From: jcs
Evaluating information with the benefit of hindsight provides a considerable advantage, as knowing a subject is guilty allows for an exclusive focus on perceived guilty behavior, highlighting imperatives while stripping away non-essentials [00:00:04]. However, hindsight also applies to the innocent, often revealing straightforward behavior once misdirection and trickery are removed [00:00:30]. While individual reactions vary and trauma can cause atypical behavior, such behavior is generally distinguishable from guilty behavior [00:00:47]. The knowledge of outcome can highlight certain aspects that might otherwise be overlooked due to doubt [00:00:20].
Case Study: Michael Dixon
Michael Dixon, 37, described as popular, friendly, unassuming, and reserved, was a self-professed introvert who turned down a presenter job due to public speaking fear, opting to remain a trade show assembler [00:01:12].
Circumstances of Arrest and Interrogation
On August 15, 2003, in Hamilton, Ontario, police responding to a jewelry store break-in chased a perpetrator and momentarily lost sight of them [00:01:26]. Michael Dixon, getting off a bus nearby after work, was the first person police saw coming out of the alley and was arrested at gunpoint [00:01:40]. He voiced his innocence and offered to help, not resisting arrest [00:01:50].
Two hours later, he was questioned at the Hamilton police station [00:01:57]. A policing misstep was noted: the 9-1-1 call described the suspect as a “small white man,” but Dixon is 6’3” and not white [00:02:17]. The detective either forgot to review the call or rejected it as evidence [00:02:26].
Despite being read his rights and informed of the recording, Michael asserted his willingness to speak and help [00:02:37]. The detective immediately stated that Dixon’s innocence or guilt was “not an issue” as the evidence was “conclusive and overwhelming,” and he would not ask if Dixon committed the crime [00:03:00]. Instead, he wanted to ascertain “what kind of guy” Dixon was [00:03:19]. This approach is an example of passive accusation in interrogations.
Michael maintained a forward-leaning posture and kept consistent eye contact at the same level as the detective, displaying self-confidence and poise [00:03:26]. This behavior, known as a non-verbal challenge in forensic psychology, asserted dominance in the exchange [00:03:38]. The detective, conversely, exhibited a nervous disposition [00:03:34].
Despite being accused, Michael was incredibly tolerant of the injustice, which was an unusual anomaly for an innocent subject [00:05:12]. He continued to profess his innocence calmly for seven minutes [00:13:50]. When confronted with the “conclusive” video evidence, which didn’t make sense to him given his innocence, he decided he had no choice but to get a lawyer [00:12:06]. The fear emerged in his eyes as he realized he wouldn’t be going home [00:12:37]. He maintained his composure, asking if the video camera claim was a bluff to see his reaction [00:12:57].
Michael was asked to draw a map of his movements before the arrest, and every detail of his alibi was later proven 100% accurate [00:13:53]. The detective assured him of a thorough investigation to find the “true version of events” [00:14:10].
Legal Outcomes
Michael was kept in jail for three and a half days [00:16:52]. A separate investigator later looked into his alibi witnesses and checked surveillance footage, 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: Justin
Justin, 26, was falsely accused of breaking and entering, first-degree theft, and assault [00:05:30]. He was arrested at home and only read his rights on the way to the police station [00:05:36]. He was unaware he would be wrongfully imprisoned for just over two years [00:05:49].
Interrogation and Reaction
Initially, Justin viewed the interrogators as an inconvenience rather than a threat, giving short, concise responses without seeking approval [00:06:36]. His alibi for the time of the alleged break-in was being at his mother’s house, asleep [00:06:20].
The detective’s strategy was to reveal the charges periodically, starting with the break-in and robbery, then later the assault [00:07:19]. The accuser, “Candy,” claimed she saw Justin loitering and then breaking in, stealing items, and later picked him from a 12-picture lineup [00:07:33].
Upon learning of the burglary charge, which carried a possible 20-year sentence due to prior convictions, Justin forcefully asserted his innocence [00:07:57]. His posture became more forward, and his vocal emphasis strengthened [00:08:07]. He vehemently denied knowing “Candy,” stating he didn’t break into her house and had been home [00:08:22]. He mentioned Candy’s ex-boyfriend, Tim Stark, who was the accuser’s ex-boyfriend [00:08:44].
When accused of assaulting the victim during the robbery, Justin became highly combative and aggressive in a defensive manner, cursing and vehemently denying the accusation [00:09:51]. He pointed out that Candy’s boyfriend, Tim Stark, might be responsible for her injuries [00:10:05]. Having previously served three years for robbery in his early twenties, Justin likely recognized the gravity of the situation despite the investigator’s reassuring tone [00:10:50]. His anger and combative stance were deemed justified given the potential for significant prison time for a crime he didn’t commit [00:11:17]. This contrasts sharply with Michael Dixon’s forgiving composure [00:11:24]. This is an example of emotional responses in criminal investigations.
Trial Outcomes
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, his innocence proven “essentially beyond all doubt” [00:09:02].