Part three the three most effective interrogation methods to gain a confession interrogation sequence
two unforced explanations in this sequence the person must answer your question with information not
a simple denial but the information they disclose will reveal his guilt or innocence.
For example let's say John's house had been broken into and he was convinced that his ex-girlfriend
whom he had recently broken up with was the culprit here.
But he wasn't exactly sure she had his key and the only thing that was missing was some expensive jewelry
that was well hidden but that she knew about.
Now the housekeeper or the electrician who had recently done some work there could also have taken it
or might just have been a random burglary just calling his ex-girlfriend and accusing her of this crime
would obviously have been futile.
She would deny any and all knowledge of the event and he would be left with no evidence and no confession.
Instead he proceeds as follows.
He phones or it's a later known a very non-accusatory way that there'd been a break in in his house
and some items were missing.
But in an attempt to sound surprised she may ask what happened and the following is a short illustration
of the type of conversation that might very well ensue.
John the police are going to want to talk to everyone who had access to the house.
Since you still have a key they're going to want to speak to you and ask you a couple of questions.
Just routine stuff I'm sure ex-girlfriend but I don't know anything about this John.
Oh I know just policy I guess.
Anyway one of my neighbors said that she got a partial license plate number of a car that was by my
house that day ex-girlfriend after a long pause.
Well I was driving around your neighborhood that day I stopped by just to see if you were home.
But when you weren't.
I just left and that was it.
Now so far she has effectively explained her presence there that day.
But in doing so she has established either an uncanny coincidence or her likely guilt.
Had she been innocent she would have had no reason to pursue this line of questioning or conversation.
Now he continues to introduce more evidence John.
Oh really.
Well they did a fingerprint test too and that should show something.
Ex girlfriend what test John.
Oh they dusted for prints and so on.
At this point she's going to go ahead explain how the police might pick up reprints because she had
been there obviously many times and so on.
But she continues to dig her own grave.
Now to review you casually and for me suspect to the situation and then introduce evidence to be rebutted
as you introduce the evidence.
Look to see if every one of your statements are met by explanations from him as to how the evidence
could be misunderstood or misconstrued.
Let's take another quick example.
Let's say you suspect that your coworker had shredded some of your files in hopes of beating you out
for a promotion.
You would first set the stage by letting him know that you can't find some of your files and then say
something such as.
Well it's a good thing my new secretary noticed someone by the shredder the other day she said that
she recognized his face but didn't really know his name.
At this point see if he offers up a reason as to why he could be mistaken for the real culprit.
Now he might tell you that he was there shredding some of his own documents.
An innocent person would not feel the need to explain this in order to avert the possibility that he
might be wrongly accused.
Now you continue with more and more facts because you do want to rule out an uncanny coincidence but
you make it harder for the person to explain it away.
And in actuality as he talks more about the situation he explains how a quote look this way even though
in fact it's not.
Now if you don't get the answer you're looking for.
Once again continue on to phase two.