From: jcs
In the context of interrogation analysis, cognitive bias often arises, particularly the benefit of hindsight. Knowing a subject is guilty can lead investigators to exclusively look for guilty behavior, highlighting certain imperatives while stripping away non-essentials [00:00:04]. This “knowledge of outcome” allows for calculations that might otherwise be overlooked due to doubt [00:00:14].
While the aphorism “hindsight is 20/20” is well-known, its application is argued to be more compatible with assessing innocent subjects than guilty ones [00:00:24]. When dealing with innocent individuals, the information to scrutinize is reduced because factors like misdirection and trickery are removed, leaving relatively straightforward behavior [00:00:36]. Although human beings are unique and trauma can cause atypical behavior, such atypical behavior can generally be distinguished from guilty behavior with ease [00:00:50].
Case Study: Michael Dixon
On August 15, 2003, in Hamilton, Ontario, 37-year-old Michael Dixon was arrested at gunpoint after being mistaken for a jewelry store burglar [00:01:26]. Despite voicing his innocence, Dixon did not resist arrest and offered to help [00:01:50]. He was questioned two hours later at the Hamilton police station [00:01:57].
Initial police missteps were evident, as the 9-1-1 call described the suspect as a “small white man,” but Dixon is 6’3” and not white [00:02:19]. The detective either failed to review the dispatch call or deliberately rejected it as evidence [00:02:26].
During the interrogation, the detective immediately asserted Dixon’s guilt, stating that the evidence was “conclusive and overwhelming” and that Dixon’s innocence or guilt was “not an issue” [00:03:00]. The detective’s aim was to ascertain “what kind of guy” Dixon was, rather than whether he committed the crime [00:03:19].
Michael Dixon’s Demeanor
Michael Dixon maintained a forward-leaning posture and consistent eye contact, displaying self-confidence and poise [00:03:26]. This behavior is described as a non-verbal challenge in forensic psychology, asserting dominance in the exchange and conveying his confidence [00:03:38].
Despite the accusation, Michael’s reaction was notably tolerant of the injustice [00:05:12]. When the detective claimed there was video evidence of him [00:11:46], Dixon expressed that it “doesn’t make sense” because he knew he wasn’t there [00:12:06]. Faced with the realization that he would be charged and go to court [00:12:31], fear emerged in his eyes [00:12:39]. However, he reacted with reasoning, intuitiveness [00:12:53], and continued to profess his innocence calmly [00:13:49].
He even suggested the detective was “making this up” to see his reaction, stating that if he were truly on video, he would accept the procedure, but he was calling the detective’s bluff because he knew he wasn’t there [00:12:59].
Outcome of Michael Dixon’s Case
Every detail of Michael Dixon’s alibi was later proven 100% accurate [00:13:59]. He was kept in jail for three and a half days before a separate investigator looked into his alibi witnesses and checked surveillance footage [00:16:52]. Dixon was then exonerated immediately [00:17:02]. A civil trial ensued, and he was awarded $46,000 in punitive damages. The interrogating officer and three other investigators were demoted and suspended without pay [00:17:08].
Contrasting Case: Justin
To illustrate a more common response from an innocent subject facing similar charges, the case of 26-year-old Justin was presented [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].
Initially, Justin viewed the interrogators as an inconvenience rather than a threat, giving short, concise responses [00:06:36]. The detective’s strategy was to reveal charges periodically, starting with the break-in and robbery, then later the assault, to gain confessions one at a time [00:07:17].
Upon learning of the burglary charge, which carried a possible 20-year sentence due to his previous convictions, Justin began to forcefully assert his innocence [00:07:57]. He brought forward his posture and strengthened his vocal emphasis while denying knowledge of the accuser or the crime [00:08:07]. The accuser’s testimony was later discredited in court, and Justin was exonerated [00:08:54].
When accused of assault during the robbery, Justin became more agitated and aggressive, denying the accusation and pointing to the accuser’s ex-boyfriend, Tim Stark, as a possible perpetrator [00:10:01]. This form of aggression, while animated, is a commonplace, defensive response from innocent individuals being directly accused [00:11:01]. His anger was deemed warranted, given the prospect of considerable prison time for something he didn’t do [00:11:17]. This strong reaction starkly contrasted with Michael Dixon’s forgiving composure, highlighting the extraordinary nature of Dixon’s behavior [00:11:24].