From: jcs
Evaluating information during an interrogation analysis is often influenced by the benefit of hindsight [00:00:04]. When the subject’s guilt is known, it leads observers to exclusively look for guilty behavior, overlooking non-essentials and highlighting specific “imperatives” [00:00:10]. This phenomenon, known as “hindsight is 20/20,” is particularly compatible with the innocent, as the information to scrutinize is reduced when misdirection and trickery are absent [00:00:24].
While human beings are unique and can react differently, especially under trauma causing atypical behavior, such atypical behavior is generally distinguishable from guilty behavior with relative ease [00:00:50].
Case Study: Michael Dixon (Atypical Innocent Response)
Michael Dixon, a 37-year-old self-professed introvert, was arrested at gunpoint on August 15, 2003, in Hamilton, Ontario, for breaking into a jewelry store [00:01:09]. Despite voicing his innocence, he didn’t resist arrest and offered to help [00:01:50].
His arrest was questionable, as the 9-1-1 call described the suspect as a “small white man,” while Dixon is 6’3” and not white [00:02:17].
Interrogation Dynamics
During his interrogation, Michael Dixon displayed a distinct demeanor:
- Initial Composure He maintained a forward-leaning posture and direct eye contact, displaying self-confidence and poise, while the detective appeared nervous [00:03:26].
- Non-Verbal Challenge His exaggerated head movement was a non-verbal challenge intended to assert dominance and signal his confidence to the detective [00:03:38].
- Tolerance of Injustice Michael showed unusual tolerance for the injustice of his situation [00:05:12]. He consistently professed his innocence in a calm and composed manner for several minutes [00:13:50].
- Logical Reasoning When informed of supposedly conclusive video evidence, he questioned the logic, stating, “that doesn’t even make sense to me because if I’m on the video camera… since I know I didn’t do it there’s no way I can be on the video camera” [00:13:00].
- Trust in Process Even when informed he would be charged and taken to a custody facility, he maintained a level of trust in the detective to investigate thoroughly, saying, “I trust you will… I’ll make sure we got the whole picture” [00:15:57].
Outcome
Every detail of Michael Dixon’s alibi was later proven 100% accurate [00:13:59]. He was held for three and a half days before a separate investigator looked into his alibi and surveillance [00:16:52]. He was immediately exonerated and awarded $46,000 in punitive damages, while the interrogating officer and three other investigators were demoted and suspended [00:17:03].
Case Study: Justin (Common Innocent Response)
In contrast to Michael Dixon, the case of 26-year-old Justin illustrates a more common response from an innocent subject [00:05:25]. Justin was falsely accused of breaking and entering, first-degree theft, and assault, and was wrongfully imprisoned for over two years [00:05:30].
Interrogation Dynamics
- Initial Inconvenience Before knowing the charges, Justin viewed the interrogators as an inconvenience rather than a threat [00:06:34]. His responses were short and concise, and he did not seek approval [00:06:40].
- Periodic Revelation of Charges The detective used a strategy of revealing charges periodically to elicit confessions one at a time [00:07:17].
- Forceful Assertion of Innocence Once Justin was aware of the serious burglary charge, he began to forcefully assert his innocence [00:08:04]. He would bring his posture forward and strengthen his vocal emphasis with each assertion [00:08:07].
- Aggressive but Defensive This form of aggression is a common response from innocent individuals being directly accused [00:11:01]. He was not hostile but highly combative, and his anger was warranted given the prospect of significant prison time for something he didn’t do [00:11:09].
Outcome
Justin’s accuser was later caught lying multiple times on the stand, and Justin was exonerated “beyond all doubt” [00:09:54].
Conclusion
The contrasting behaviors of Michael Dixon and Justin highlight the spectrum of innocent responses to wrongful accusation during interrogation. While Michael exhibited an unusual composure and logical challenge, Justin displayed a more common aggressive, yet defensive, assertion of innocence. Both cases underscore the challenges in accurately assessing guilt or innocence without allowing cognitive bias to influence the evaluation of behavioral cues.