From: jcs
Principles of 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 allows for the exclusive focus on guilty behavior, highlighting imperatives and stripping away non-essentials [00:00:10].
The aphorism “hindsight is 20/20” is particularly compatible with the innocent, as the information required to scrutinize is reduced when dealing with innocent subjects [00:00:28]. When factors like misdirection and trickery are removed, the behavior of an innocent person tends to be relatively straightforward [00:00:40].
While human beings are unique and can react differently, and trauma can cause atypical behavior, atypical behavior and guilty behavior can generally be distinguished with relative ease [00:00:53].
Case Study: Michael Dixon
Arrest and Initial Interrogation
On August 15, 2003, in Hamilton, Ontario, 37-year-old Michael Dixon was arrested at gunpoint after police chased a jewelry store perpetrator [01:26:00]. Dixon, described as popular, friendly, unassuming, and a self-professed introvert, was getting off a bus nearby and was the first person police saw coming out of an alley [01:12:00]. He voiced his innocence but did not resist arrest, offering to help in any way he could [01:50:00].
He was taken to the Hamilton police station and questioned two hours after his arrest [01:55:00].
Policing Misstep
The 9-1-1 call described the suspect as a small, white man [02:19:00]. Michael Dixon, however, was not white and stood 6’3” [02:23:00]. This suggests the detective either forgot to review the dispatch call or deliberately rejected it as evidence [02:27:00].
Michael was informed the room was recorded and read his rights [02:37:00]. He asserted his willingness to speak with the detective and help with the investigation [02:41:00].
The detective immediately stated that Dixon’s innocence or guilt was “not an issue,” as the evidence was “conclusive and overwhelming” [03:00:00]. The detective’s aim was to ascertain “what kind of guy” Dixon was, whether he was a “serial burglar” or if this was a “one-off thing” [03:19:00].
Michael’s Demeanor and Response
During the interrogation, Michael maintained a forward-leaning posture, consistent eye contact, and poise, while the detective appeared to show a nervous disposition [03:26:00]. Michael’s non-verbal behavior, including an exaggerated head movement to emphasize maintaining eye contact, is recognized in forensic psychology as a “non-verbal challenge” [03:38:00]. This was a way of asserting dominance and confidence [04:03:00].
Despite the detective’s statements, Michael continued to assert his innocence, acknowledging that the detective had likely heard such claims many times [04:37:00]. He offered to answer questions but stated he had no answer as to why he would have done it, since he claimed he didn’t [04:48:00].
Anomaly in Innocent Behavior
Michael’s “incredibly tolerant” composure and “forgiving” demeanor in the face of injustice are unusual compared to typical responses from innocent subjects [05:11:00] [11:24:00].
The detective claimed there were witnesses and video camera evidence, which confused Michael since he knew he was innocent and couldn’t be on video [11:46:00]. Michael suggested getting a lawyer if this was the approach the police were taking [12:24:00]. He then directly challenged the detective, asking if the mention of a video camera was a bluff to gauge his reaction [12:57:00].
Despite being noticeably afraid when realizing he would be charged and not going home [12:41:00], Michael reacted with reasoning and intuitiveness [12:53:00]. He continued to profess his innocence calmly for another seven minutes [13:50:00]. He drew a map specifying his movements before arrest, and every detail of his alibi was later proven 100% accurate [13:53:00].
Outcome of Michael Dixon’s Case
Michael was held in jail for three and a half days [16:52:00]. A separate investigator later looked into his alibi witnesses and checked area surveillance, leading to his immediate exoneration [16:54:00]. A civil trial followed, and Michael was awarded $46,000 in punitive damages [17:03:00]. The interrogating officer and three other investigators involved were demoted and suspended without pay [17:08:00].
Case Study: Justin
False Accusation and Interrogation
26-year-old Justin was falsely accused of breaking and entering, first-degree theft, and assault [05:30:00]. He was arrested at home and only read his rights while on the way to the police station [05:36:00]. He was unaware he would be wrongfully imprisoned for just over two years [05:49:00].
Initially, Justin viewed his interrogators as an inconvenience rather than a threat [06:36:00]. His responses were short and concise, and he did not seek approval, only responding to questions or stating a point [06:40:00].
The detective’s strategy was to reveal the charges periodically, aiming to get a confession to one charge at a time rather than all at once [07:17:00]. The plan was to reveal the break-in and robbery charge first, followed by the assault charge [07:27:00].
The detective stated that an accuser named Candy claimed she saw him loitering and then breaking in and stealing items, and she picked him out of a 12-picture lineup [07:33:00].
Justin’s Response to Accusation
Upon learning of the burglary charge, which carried a possible 20-year prison sentence due to previous convictions, Justin began to forcefully assert his innocence [07:57:00]. He leaned forward and strengthened his vocal emphasis with each assertion [08:05:00]. He repeatedly denied knowing Candy or breaking into her house [08:22:00]. He mentioned that the only “Candy” he knew was a guy named Tim, who was the accuser’s ex-boyfriend [08:41:00].
The detective then revealed Justin was accused of assaulting the victim during the robbery [09:51:00]. Justin vehemently denied this, suggesting the injuries were caused by Candy’s ex-boyfriend, Tim [10:01:00].
Justin, having previously served three years for a robbery in his early twenties [10:50:00], likely knew the investigator’s reassuring tone was a bad sign [10:54:00].
Justin’s aggressive but defensive form of aggression is a common response from innocent subjects when directly accused [11:01:00]. He was not hostile but combative, a justified conduct when facing significant prison time for something not committed [11:07:00].
Outcome of Justin’s Case
The accuser’s testimony was later picked apart in court [08:54:00]. She was caught lying multiple times on the stand, and Justin was exonerated, proven innocent “beyond all doubt” [08:57:00].