|
Author
|
Topic: Interrigation Schools
|
polypro
Member
|
posted 12-17-2006 01:02 PM
 
Besides the Reid School, is there any other interrogation schools that someone would care to recommend?IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 12-17-2006 06:46 PM
polyproIn California, Dr. Nick Flint has the Behavior Analysis Training Institute in Livermore. He has a basic and advanced as well as statement analysis. I have taken all of his courses which are each 40 hrs. They are excellent! Ted IP: Logged |
blalock
Member
|
posted 12-17-2006 07:01 PM
Here are some I know of besides ReidJohn Bowden http://www.aptactraining.com/home.html Dan Sosnowski http://www.polygraph-pro.com/ Stan Walters http://www.kinesic.com/ Wicklander http://www.w-z.com/ Hope this helps and Happy Holidays!
Ben IP: Logged |
jrwygant
Member
|
posted 12-19-2006 03:46 PM
Stan Slowik was formerly with Reid and now does his own thing out of Colorado. He is mostly involved with pre-employment screening, but he has done presentations on interviewing / interrogation & has some very interesting videos. He travels around a lot and may be coming to your neighborhood. I haven't emailed him lately, but it was once:
slowik@worldnet.att.net
IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 12-19-2006 04:16 PM
I've been to Wicklander and Reid. Wicklander is licensed to teach the Reid Technique, and frankly, I liked them better than Reid. I've read Stan Walters' book, and I like what he teaches as he bases his course on science - something you don't necessarily get elsewhere. If I were to attend another course, I'd give his a try.What do you want to gain from the course? There's a difference between recognizing cues to deception and getting a confession. Knowing what you want could make a difference in where you want to attend. IP: Logged |
polypro
Member
|
posted 12-20-2006 02:31 PM
Actually Barry, my boss posed the question to me, and I didn't really have an answer for him. I told him that I would post the question on the board, and get back with him with member's suggestions. I would assume that obtaining confessions would be the focal point of any schools we would want to attend. In my opinion, there's the Reid Technique, and then there's the Reid Technique. I mean how many techniques can stray that far off of what Reid teaches?
IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 12-20-2006 02:41 PM
I've read Stan Walters's book, and I had a Stan Walters' trained guy teach a class I attended. From what I know, Reid and Walters styles clash even though both have a confession as one of their goals. I get the sense that Stan winces at much of Reid's teachings.On another note, Sapir has an interrogation class he puts on, but I know nothing about it. (His statement analysis course is one of the best I've ever attended though.) IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 12-21-2006 10:02 AM
"I've read Stan Walters' book, and I like what he teaches as he bases his course on science - something you don't necessarily get elsewhere."--Barryc
Interesting Barry.
To me, interrogation is much more of an artform. I am interested in Stan's book to see how he manages to conform an artform (chess) into a science (tic tack toe). Reminder: IBM's "Deep Blue" still is unable to scientifically win every chess game against human opponents. I have learned great tactics from wise interrogators---tactics which have strong probabilities of success (itself a subjective concept)---maybe the track record of such tactics is the "scientific" indicator which Barry refers to. I'll give him that, but there --IMO--is nothing scientific about how my lasagna turns out well. The ingrediants are scientifically/verifiably yummy, but the amount of flexibility--always nebulous---determines the "success"----great taste, followed by gas and diarrhea. No two lasagna turn out the same--ever--despite repeated attempts and consistance measurement. They used to readily call this the "culinary arts"---now to garner more professional respect (sound familiar), they call it "gastronomy."[This message has been edited by stat (edited 12-21-2006).] IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 12-21-2006 10:44 AM
Upon reading some articles of Stan's writing, I have an interest in his opinions -----especially regarding false confessions and interrogation room atmosphere. I'm never thrilled with paying for information though. If I wanted to perform neuro surgery on a polar bear, I can readily get the instructions and theories for free on the web.I'm in a whining mood--can y'all tell?IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 12-21-2006 10:51 AM
Actually, Reid and Assoc. based their technique on what they learned from studying human behavior, i.e. science (psychology), and they also have been researching false confessions as that has been a courtroom issue lately. However, I was referring to their methods of detecting deception through verbal and non-verbal behavior. Stan Walters teaches scientifically validated cues; others don't necessarily do so, which is likely why many police officers, judges, polygraph examiners (sans polygraph), etc., don't do as well as they think they do in that arena.The more valid cues one looks for, the more likely he is to be correct. Look for the wrong cues, and you could save time by flipping coins (or using CVSA). There is an art to interrogation, but the art should involve the correct application of science. Interviewing witnesses is an art form too, I'd suggest; however, there are a lot of scientifically valid ways of talking to a witness to get the most and most accurate information, which is how we ended up with the Cognitive Interview. You can wing it in the name of art, or you can apply principles of science and better your results. I've got some studies around here some place that show that Reid trained grads are no better than chance when it comes to detecting deception. That's a problem, especially if examiners are deciding what CQs are probable lies based on what they learn in an interrogation course that teaches the wrong cues to watch for in a suspect. IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 12-21-2006 11:23 AM
As always Barry, all good points. If one needed a more likely area of strong control material in the pre-test, one need only to attach the components, minus the cardio cuff, to have a fluid (non-interrogative) conversation about historic (sans target inquiry) events to see arousals to sensitive--probable lie---areas---while avoiding the target topic. Next, take off the components, and resume the interview---and eventually , run actual charts. I believe that such a maverick style of "control mining" would have a better liklihood of determining deceptive (or at least arousing) areas of comparison, than to observe the non-verbal cues of "wrapping/protecting" the genitals (or the other numerous non-baseline cues), or the opposite--being overly relaxed. Every interrogation training I've seen involved a demonstrative film of the most elementary interrogation----the interrogator speaks to the subject like a concerned grade school principal, drolling on---while the examinee ponders telling the truth to such a compelling figure (or simply just wants to go pee). The speaker then points out the "cues" in the video(s)and says "see..... Conversely, they (the speakers) then point out later a bevy of caveats which ultimately negate the cues which were supposed to be such great indicators. And ultimately, the speaker than states in less than concrete terms to the class that the whole "science" is very difficult and that there are several deviations--and that the student needs to participate (and pay) for more classes, endless classes---while the expert revises the whole science in the next volume/series 2-3 years later.
Admittedly, there is much to learn from interrogation schools. Statement analysis is interesting, although (IMO) very very nebulous. Statement analysis is very culture- specific (IMO). Forget about using it on Arabs for instance (IMO)due to the emphatic nature of the language---many feel that Spanish language/statement analysis holds the same caveats (Ray/Barry--I have no printed research to back up these opinions, nor verbal citings ---Stat,Dec 21, 2006). Sheesh I can't stop editing this thread. [This message has been edited by stat (edited 12-21-2006).] [This message has been edited by stat (edited 12-21-2006).] [This message has been edited by stat (edited 12-21-2006).] IP: Logged |
polypro
Member
|
posted 12-22-2006 03:23 PM
Stat,
It's interesting that you would bring up culture as a determining factor in interrogations and interviews. I've conducted exams in many other cultures, and have found that Reid's theme building is effective in most, but not all, cultures. Therefore, an alternative technique would be of great use. I also agree with Barry that paralinguistics and kinesics play an important role in identifying appropriate control material, but any good examiner and especially some one who's been in law enforcement for an extended period of time shouldn't have a problem reading body language cues.
What I think we're looking for is something to supplement what we're already doing. Sort of a re-enforcement to theme building because, as I stated earlier, good choices in interrogations techniques seem to be culturally driven. I have nothing to back that statement up - only my experiences. It'd be nice to have something to fall back on if my current technique fails, and it has in the past. It's made me feel ashamed to run out of ideas midstream, especially when I feel that a confession can be had.Happy Holidays and thanks for the help
IP: Logged | |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
