From: jcs
In the realm of interrogation analysis, the benefit of hindsight offers a significant advantage when evaluating information [00:00:04]. When the outcome is known, specifically when a subject is known to be guilty, it allows observers to exclusively focus on guilty behavior, highlighting imperatives and stripping away non-essentials [00:00:10].
However, hindsight is not equally applicable to all subjects. It is often “far more compatible to the innocent than it is to the guilty” [00:00:30]. This is because the information needing scrutiny is reduced when dealing with innocent subjects, as the “versatile factors of misdirection and trickery” are absent, leaving relatively straightforward behavior [00:00:34]. While human beings are unique and individual reactions vary, atypical behavior due to trauma is generally distinguishable from guilty behavior with relative ease [01:01:01].
Case Study: Michael Dixon
On August 15, 2003, in Hamilton, Ontario, 37-year-old Michael Dixon, described as a self-professed introvert who turned down public speaking roles due to fear, was arrested at gunpoint near a jewelry store break-in [01:09:37]. Despite voicing his innocence, he did not resist arrest and offered to help [01:50:37]. He was taken to the Hamilton police station and questioned two hours later [01:55:37]. Notably, the 911 call described the suspect as a “small white man,” but Dixon is 6’3” and not white, suggesting a significant policing misstep from the outset [02:17:37].
During his interrogation, Dixon displayed several key behaviors:
- Self-Confidence and Poise He maintained a forward-leaning posture and direct eye contact with the detective, contrasting with the detective’s nervous disposition [03:26:37].
- Non-Verbal Challenge His exaggerated head movement was a deliberate act to let the detective know he was maintaining eye contact, asserting dominance and showing he was the more confident person in the room [03:38:37]. This is a concept recognized in forensic psychology [03:40:37].
- Unusual Tolerance Michael was “incredibly tolerant” of the injustice of the situation, an “unusual thing about his behavior” and perhaps what made him an anomaly among innocent subjects [05:12:37].
- Calm Assertion of Innocence He continued to profess his innocence in a calm and composed manner for an extended period [13:50:37].
- Reasoning Amidst Fear When informed he would be charged and go to court, fear emerged in his eyes, but he reacted with reasoning and intuitiveness [12:39:37]. He even called the detective’s bluff about video evidence, knowing his innocence meant he couldn’t be on camera [13:00:37].
Michael Dixon was held for three and a half days until a different investigator verified his alibi and checked surveillance, leading to his immediate exoneration [16:52:37].
Comparison: Justin’s Reaction to False Accusation
To illustrate a more common response from an innocent subject, the article presents the case of 26-year-old Justin, falsely accused of breaking and entering, first-degree theft, and assault [05:30:37].
Justin’s behavior contrasted sharply with Dixon’s:
- Inconvenience, Not Threat Initially, he viewed interrogators as an inconvenience rather than a threat [06:36:37].
- Direct and Concise His responses were short and concise, and he did not seek approval [06:40:37].
- Forceful Assertion of Innocence As the detective’s strategy involved revealing charges periodically [07:17:37], once Justin became aware of the burglary charge and its potential 20-year prison sentence, he began to forcefully assert his innocence [08:03:37]. He would bring forward his posture and strengthen his vocal emphasis [08:07:37].
- Defensive Aggression He appeared aggressive but in a defensive manner, not hostile, but “highly combative when professing his innocence” [11:07:37]. This level of anger was considered warranted when facing a considerable amount of prison time for something he did not do [11:17:37].
Justin was later exonerated when the accuser’s testimony was disproven in court [08:54:37]. The comparison between Justin’s combative, warranted anger and Michael Dixon’s forgiving composure highlights the extraordinary nature of Dixon’s behavior [11:24:37].