From: jcs
Hindsight Bias in Interrogation Analysis
When evaluating information during interrogation analysis, hindsight provides a considerable advantage, especially when the subject’s guilt is already known [00:00:04]. The knowledge of an outcome highlights crucial elements while stripping away non-essentials, allowing for calculations that might otherwise be overlooked due to doubt [00:00:14].
The aphorism “hindsight is 20/20” applies to interrogation analysis, and it is more compatible with innocent subjects than guilty ones [00:00:28]. This is because the information to scrutinize is reduced when dealing with innocent individuals [00:00:34]. Without misdirection and trickery, innocent behavior is relatively straightforward [00:00:40]. While individuals are unique and trauma can cause atypical behavior, atypical and guilty behaviors are generally distinguishable with ease [00:00:53].
Case Study 1: Michael Dixon
Arrest and Initial Interrogation
Michael Dixon, a 37-year-old self-professed introvert described as popular, friendly, but unassuming and reserved [00:01:12], was wrongfully arrested on August 15, 2003, in Hamilton, Ontario [00:01:26]. Police responded to a report of a man breaking into a jewelry store and chased a perpetrator [00:01:30]. Michael, who was getting off a bus nearby after work, was the first person police saw coming out of an alley and was arrested at gunpoint [00:01:41]. He voiced his innocence but did not resist, stating he would help in any way he could [00:01:50].
The arrest was a misstep, as the 9-1-1 call described the suspect as a small white man, whereas Dixon is 6’3” and not white [00:02:17]. This suggests the detective either forgot to review the dispatch call or rejected it as evidence [00:02:26]. Michael was informed the room was being recorded and read his rights [00:03:37]. He asserted his willingness to speak and help with the investigation [00:02:41].
Detective’s Strategy and Michael’s Composure
The detective immediately stated that Dixon’s innocence or guilt was “not an issue” as the evidence was “conclusive and overwhelming” [00:03:00]. The detective said he was only trying to ascertain “what kind of guy” Michael was, whether a “serial burglar” or if this was a “one-off thing” [00:03:19].
Michael maintained a forward-leaning posture and direct eye contact, displaying self-confidence and poise, while the detective appeared nervous [00:03:26]. This behavior, known as a non-verbal challenge in forensic psychology, asserted dominance [00:03:38]. Michael calmly stated he didn’t do it and offered to answer questions [00:04:37].
The detective implied video evidence of Michael’s guilt [00:11:46]. Michael expressed disbelief, stating, “that doesn’t make sense to me because if I’m on the video camera… there’s no way I can be on the video camera” [00:12:06]. He then stated he would need a lawyer [00:12:24].
Wrongful Imprisonment
Michael realized he would not be going home after the interview, experiencing fear as the detective confirmed he would be charged and go to court in the morning [00:12:36].
Michael continued to profess his innocence calmly for seven more minutes [00:13:49]. He was asked to draw a map and specify his movements before the arrest [00:13:53]. Every detail of his alibi was later proven 100% accurate [00:13:59].
Exoneration and Aftermath
Despite the detective’s assurance to investigate Michael’s story thoroughly [00:14:21], Michael was held in jail for three and a half days [00:16:52]. A separate investigator later looked into his alibi witnesses and checked surveillance, leading to his immediate exoneration [00:16:54]. A civil trial followed, and Michael was awarded $46,000 in punitive damages [00:17:03]. The interrogating officer and three other investigators were demoted and suspended without pay [00:17:08].
Case Study 2: Justin
False Accusation and Interrogation
Justin, a 26-year-old, was falsely accused of breaking and entering, first-degree theft, and assault [00:05:30]. He was arrested at home and read his rights on the way to the police station [00:05:36]. He was unaware he would be wrongfully imprisoned for over two years [00:05:49].
Initially, Justin viewed the interrogators as an inconvenience rather than a threat [00:06:34]. His responses were short, concise, and he did not seek approval [00:06:40].
The detective’s interrogation strategy was to reveal the charges periodically, believing it easier to gain a confession to one charge at a time [00:07:17]. The plan was to reveal the break-in and robbery charge first, then the assault charge later [00:07:30]. The detective stated that the accuser, “Candy,” claimed she saw Justin loitering and then breaking in to steal items [00:07:33]. She also supposedly picked him out of a 12-picture lineup [00:07:45].
Justin’s Defensive Reaction
Upon learning of the burglary charge, which carried a possible 20-year prison sentence due to his previous convictions, Justin began to forcefully assert his innocence [00:07:56]. He became combative, stating, “I didn’t break in her house. I don’t know who she is” and “I was not there! I don’t know this girl Candy” [00:08:22]. He mentioned “Tim Stall,” the accuser’s ex-boyfriend [00:08:44].
When accused of assaulting the victim during the robbery [00:09:51], Justin became very angry, yelling and cursing [00:10:01]. He suggested questioning Tim Stall about the injuries, believing Tim had done something to Candy and they were trying to blame him [00:10:05].
Innocent Subject Behavior
This aggressive but defensive form of anger is a common response from innocent subjects being directly accused [00:11:01]. Justin’s conduct was justified given the circumstances of facing significant prison time for something he didn’t do [00:11:13].
Having already served three years for a past robbery, Justin likely understood the gravity of the situation and the investigator’s tone [00:10:49].
Exoneration
The accuser’s testimony was later discredited in court, as she was caught lying multiple times on the stand [00:08:54]. Justin was exonerated, proven innocent “beyond all reasonable doubt, but essentially beyond all doubt” [00:09:02].
Comparing Reactions to False Accusations
The cases of Michael Dixon and Justin provide contrasting reactions to being wrongfully accused [00:00:01]. Michael Dixon maintained an “incredibly tolerant” and forgiving composure, which was noted as unusual for an innocent subject [00:05:10]. In contrast, Justin reacted with significant anger and combative defensiveness, which is described as a more commonplace response from innocent individuals directly accused [00:11:01]. Both cases highlight aspects of factors leading to false accusations and the importance of thorough investigation.