From: jcs
When analyzing interrogations, hindsight offers a significant advantage, allowing for the exclusive focus on “guilty behavior” when a subject’s guilt is known [00:00:04]. This knowledge highlights essential details while stripping away non-essentials [00:00:15]. However, the concept of “hindsight is 20/20” is notably more compatible with analyzing the innocent than the guilty [00:00:28]. 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].
While individuals are unique and trauma can cause atypical behavior, atypical and guilty behavior are generally distinguishable with relative ease [00:00:50].
Case Study: Michael Dixon
Michael Dixon, a 37-year-old self-professed introvert described as popular, friendly, unassuming, and reserved [00:01:09], was arrested on August 15, 2003, in Hamilton, Ontario [00:01:26]. Police mistook him for a jewelry store perpetrator described as a “small white man,” despite Dixon being 6’3” and not white [00:02:17]. Dixon voiced his innocence and stated he would help in any way he could, without resisting arrest [00:01:50].
During the interrogation, the detective stated Dixon’s innocence or guilt was “not an issue” due to what he claimed was “conclusive and overwhelming” evidence [00:03:00]. He focused on ascertaining “what kind of guy” Dixon was, such as whether he was a “serial burglar” or if it was a “one-off thing” [00:04:15].
Michael Dixon’s Demeanor
- Non-Verbal Challenge: Michael maintained a forward-leaning posture with eyes in contact and at the same level as the detective, displaying self-confidence and poise [00:03:26]. This behavior is known as a non-verbal challenge in forensic psychology [00:03:38]. His exaggerated head movement was a way of asserting dominance, indicating he was the more confident person [00:04:03].
- Tolerance of Injustice: Michael exhibited an incredibly tolerant demeanor over the injustice of his situation, which is described as unusual for an innocent subject [00:05:10].
- Calm and Composed Assertions: He continued to profess his innocence in a calm and composed manner for an extended period [00:13:48].
- Reasoning and Intuitiveness: Despite being noticeably afraid when realizing he would be charged and not going home, he reacted with reasoning and intuitiveness, even questioning if the detective was bluffing about a video camera [00:12:51].
- Trust in Justice: He expressed trust in the detective’s assurance to investigate his story thoroughly [00:15:17].
Michael’s alibi, including a detailed map of his movements, 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 and surveillance [00:16:52], leading to his immediate exoneration [00:17:00]. He was awarded $46,000 in punitive damages, and the interrogating officer and three other investigators were demoted and suspended without pay [00:17:03].
Case Study: Justin
Justin, a 26-year-old, was falsely accused of breaking and entering, first-degree theft, and assault [00:05:30]. He was unaware he was about to be wrongfully imprisoned for over two years [00:05:49].
Justin’s Demeanor
- Initial View of Interrogators: Initially, Justin saw the interrogators as an inconvenience rather than a threat, giving short and concise responses without seeking approval [00:06:34].
- Reaction to Charges: The detective’s strategy was to reveal charges periodically, starting with the break-in and robbery [00:07:17]. Upon learning of the burglary charge, which carried a possible 20-year sentence due to prior convictions, Justin began to forcefully assert his innocence [00:07:56]. He brought forward his posture and strengthened his vocal emphasis with each assertion [00:08:07].
- Aggressive but Defensive: When later accused of assault, Justin became highly combative [00:09:51]. This form of aggression is a common response from the innocent when directly accused [00:11:00]. His conduct was considered justified given the circumstance of facing significant prison time for something he didn’t do [00:11:13].
- Exoneration: Justin was exonerated when the accuser’s testimony was “picked apart” in court, revealing multiple lies [00:08:54].
Comparison: Michael Dixon vs. Justin
Compared to Michael Dixon’s “forgiving composure,” Justin’s form of aggressive, combative, yet defensive response is a more commonplace reaction for an innocent subject facing serious accusations [0:10:09]. While Michael’s tolerance of injustice made him an anomaly, Justin’s anger was warranted given the potential prison time for a crime he didn’t commit [00:11:17].