Thanks for stopping by
our bulletin board.
Please take just a moment to register so you can post your own questions
and reply to topics. It is free and takes only a minute to register. Just click on the register
link
As most of you know, I am in Baghdad and do not have access to a lot of TV channels over here. I did not get a chance to watch Stan Walters on the special last night. I also understand there were some other issues regarding interrogation discussed.
I would like to receive some feedback from anyone who watched the program.
I watched most of the show. I’ve never met Stan, but in my opinion it was a pretty good show with respect to basic interrogation and what to look for. If you can somehow get a copy of the show when you return to the US it would probably be good to view. They covered the different stages of the interview. If nothing else, after watching the show you would understand that rapport building is important. The actual interrogations they showed provided some good insight on guilty suspects. There is nothing like watching an actual interview to watch body language. Most of what he covered has been taught to most examiners. Stan did a good job in explaining what to look for and why people act the way they do during an interview or interrogation. Toward the end there was something about false confessions. I missed that part. I have my own personal view on why false confessions occur, but its just my opinion.
posted 03-11-2008 08:04 PM
I watched the whole show. A lot of hype for what I saw. If you're worried about CMs with polygraph, then this is the equivalent of CMs for interrogation, especially George's line: Don't talk / cooperate.
They talked about the science of interrogation, credited a lot of body language and emotion, but seemed to have only done (for the most part anyhow) factual analysis, which anybody can do.
They said our goal was to establish rapport, talked about norming, and then using themes to get a person to spill his guts.
They showed some of the new stuff DACA is working on, and Dr. Leo told us all confessions are false. Okay, he didn't say that this time, but he bugs me. He only tells half the story. Of course, we give him the ammo with which to shoot us. They showed the Crowe case, but they never mentioned how CVSA created the beginning of that tragedy.
Overall, it was an okay show for us, but not something I enjoyed seeing on my TV for all of the criminal world to view. Maybe people won't take away the "don't talk" message that I took from it (as hypersensitive as I am).
I'm not that high-tech yet, so I can't copy it to DVD. (I don't even think my TV runs through the VCR any more.)
DACAs information was good insight into potential future technology/components for the detection of deception (or whatever the terminology might be in the future).
However, the interrogation part of the show should not have been on televised as it was. Getting people to talk is an intricate chess game in some situations.
I was a bit puzzled to see a current police officer discussing not only this topic but his own tactics to getting criminals to talk. I would suspect some of those he aims to interview or will interview in the future were watching the show.
I recently saw this television spot:
I think this spot says quite a bit about the length criminals will go to get a leg up.
posted 03-12-2008 08:13 AM
I didn't see the spot, but I suspect I know what you guys are talking about. JB's video link was one of my "clips of the day" a month or so ago, and it is a real concern indeed. On informed examinee's of interrogation; having interrogated offenders who were no stranger to the chess game (more like checkers really,) I take some solace in knowing that the majority of criminals are morons, and no matter what mental countermeasures/ game awareness' they bolster before an interrogation, they still will most often be beaten to one incremental extent or another.
DUCK! HERE COMES ANOTHER CAR ANALOGY;
I am reminded of how I am a savvy car owner, and am an egomaniac/control freak when it comes to dealing and negotiating. But time and time again, when it comes to buying a car, I get screwed. Car salesman know what you know, are intimate with the process---having thousands of experiences compared with a dozen or so of the customers', and are reinforced by "the business aparatus." When someone brags to me about how great of a car buyer they are, I typically think such a statement is likened to someone saying how magnificient of a craps player they are. It's an oxymoron, as the house wins 99% of the time, no matter how well you "stay" at 17.
I am interested in your opinions as to why you feel false confessions occur. Since I live in the neighborhood of Dr. Leo and Dr. Ofsche, I have done a lot of digging into these two guys. Perhaps a new thread on "False Confessions" ????
posted 03-12-2008 11:33 AM
I thought it was rather common knowledge among those of us who interrogate people for a living. If not, it should be. In short, those who falsely confess tend to be young or slow (mentally). Cultural characteristics can come into play too. Interrogations are usually high-pressure, highly coercive and long-lasting.
Of course, Ted's neighbors would argue that most any person found DI on a polygraph test who confesses does so falsely because of the dynamics of the situation. That's a nice thought, but where's their data?
I don't want to act as if I'm not concerned about false confessions as I very much am. After all, who wants to get the wrong person? However Leo et al boast DNA exonerations. How many people know that a person can have two different DNA types? (One of those science shows did a story on it called "I am my own Twin.) How many of those people exonerated by DNA were guilty? Probably not many, if any, but we don't know how many people have two (or more?) different DNA types. It's likely a low number, but we don't have enough data to know yet.
My point here is to vent. (Thank you.) It's another area where a lack of science gets a lot of attention and acceptance when polygraph, with much more research, is still reported by some as voodoo.
Dr. Pete Blair will be doing a short presentation on false confessions at APA this year.
With all that said, there are innocence projects throughout the country, and they do their work for free. Many use polygraph, and it might be a good idea for some of us to volunteer our services on occasion (as long as we do it right and are honest about what we can do...) in the interest of justice. There may be many opportunities for paired tests in some of those situations.
posted 03-12-2008 11:46 AM
I read you. I thought you were inferring that there was some order of NEW information regarding false confessions.
Although for arguments' sake, we can use the imperfections of DNA testing to demonstrate that there is no panacea for testing errors------but in the end, to express concern over DNA errors, which by all intents and purposes appear to be miniscule, we as polygraph examiners, have VERY little room to disparage that modality.
I honestly think we need some very new testing mechanisms and approaches to survive the coming years, rather than adding bells and whistles and adding or changing vernacular to the same old jalopy, known as the multiple issue polygraph test. Ultimately, in doing so---will mean that WE WON'T HAVE TO INTERROGATE.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 03-12-2008).]
posted 03-12-2008 01:41 PM
False confessions occur because the person being interviewed is pushed too hard. There certainly are no hard and fast rules that I am aware of regarding how long an interrogation should or could last. Each case is different. I start to get uncomfortable if I’ve been interrogating for more than two or three hours. And, by that I mean AFTER the test and a DI call is made. By then, you have had the person for what, 4-5 hours. I certainly agree with Barry regarding what the research shows. The false confessions generally come from the young and mentally challenged. Should we even be trying to test the mentally challenged? That depends on the severity of the condition. I think most of use can make that call after the pre-test interview. That whole Crowe (I think that was his name, made me sick). You have to push the examinee, but you need to also evaluate the person you’re interviewing. We push a young kid or someone who is mentally challenged far enough, and they just might say anything to get out of that room. We know that happens. I know a lot of people disagree, but I like recorded interviews. My legal advisor is thinking about stopping recorded interviews unless they are required by law. In my opinion, that is a mistake. As examiners, we are all seasoned interrogators. How many times have you had to go more than two or three hours before they confessed or told you to pound sand? I have no data on the answer to that question, but I suspect we don’t go that long. Occasionally we may have to, but I’d be willing to bet it’s the exception. It’s just an area that I watch and try not to step over the line. Problem is, you don’t know exactly where that line is located! And of course, if the confession is not corroborated, it doesn’t mean much anyway.
And just a bit of advise to everyone……If you ever go in for a polygraph test for something you actually did and you see Skip sitting behind the instrument, save yourself two hours of aggravation and just confess to him, ‘cause he’s going to get it out of you anyway.
You are correct that the good doctors do not have numbers or facts to support their claims. This does not prevent them from attacking even the cleanest of interrogations. This is more than likely due to the high fee they collect. This is also another good reason to VIDEO RECORD EVERY EXAMINATION!
I presently have a case that they have offered to testify in for the defense. I hope it does not plead out because I am eager to go head to head with them on this one.
The link below will give you all every tool you or your prosecutor needs to shut these guys up. In many cases, the briefs included here may keep both of them from even being allowed to submit testimony. Go to http://www.reid.com/index.html
Then select Educational Information and then "Crtitics's Corner". GOOD STUFF !
Well, some folks wanted more discussion about false confessions. Interesting enough, an article was just posted on GM's site about an examiner in Nebraska being sued in Federal Court.
I would encourage all t have a look and download the actual complaint so you can see what attorneys will attack.
posted 03-13-2008 09:19 AM
George obviously gets the same Google alerts some of us do. If you haven't signed up yet, go to Google and give it a try. I don't recall the direct route, but if you go there and type in "polygraph" and then click "news," it'll give you a list of every news publication in which the word has appeared. Then, it will ask you if you want email notifications of future listings. Go ahead and do it. From then on, you'll get an email every day with 1 to 5 (usually) news articles that contain the word "polygraph." That's what George is doing, but we should be beating him to the punch - just like a prosecutor does to try to take the sting out of a less than perfect witness with "issues."
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
posted 03-11-2008 04:56 AM
posted 03-11-2008 08:13 AM
