Home > Preview
The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
What are the benefits of using a Direct accusation, (Ried Method)?
- 1) Directness shows absolute confidence.
- 2) Effective when the interrorgator must focus on a single specific issue.
- 3) Effective in situations where there is clear incontrovertable evidence of the suspect's guilt. It can be extrememly effective in a feild interview because of it's directness and spontaneity of the interrogation.
What are the reasons an interrogator may choose to use the Introductory Statement method?
- 1) The Interrogator believes the suspect may be involved in a pattern of criminal acts and wants to conceal whcih incident is known.
- 2) The Interrogator wants to avoid a more difficult interrogation where the suspect entrenches himself in denials.
- 3) The Interrogator wants to elicit behaviour from the suspect that may identify other criminal acts the suspect has committed.
- 4) The Interrogator, without committing himself to an interrorgation may wish to assess the suspects behaviour in response to a variety of crimes.
- 5) The interrorgator is attempting to obtain an admission to a crime he is unaware of and then move to an admission to the crime under investigation.
Why may an Interrogator choose to use the Participatory Accusation?
- 1) The Interrogator desires to lock the suspect into a story or sequence of events before beginning the interrorgation.
- 2) The suspect is talkative or aggressive, refusing to sit quietly and listen to the Interrogator.
- 3)The Interrogatorwants to increase the power of his evidence by having the suspect lie about what he has done or some aspect of the evidence.
- 4) The Interrogator may discover whether an incident occurred as a result of some ignorance or was intenionally committed by the suspect.
- 5) The Interrogatormay want the suspect to discount certain actions so he cannot later use them as a means of explaining away his actions or the evidence.
How does the Enticement / Baiting Question Accusation differ from other types of accusations?
- 1) When this question is used as an accusation, the Interrogator does not allow the suspect to answer the question as he would during an interview.
- 2) The Interrorgator may use this type of question to transition from a non-accusatory interview into an interrogation.
How is the Step Interrorgation or Transitional Statement used?
1) When the Interrogator chooses not to use a direct accusation, he may employ a step interrorgation which over several sentences increases the directness of the allegation.
What is required before using the Factual Accusation?
- 1) The factual approach is most successful when the investigation has uncovered a signifcant amount of information / evidence.
- 2) A factual approach is more effective if the suspect has been locked into his story or alibi before the evidence presentation.
How is the Factual Accusation applied?
- 1) Once the suspect has committed to an alibi or sequence of details, the Interrogator can use the evidence obtained during the investigation to refute the suspects lies.
- 2) Prosecuters will often invite co-conspirators to a preview of the evidence of their guilt in an effort to turn them into a cooperative witness.
What is Rationalization / Themes?
The Engine that drives the emotional interrogation.
What is the purpose of Rationalizations / Themes?
- 1) Continues the process of building raport with the suspect.
- 2) Allows the suspect to save face by shifting the belame for his actions to some other aspect of his life.
- 3) Minimize the seriousness of the incident.
With reference to the length of the rationalisation process, what general rules are applied?
- 1) It is the longest part of the interrorgation.
- 2) If dealing with crimes against property, the duration of rationisations can be 15-45 minutes.
- 3) If dealing with crimes against the person, the duration of rationisations can be 60-90 minutes.
What are key points when selecting a rationalisation / theme?
- 1) Background information available about the suspect.
- 2) Refrain from focusing on leniency shoudl a suspect confess
State the steps of Rationalising:
- 1) State it
- 2) Story it
- 3) Moral it
- 4) Link it
What methods are used to show understanding?
- 1) Quotes
- 2) Avoid harsh words
- 3) Focus on future or past, not consequences
- 4) Offer positive outlook
- 5) Tell Stories
- 6) No threats and promises
Describe the underlying structure of showing understanding:
- A) Accusation
- B) Transition Statement
- C) Summary of Possible Rationalisations
- D) Rationalisation 1:
- 1) State the rationalisation topic
- 2) Offer two universal examples of the topic that everyone might have experienced
- 3) Give an example of the rationalisation in story form using the third person
- 4) State the moral of the story
- link back to the investigation
- 5)change the suspects perspective
- 6)Rationalisation 2
- 7) Additional Rationalisations
- 8) Addressing the suspects hope or hurdle
- 9) Create urgency
- 10) Protecting the evidence
- 11) Test for submission
- i) Use first name
- ii) Personalise the rationalisation by changing to the first person - "The problem is we don't know what difficulties you faced in your life"
- iii) Evaluate signs of acceptance or rejection
- 12) Correcting the rationalisation
What behaviours typically indicate a suspect is in submission?
- 1) Quiet
- 2) Withdrawn
- 3) Breathing is shallow
- 4) Tears in the eyes and sniffles
What steps should be taken if the interrorgator feels the suspect is in submission mid rationalisation and has made a Rational Decision to confess?
- 1) Shorten Rationalisation
- 2) Test for submission
How should the soft accusation be applied?
1) Used when the suspect may have been involved in a pattern of criminal activity.
What is the primary difference between the alternative / choice question and the soft accusation?
1) In the alternative / choice question, the first admission is generally related to the incident under investigation, while the soft accusation affords the suspect an opportunity to make a broader based admission which may or may not include the original crime under investigation.
What three behavioural clues may occur during an admission.
- 1) Denial
- 2) Admission
- 3) Pause
During an interrorgation, the interogator may detect a Behavioural Shift from the suspect - what does this indicate?
1) The suspect who has moved into submission is involved in an internal dialouge with himself in an attempt to determine wheter or not he should confess.
What is the relevance of Frazier V Cupp?
This decision essentially allowed the interviewer to lie to a suspect as long as the lie was not coercive in nature:
For example, unacceptable and coercive methods could include a threat made by the interrorgator to take the subjects children from him if he does not confess, even though the interrorgator knows such an action will not occur under any circumstances.
What is one of the common mistakes made when presenting the baiting / enticement question?
1)Failing to have the subject locked into the details of their story or alibi.
Outline the manner in which a Baiting / Enticement question should be presented:
- 1) The interviewer locks the subject into his story or alibi.
- 2) The interviewer offers a premise for the question - ie: "You are probably aware that many businesses use video cameras to protect their parking lots, stores and employees"
- 3) The interviewer IMPLIES (Educate witness) that such evidence may exist.
- 4) The interviewer observes the subjects behaviour.
What options does the interrorgator have once the baiting / enticement question has been asked and a pause is detected in the subject?
At this point the interviewer begins the process of themes/rationalisation development in order to give the suspect the opportunity to save face or to make a confession. Following the pause, the interviewer could also elect to begin the interrorgation of the subject by making a direct accusation of his involvement.
What are the key points to cosider when using baiting / enticement questions to overcome denials?
- 1) They are particularly effective during the themes / rationalisation process.
- 2) When using this strategy, the subject should not be allowed to answer.
- 3) The use of this tactic will have no significant impact on an innocent person.
- 4) Interviewers should use discretion when asking a baiting / enticement question of an individual who lacks intelligence or whose memory has been compromised because of alcohol or drug use.
Name the two different types of denials?
- 1) Emphatic denial
- 2) Objection or explanitory denial
What behaviour is associated with an Emphatic Denial?
- 1) Suspect shakes head "no"
- 2) Suspect takes breath
- 3) Suspect tightens lips
How does the Emphatic Denial differ between and interview and an interrorgation?
- During an interview, the emphatic denial is essentially allowed to occur.
- During the interrorgation, an emphatic denial interrupts the flow.
During an interrorgation what are the two strategies open to an interrorgator in handling the emphatic denial?
- 1) Avoid Denials
- 2) Stop Denials
When stopping denials what tactics can be used?
- 1) Lift hand into a "stop" gesture
- 2) Turn ead slightly to indicate that he does not want to hear it
- 3) Talk slightly louder or faster to maintian control of the conversation
- 4) Use an enticement / baiting question
- 5) Change the psychology of the room
How should an interrorgator deal with truthful denials?
- 1) Increase the intensity and frequency
- 2) Evaluate the pysical behaviour to determine if it matches the voiced denials
What are the two ways an objection / explanatory denial may be viewed?
- An objection / explanitory denial may be looked at in one of two ways:
- 1) An attempt by the suspect to take the offensive by making a true statement which offers a reason why he would not or could not be involved in the incident under investigation.
- 2) A plea for help by the suspect who is dealing with an internal conflict that has not yet been resolved.
What are some of the common introductory phrases that may indicate an explanitory denial is forthcoming:
- 1) That's impossible
- 2) I'd never do something like that
- 3) I wouldn't do that
How is the explanitory denial to be used by the interrorgator?
Once the interrorgator has agreed with the suspects objetion / explinatory denial, the interrorgator uses that staement to create another rationalisation/theme.