Part three, the three most effective interrogation methods to gain a confession, interrogation sequence,
number one, timeline distortion.
This sequence combined several psychological principles and produces truly remarkable results.
To explain, we use the following example.
Let's say that your wife calls you up at work one day and informs you that you're 15 year old son took
the family car out for a joyride and was just brought back by the police.
You might be understandably upset.
However, let's take the same set of circumstances except for one thing.
In that conversation, your wife casually mentions that this mischievous deed was done by your now 25
year old son 10 years earlier.
Your reaction is likely to be considerably more mild.
Why?
Because time has passed.
Let's look at the flip side of this example.
You get a better sense of what we want to do here.
If the couple's son borrowed their car without permission 10 years earlier, he would probably feel
that he could mention it with full impunity and might even be amusing at this point.
And he certainly doesn't have to worry about getting in trouble, of being punished.
It's doubtful, though, that he would feel so comfortable telling his parents he had taken the car
the night before.
You see, time is a powerful psychological tool that dramatically shifts our perspective.
And the two factors affecting time are when the event occurred and when you became aware of it.
If either of both of these factors are moved into the past, the event is no longer timely and this
greatly reduces its perceived significance.
And here's where it comes into play.
Let's take an example.
We suspect several employees in your store are stealing money with one of the employees.
You let the conversation casually turn to the subject of stealing and you'd say something such as,
you know, I knew right from the start what was going on.
You had to know.
I knew.
How else do you think you could have gotten away for it for so long?
I hope you don't think I was a complete idiot about this.
That's a great phrase, by the way, because he doesn't want to risk offending you on top of everything
else.
Next, you reassure him that it's OK.
I know that you were just going along with it because you were scared of what the other people would
do.
I know you're not that kind of person.
The CEO and I said, this works now you simply move the conversation past this point.
With something such as I just want to make sure that it's limited to merchandise that is being used
there, returned or refurbished, or we just need to tamper down for the next couple of weeks because
they're going to be doing an inventory check and that's it.
If he doesn't pursue the conversation and question the allegations, then it is most likely that he
is guilty.
Strategy to pass them perfect again, the psychological principles can be applied in a number of different
ways, and the key to this interrogation sequence is to let your subject believe that you already know
the truth and that you've known about it for some time.
Let's take another scenario where parents suspects that her 12 year old son has been smoking cigarettes,
the following approaches are listed in order from worst to best one.
Have you been smoking cigarettes?
I'm going to kill you if I find out that you have this approach is awful.
The worst.
And unfortunately, it's the most common.
Because in her anger, the boy's mother links confessing the truth to a punishment.
And this destroys any incentive that the person has to confess.
Next, you've been smoking, have you?
Now, this approach is a little better because the mother indicates that she is some type of proof or
evidence.
And such an approach will work sometimes, but not always.
Next, she could say, I want to speak to you about your smoking.
Now the child feels the parent already knows that is smoking and the focus of the request is on discussing
it.
The parent may get a response such as, I don't want to talk about this.
However, the truth then is revealed in that statement.
But the best is I know all about the smoking and the sneaking around.
You know, I'm not happy about that.
But I just want you to promise me that you're not going to drink alcohol until you're 21.
This is by far the finest approach because it works on so many levels.
First, it takes a forward assumptive stands, meaning the parent knows all about the smoking.
Second, it uses two truisms.
The phrase is sneaking around and you know that I'm not happy about it sets the tone for honesty because
the child hears two things that he knows to be true.
He was, in fact, sneaking around and his mother, of course, is unhappy about the smoking.
He is therefore willing to accept at face value what follows next.
Finally, the mother gives the son an easy out.
All he has to do is promise not to drink in his home free.
There's no threat, there's no punishment, just honest statements followed by a deal that makes sense
for him to accept now.
So just to review the guidelines, to keep in mind in this procedure are No.
One, assume your suspicion is a fact to state at least two truisms, facts that you both know to be
true, then switch the focus from a threat to request the request should be easy for him to accept,
and it should sound reasonable if you don't get the answer you're looking for.
Continue on to phase two.