From: jcs
Hindsight bias, often summarized by the aphorism “hindsight is 20/20” [00:00:24], plays a significant role in interrogation analysis [00:00:01]. Knowing that a subject is guilty can lead investigators to exclusively seek out and highlight behaviors that confirm this pre-existing belief, overlooking non-essential information and reinforcing imperatives [00:00:07].
While hindsight provides a considerable advantage in evaluating information [00:00:04], it is argued to be more compatible with the innocent than the guilty [00:00:30]. This is because the information to scrutinize is reduced when dealing with innocent subjects, as the “versatile factors of misdirection and trickery” are removed, leaving relatively straightforward behavior [00:00:34].
Although human beings are unique and trauma can cause atypical behavior [00:00:53], atypical behavior and guilty behavior are generally distinguished from each other with relative ease [00:01:01].
Case Study: Michael Dixon
Michael Dixon, a 37-year-old self-professed introvert described as popular, friendly, unassuming, and reserved [00:01:12], was arrested on August 15, 2003, in Hamilton, Ontario [00:01:26]. Police were responding to a report of a man breaking into a jewelry store [00:01:30]. Two officers pursued a perpetrator from the store but momentarily lost sight of them [00:01:33]. At the same time, Michael Dixon, coming home from work, was getting off a bus nearby [00:01:40]. He was the first person the police saw emerging from the alley and was arrested at gunpoint [00:01:45]. Dixon voiced his innocence but did not resist arrest, stating he would help in any way he could [00:01:50].
Interrogation and Detective Missteps
Dixon was questioned two hours after his arrest at the Hamilton police station [00:01:57]. The detective’s conduct during the interrogation was problematic:
- The 9-1-1 call described the suspect as a “small white man” [00:02:17]. Michael Dixon was 6’3” and not white [00:02:23], indicating the detective either neglected to review the dispatch call or disregarded it as evidence [00:02:26].
- Upon informing Dixon the room was recorded and reading his rights, Dixon asserted his willingness to speak and help with the investigation [00:02:37].
- The detective immediately stated, “your innocence and guilt in this quite frankly isn’t an issue. The evidence I have is frankly conclusive and overwhelming” [00:03:00], and that he wouldn’t even ask if Dixon did it, instead focusing on “what kind of guy you are” [00:03:16].
Michael Dixon’s Behavior Under Interrogation
Despite the detective’s assertions, Michael Dixon maintained a forward-leaning posture and kept his eyes in contact and at the same level as the detective, displaying self-confidence and poise [00:03:26]. This behavior is identified as a “non-verbal challenge” in forensic psychology [00:03:38]. Dixon’s exaggerated head movement was not just to maintain eye contact, but to assert dominance and communicate that he was the more confident person in the room [00:04:03].
Dixon expressed his innocence, acknowledging the detective had heard it “a million times” but asking for questions so he could answer them [00:04:38]. His tolerance for the injustice of the situation was noted as unusual, making him an anomaly among innocent subjects [00:05:12].
When the detective claimed there were witnesses and even video camera evidence that made Dixon’s guilt “not an issue” [00:11:46], Dixon stated, “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” [00:12:06]. He then decided he had “no choice but to get a lawyer” [00:12:22]. His fear became noticeable, but he reacted with reasoning and intuitiveness [00:12:51], questioning if the video camera claim was a bluff [00:12:57].
Michael Dixon continued to profess his innocence calmly for another seven minutes [00:13:50]. He drew a map detailing his movements before the arrest, and every detail of his alibi was later proven 100% accurate [00:13:53].
Despite the detective assuring Dixon he would investigate the story thoroughly [00:14:21], Dixon remained concerned about the speed of the process and the lack of investigation at the scene [00:14:39]. Dixon expressed trust in the detective to get the “whole picture” [00:15:57] and acknowledged the detective’s decency [00:16:32], but emphasized his dissatisfaction with the process given his innocence [00:16:13].
Outcome for Michael Dixon
The truth eventually emerged [00:16:46]. Michael Dixon was held in jail for three and a half days [00:16:52] before a separate investigator looked into his alibi, witnesses, and checked surveillance of the area [00:16:54]. He was then immediately exonerated [00:17:00]. A civil trial followed, awarding Michael Dixon $46,000 in punitive damages [00:17:03]. The interrogating officer and three other investigators were demoted and suspended without pay [00:17:08].
Comparative Case Study: Justin
For comparison, the case of 26-year-old Justin, falsely accused of breaking and entering, first-degree theft, and assault, illustrates a more common response from an innocent subject [00:05:30]. Justin was arrested at home and only read his rights on the way to the station [00:05:36], unaware he was about to be wrongfully imprisoned for over two years [00:05:49].
Justin’s Behavior Under Interrogation
Initially, Justin viewed the interrogators as an inconvenience, giving short, concise responses without seeking approval [00:06:36]. He confirmed his alibi, stating he was at his mother’s house, and suggested they call her to confirm [00:06:21].
The detective’s strategy was to periodically reveal charges, aiming to get a confession one at a time [00:07:17]. When informed of the burglary charge, which carried a possible 20-year prison sentence due to prior convictions [00:07:57], Justin began to forcefully assert his innocence [00:08:03]. His posture became more forward, and his vocal emphasis strengthened [00:08:07]. He repeatedly denied knowing the accuser, Candy, or being at her house [00:08:22], mentioning that the only “Candy” he knew was a guy named Tim Stark, the accuser’s ex-boyfriend [00:08:41].
When accused of assaulting the victim during the robbery [00:09:51], Justin’s anger escalated, vehemently denying the assault and suggesting the accuser’s ex-boyfriend was responsible [00:10:01]. Having previously served three years for robbery [00:10:50], he likely recognized the gravity of the situation. This form of aggressive yet defensive behavior is a commonplace response from innocent individuals directly accused [00:11:01]. His conduct was considered justified given the circumstance of facing significant prison time for something he did not do [00:11:13].
Outcome for Justin
Justin was exonerated [00:09:02]. The accuser’s testimony was picked apart in court, as she was caught lying multiple times on the stand [00:08:54].
Conclusion
The contrast between Michael Dixon’s “forgiving composure” [00:11:24] and Justin’s “aggressive but in a defensive manner” [00:11:07] during their interrogations highlights the range of innocent behavior. Hindsight bias can lead to a narrow interpretation of suspect behavior, potentially leading to wrongful accusations and convictions if investigators assume guilt from the outset and interpret all actions through that lens. The examples demonstrate the critical importance of thorough investigation tactics and an unbiased approach in criminal investigations to ensure the truth is paramount [00:14:14].