From: jcs
When evaluating information during an interrogation analysis, the benefit of hindsight provides a considerable advantage, especially when the subject’s guilt is known [00:00:04]. This knowledge helps to focus on guilty behavior and highlight imperatives while disregarding non-essentials, allowing for calculations that might otherwise be overlooked due to doubt [00:00:10].
The aphorism “hindsight is 20/20” is particularly compatible with evaluating the innocent rather than the guilty [00:00:24]. When dealing with innocent subjects, the information requiring scrutiny is reduced because versatile factors like misdirection and trickery are absent, leaving relatively straightforward behavior [00:00:34]. While individuals are unique and exceptions exist—especially considering that trauma can cause atypical behavior—atypical behavior and guilty behavior can generally be distinguished with ease [00:00:53].
Case Study: Michael Dixon
Michael Dixon, a 37-year-old self-professed introvert, was arrested on August 15, 2003, in Hamilton, Ontario [00:01:09]. Police responded to a report of a jewelry store break-in and chased the perpetrator before momentarily losing sight of them [00:01:30]. Dixon, who was getting off a bus nearby, was the first person police saw exiting the alley and was arrested at gunpoint [00:01:40]. He voiced his innocence but did not resist, offering to help in any way he could [00:01:50]. He was questioned two hours after his arrest at the Hamilton police station [00:01:55].
Initial Missteps and Observations
The 9-1-1 call described the suspect as a small white man [00:02:19]. Dixon, however, is 6’3” and not white [00:02:23]. This suggests the detective may have overlooked reviewing the dispatch call or disregarded it as evidence [00:02:26].
During the interrogation, Michael Dixon was informed the room was recorded and was read his rights [00:02:37]. He asserted his willingness to speak with the detective and assist with the investigation [00:02:41]. The detective immediately stated that Dixon’s innocence or guilt was “not an issue” because the evidence was “conclusive and overwhelming,” implying he wouldn’t even ask if Dixon committed the crime [00:03:00].
Non-Verbal Challenge
Michael Dixon maintained a forward-leaning posture with consistent eye contact at the same level as the detective, displaying self-confidence and poise [00:03:26]. The detective, in contrast, appeared nervous [00:03:34].
What Michael did is known as a non-verbal challenge in forensic psychology [00:03:38].
- When the detective shifted in his seat and broke eye contact, Michael’s exaggerated head movement was not merely to maintain eye contact (which he could do while still) [00:03:49].
- It was to overtly signal to the detective that he was maintaining eye contact [00:04:03].
- This action served as a way of asserting dominance in the exchange, communicating that he was the more confident person in the room [00:04:07].
The detective’s line of questioning then shifted to ascertaining “what kind of guy” Michael was, whether he was a “serial burglar” or if this was a “one-off thing” [00:04:19]. Michael reiterated his innocence, acknowledging the detective had likely heard that “a million times” but offered to answer any questions [00:04:37]. He pointed out that if he didn’t commit the crime, he couldn’t answer why he did it [00:04:55].
Unusually Tolerant Composure
Michael’s behavior was notably tolerant of the injustice, which is unusual for an innocent subject and perhaps makes him an anomaly [00:05:12]. He remained calm and composed [00:11:01].
When told there were witnesses and even video camera evidence of his guilt, Michael expressed relief, thinking the video would prove his innocence [00:11:46]. He found the idea of being on video contradictory to his innocence [00:12:06]. When informed he would be charged and go to court, fear emerged in his eyes as he realized he wouldn’t be going home [00:12:37]. He questioned if the video claim was a bluff to gauge his reaction, stating that since he knew he didn’t do it, he couldn’t be on video [00:12:57].
The detective insisted it was “not a game of poker” and that he had “nothing to gain” from trying to catch Michael out [00:13:24]. However, obtaining a confession without evidence is considered excellent for an investigator’s career and can accelerate promotion [00:13:40].
Michael continued to profess his innocence calmly for seven more minutes [00:13:50]. He was then 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].
Exoneration
Despite the detective initially stating Michael would be charged, he also claimed a duty to ensure the truth was paramount and promised to investigate Michael’s story thoroughly [00:14:06]. Michael, though frustrated by the speed of the process, expressed trust in the detective’s commitment [00:14:41]. He inquired about making a phone call to his work and was informed he would be taken to a larger custody facility downstairs, which was “not the most pleasant place” but only for a few hours [00:15:20].
Michael was kept in jail for three and a half days [00:16:52]. A separate investigator eventually looked into his alibi, spoke with witnesses, and checked surveillance [00:16:54]. Michael was immediately exonerated [00:17:00]. A civil trial followed, and he 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
This case study presents a more common response from an innocent subject facing similar charges [00:05:25]. Justin, 26, was falsely accused of breaking and entering, first-degree theft, and assault [00:05:30]. He was arrested at home and read his rights on the way to the police station [00:05:36]. At the time of the footage, he was unaware of the specific charges and believed he had done nothing wrong, not knowing he would be wrongfully imprisoned for over two years [00:05:45].
Common Innocent Response
Justin did not perceive the interrogators as a threat but rather an inconvenience [00:06:36]. His responses were short and concise, seeking no approval, only responding to questions or stating a point [00:06:40]. He asserted he was at his mother’s house at the time of the alleged crime and suggested they call her [00:06:21].
Detective’s Strategy
The detective’s strategy was to reveal the charges periodically, believing it easier to get a confession to one charge at a time [00:07:17]. The plan was to first reveal the break-in and robbery, then the assault later [00:07:27].
The detective explained that an accuser named Candy claimed to see Justin loitering around her house and then witnessed him break in and steal items [00:07:33]. She had also picked him out of a 12-picture lineup [00:07:45].
Upon learning of the burglary charge, which carried a possible 20-year prison sentence due to previous convictions, Justin began to forcefully assert his innocence [00:07:56]. Each time he did so, he brought his posture forward and strengthened his vocal emphasis [00:08:05]. He denied knowing the accuser and linked her name to her ex-boyfriend, Tim Stall, whom Justin grew up with [00:08:22].
Aggression and Exoneration
Justin’s accuser was later caught lying multiple times in court, and Justin was exonerated [00:08:54]. He was proven innocent beyond all doubt [00:09:02].
When the detective revealed Justin was also accused of assaulting the victim during the robbery, Justin became visibly agitated and swore profusely, blaming the accuser’s boyfriend for her injuries [00:09:51]. Justin had previously served three years for robbery in his early twenties and likely recognized the investigator’s reassuring tone as a bad sign [00:10:49].
Although slightly more animated than average, Justin’s aggression is a commonplace response from innocent individuals directly accused [00:11:01]. He appeared aggressive but in a defensive, highly combative manner, not hostile [00:11:07]. His conduct was justified, considering the prospect of significant prison time for a crime he didn’t commit [00:11:15]. This level of anger contrasts sharply with Michael Dixon’s forgiving composure, highlighting the extraordinary nature of Dixon’s behavior [00:11:24].