From: jcs
Interrogation analysis involves evaluating information related to interrogations, often with the benefit of hindsight [00:00:01]. Knowing the outcome, particularly if a subject is guilty, can lead to exclusively focusing on behaviors perceived as guilty [00:00:10]. This knowledge highlights imperatives and removes non-essentials, allowing for calculations that might otherwise be overlooked due to doubt [00:00:14].
While “hindsight is 20/20” is a well-known aphorism [00:00:24], it applies more effectively to innocent subjects than to guilty ones [00:00:30]. When dealing with innocent subjects, the information to scrutinize is reduced because factors like misdirection and trickery are absent, leaving relatively straightforward behavior [00:00:36].
While individuals react differently and trauma can cause atypical behavior [00:00:50], atypical behavior and guilty behavior can generally be distinguished with ease [00:01:01].
Case Study: Michael Dixon
Michael Dixon, 37, was described by peers as popular, friendly, unassuming, and reserved [00:01:12]. A self-professed introvert, he turned down a job as a trade show presenter due to fear of public speaking, instead maintaining his position as a trade show assembler [00:01:17].
Arrest and Initial Interrogation
On August 15, 2003, in Hamilton, Ontario, police responded to a jewelry store break-in [00:01:26]. Officers chased the perpetrator but momentarily lost sight [00:01:33]. Michael Dixon, getting off a bus nearby on his way home from work, was the first person police saw exiting the alley and was arrested at gunpoint [00:01:40]. Dixon voiced his innocence but did not resist, stating he would help in any way possible [00:01:50].
He was taken to the Hamilton police station and questioned two hours after his arrest [00:01:55]. A critical misstep occurred as 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 failed to review the dispatch call or disregarded it [00:02:26].
Michael was informed the room was recorded and read his rights [00:02:37]. He asserted his willingness to speak with the detective and help with the investigation [00:02:41].
Detective’s Approach and Michael’s Non-Verbal Challenge
The detective immediately stated that Michael’s innocence or guilt was “not an issue” as the evidence was “conclusive and overwhelming,” and he would not ask if Michael committed the crime [00:03:00]. Instead, the detective claimed he needed to ascertain “what kind of guy” Michael was, whether he was a “serial burglar” or if this was a “one-off thing” [00:03:19].
Michael maintained a forward-leaning posture and kept eye contact at the same level as the detective, displaying self-confidence and poise [00:03:26]. The detective, conversely, appeared nervous [00:03:34]. Michael’s actions constituted a “non-verbal challenge” in forensic psychology [00:03:38]. His exaggerated head movement was not just to maintain eye contact but to assert dominance, signaling that he was the more confident person [00:04:03].
Despite the detective’s statements, Michael calmly affirmed his innocence, acknowledging the detective had likely heard that “a million times,” and offered to answer questions [00:04:35]. He stated he had no answer to “why did you do it” because he didn’t do it [00:04:48]. The detective reiterated that his guilt or innocence was “not for the discussion” [00:05:04]. Michael’s tolerance of the injustice was noted as highly unusual for an innocent subject [00:05:10].
Case Study: Justin
For contrast, the video presents the interrogation of 26-year-old Justin, 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 station [00:05:36]. Justin was unaware he was about to be wrongfully imprisoned for over two years [00:05:47].
Justin’s Behavior as an Innocent Subject
Initially, Justin viewed the interrogators as an inconvenience rather than a threat [00:06:34]. His responses were short and concise, seeking no approval, only responding to questions or stating a point [00:06:40].
The detective employed a strategy of revealing charges periodically to make gaining a confession easier [00:07:17]. After being informed of the burglary charge, which carried a possible 20-year sentence due to prior convictions [00:07:56], Justin began to forcefully assert his innocence [00:08:03]. Each assertion was accompanied by a forward posture and strengthened vocal emphasis [00:08:07]. He vehemently denied knowing the accuser, “Candy” [00:08:24].
Exoneration of Justin
Justin spontaneously mentioned “Tim Stall,” the accuser’s ex-boyfriend [00:08:44]. The accuser’s testimony was later discredited in court, as she was caught lying multiple times, leading to Justin’s exoneration beyond all doubt [00:08:54].
When accused of assaulting the victim, Justin became even more aggressive, yelling and suggesting the detective question Tim Stall about the injuries [00:09:51]. Having previously served three years for robbery [00:10:49], he likely recognized the investigator’s reassuring tone as a bad sign [00:10:54].
His aggression was a commonplace, justified defensive response from an innocent person directly accused, demonstrating a highly combative stance when professing innocence [00:11:01].
Conclusion of Michael Dixon’s Interrogation
Returning to Michael Dixon’s case, the detective claimed there were multiple witnesses, including one with a video camera [00:11:46]. Michael, still calm, expressed relief at the mention of video evidence, asking to see it, and highlighting that if he were on camera, it “doesn’t make sense” given his innocence [00:11:54]. He then stated he had “no choice but to get a lawyer” [00:12:24], and fear became visible in his eyes upon realizing he wouldn’t be going home [00:12:36].
Despite his fear, Michael reacted with reasoning, asking if the detective was bluffing about the video camera to gauge his reaction [00:12:57]. He continued to profess his innocence calmly for seven more minutes [00:13:50]. He was then asked to draw a map and detail his movements before the arrest [00:13:53]. Every detail of his alibi was later proven 100% accurate [00:13:59].
The detective promised to “investigate this story thoroughly” to find something that would “prove or disprove” Michael’s account, emphasizing that “the truth is paramount” [00:14:10]. Michael expressed concern about the speed of the process and the rapid arrest [00:14:39]. He asked to make a phone call to his job, understanding he wouldn’t be able to go to work [00:15:19]. He was informed he would be moved to a “larger custody facility” downstairs for a few hours before court [00:15:34].
Michael continued to express his trust in the detective to get the “whole picture” [00:15:57]. He understood the process but was “not satisfied with it” [00:16:10].
The truth did eventually emerge [00:16:46]. Michael Dixon was held in jail for three and a half days before a separate investigator verified his alibi, interviewed witnesses, and checked surveillance footage [00:16:52]. He was then immediately exonerated [00:17:00]. A civil trial ensued, 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].
Interrogation techniques and strategies used by detectives were central to both of these cases. While Justin displayed a more common aggressive-defensive response from an innocent person, Michael’s unusually tolerant composure highlights the variability in human reactions to false accusations during police interrogations. The cases underscore the importance of thorough investigation and the potential for missteps in police interrogations.