychological comfort of familiar surroundings so that the suspect feels vulnerable, anxious, and off-balance. This may cause them to slip up in their story, or feel less confident about their ability to hide something. Investigators socially isolate the suspect so that they have no emotional support, and are not as aware that the investigators may be lying. Investigators may use empathy techniques so that the suspect feels more comfortable about sharing information. If they feel that the investigator cares about them on a more personal level, they will trust that the investigator has their best interest in mind, and be more apt to share information.

The serial killer quizzes surprised me the most. I was shocked to find that the FBI estimates around 400 serial killers in the US in the past century. In addition, the estimated serial killer victims is around 3,000! One quiz listed traits of serial killers when they are children. I did know that cruelty to animals was a common behavior, but I did not know that bed-wetting is another one. I did some research on this, and found that cruelty to animals, bedwetting (or enuresis), and arson are part of the Macdonald triad. Together, these behavioral characteristics are associated with anti-social personality disorder, which is typical of serial killers. It seems that this is a controversial topic, and the research that has studied it may be statistically insignificant.

I found this website to be interesting because you got to see interrogations from the police officers point of view. I found many of their view points to be disturbing and terrifying to think that this is what our legal system is actually like. One thing that I found the most surprising as well as horrifying was that these investigators seemed to be coming from the perspective that the suspect is guilty until proven innocent instead on innocent until proven guilty.

Investigators probably come at interrogations from the point of view of guilty until proven innocent because of the experience of seeing guilty criminals walk free. They are passionate about their job and their emotions can sometimes overcome their rational. They also have been given the power to deceive and intimidate criminals, which they abuse because they are in such a high place of power and control.

The video are lie detectors showed that investigators use the results to their full advantage, even though the results are not always correct. Also the suspect assumed that since the lie detector said they were lying that they must be, even if they have no memory of doing the crime. Officers also talked about suspects using counter measures to try to trick the lie detector. Examples include, putting a penny or peanut butter in their mouths, cutting wires, putting objects in their shoes. When officers see this the probably resort to confirmation bias and think that since the suspect was trying to deceive the lie detector that they must have committed the crime, even though some were probably just scared of getting a false positive. Officers use these tests to get into people’s heads and try to trick them into confessing and trick them into thinking that they must have done it.

Deception is also used in interrogations. I found it ironic that in this video one of the officers said “Sometimes you have to lie to get to the truth”. This seemed a little counterproductive. How can you expect to get the truth when you yourself are lying? They also talked about how information is power and they use this power to deceive people. If a suspect feels that someone has power over them they are more likely to conform to their wishes. Detectives tell the suspect that they know more than they actually do, they are fishing for information. I also found it interesting that the officers never said that they were lying; instead they used the word trick. This could be attributed to cognitive dissonance. They are battling between trying to get information but also fighting against the knowledge that lying is wrong. To settle this dilemma they refer to it as tricking to make is seem more ethical.

Investigators also use empathy to establish rapport with a suspect. Someone is more likely to tell a person information if they trust them. This can also be used in the good cop bad cop approach. A comment was also made about how interrogations are all about respect. This seemed off center because since the officers are allowed to lie to suspects how can they expect to gain respect. A comment was also made about wanting to put suspects in jail for the rest of their lives. If officers go into the interrogations with this mind sent how they can expect to do a fair assessment of the information the suspect gives them.

Another video was about intimidation. This is used to scare suspects into confessing. This could also contribute to the reason of false confessions. Because of the intimidation factor suspects feel the need to respect and please authority. They know the investigators want a confession so they give them one because they feel inferior and want to please them.
Investigators also use the weakest link approach. This can be done in two ways. They can find the weakest link of the group and go after them to get the names of the others that were involved in the crime. They can also find someone’s weakness and use that to their advantage. For instance in the video on this the girls weakest link was being scared of getting beating up by a man. The officers used this knowledge to get a confession as well as get the names of the other people involved.

This site demonstrated real life interrogations where the tactics in our textbook were used. After reading the textbook and watching these interrogations and interviews with officers I cannot help but question is these tactics are really ethical.

First of all, I loved taking these quizzes, I find it extremely interesting to read about why people are doing what they’re doing and reading about what happened to them before turning to such crimes to determine what lead to this.
I didn’t learn that much from the interrogations they did however, have to do with some of our readings. It talked about good cop bad cop routine. The fact that they get loud and intense with suspects in order to scare them to confessing. I also found it interesting that in one of the video’s a cop actually stated that they try and convince one suspect of their guilt. I cannot believe that that was actually stated and recorded. This highly correlates with false confessions, there are many factors, this being one of them, which contribute to people falsely confessing.
I was unaware that Elizabeth Smarts’ kidnappers were deemed incompetent to stand trial. I don’t know the background to this story anymore, because it’s been so long but if I remember the right case I thought she developed Stockholm syndrome. She was held captive for 9 months and it’s deemed as bonding with your captor. Even when I police man came up to her, on a bench I believe, she wouldn’t reveal her true identity. This may have been a sign of Stockholm syndrome. Either that or more likely she was scared of what may happen to her or her family if she was caught. I also learned from taking these quizzes that her kidnapper was a man who did miscellaneous work for her family. I didn’t know that that was the case for her. Having someone she knew, from home, taking her away from her family had to have been a huge factor. It may also be a contributing factor to contributing to Stockholm syndrome, if she did actually have it that is. I don’t know for sure if it was ever proven.
I was shocked to learn that the term “Helter Skelter” was taken from a Beetle’s song. Nor did I ever really know the meaning of it, I just knew the association between it and the Manson murders. I don’t understand why it was spelled in correctly, I would assume it was an accident but having such a well-known murder as the Manson’s’ that they would know how to spell their “catch phrase.” I learned that he meant it to mean a coming race-based Armageddon. I find things like this very interesting. I would relate this to social psychology and personality. It means something enough to him to leave it at a murder scene, as we have discussed in a blog about the “signature” of a murderer. He chose this because he believes he’s doing something worthy of the world. I also learned that Charles Manson got his last name from his step-father. I had no idea that that was not his birth name. I think how different it would be to know his from another name. The name Manson wouldn’t be associated with brutal, unnecessary, cruel murders. I also learned the results of his case. I didn’t know that Manson was supposed to be sentenced to death but that changed because California abolished the death penalty in ’72, when his trial was in ’71. He should have to suffer in prison anyway, death penalty is a relief for them.
I was surprised in Kampusch’s case in which she was returned to her home, she stated that she felt sorry for her captor. I can understand why she would think this but it honestly surprised me that they actually feel sorry for the person who put them through such misery. I would think that the normal feelings towards your captor would be hatred, disgust, anguish, etc. Not sympathy or empathy. It takes a strong person to have such compassion for a person who would kidnap them and hold them hostage.
Psychology has a lot to do with what I found on this website. In the quizzes about Hollywood crime it’s prevalent. In the case of the man who was shot in his home, it was by the hand of his own father. The man (whose name I’ve already forgotten) had intervened in an argument between his parents. I would believe the father to be deemed incompetent to stand trial. I have intervened in many fights between my siblings. Not once did my mother ever think to get a gun and shoot me for it. Even though my mother was on serious drugs she would have never done that. Therefore, a man who did that to his son must be insane. People with normally functioning psyches would not do something as drastic.

In the Real Interrogations “deceptions” the cop said that they would lie to them in order to get them to tell something or to agree with it. Personally I still do not know if police should be able to lie to suspects during an interview because it may lead to false confessions. A direct quote from one of the sheriffs stated “sometimes we have to do that, sometimes we have to lie to get the truth.” Also in this video of real interrogations I was able to apply some of the things I learned in class and in the chapter to this clip. Such as the process of interrogation, where they want the suspect to have a sense of loss of control and then the second part of the strategy is social isolation, where the suspect is interrogated alone. Also applying the certainty of guilt where it the police begin with a direct accusation that the suspect committed a crime, and in this case it was vehicle theft.
The imitidation clip stated that sometimes you have to be tough with them know that youre not going to put up with the lying. Detective Guy Picketts said, “sometimes you might have to get a little loud and aggressive to get them to tell you what you need to know.” Back in the 1930’s officers would have used physical force in order to get the suspects to tell them the truth. Now a days we are seeing more psychological methods of police interrogating suspects.
Something that surprised me—while watching the clip “lie detectors” I was amazed that there was yet another way to test, in order to see if someone is lying. During this clip the interrogator said that he would not be using a polygraph, but a something called a computerized voice stress analyzer. I had never heard of this before, but evidently it works off of the suspect’s voice. According to this particular police officer it is more accurate than a polygraph. The voice stress works off of the AM and FM in your voice, when someone lies the FM in their voice dissipates.
This was a very cool website, and I'll probably go back to visit it just for the fun of it at a later time!