From: jcs
Interrogation analysis involves evaluating information, with the benefit of hindsight providing a considerable advantage, especially when the subject’s guilt is known [00:00:01]. Knowledge of the outcome highlights imperatives and strips away non-essentials, allowing for calculations that might otherwise be overlooked [00:00:14].
Hindsight in Interrogation Analysis
The aphorism “hindsight is 20/20” is well-known [00:00:24]. This concept is particularly compatible with innocent subjects because the information to scrutinize is reduced, as versatile factors of misdirection and trickery are removed, leaving relatively straightforward behavior [00:00:34]. While individuals are unique and exceptions exist (especially considering trauma can cause atypical behavior), atypical behavior is generally distinguished from guilty behavior with relative ease [00:00:47].
Case Study: Michael Dixon
Background and Arrest
Michael Dixon, a 37-year-old self-professed introvert, was described by peers as popular, friendly, unassuming, and reserved [00:01:09]. He turned down a job as a trade show presenter due to fear of public speaking, retaining his position as a trade show assembler [00:01:19].
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 of them [00:01:33]. At the same time, Michael Dixon was getting off a bus nearby, returning from work [00:01:40]. He was the first person police saw coming out of 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]. He was taken to the Hamilton police station and questioned two hours after his arrest [00:01:55].
A policing misstep occurred as the 9-1-1 caller described the suspect as a “small white man,” but Dixon is 6’3” and not white [00:02:15]. The detective either forgot standard procedure to review the call or rejected it as evidence [00:02:26]. Michael was informed the room was recorded and read his rights, asserting willingness to speak with the detective and help with the investigation [00:02:37].
Detective’s Approach and Michael’s Response
The detective immediately stated that Dixon’s innocence or guilt was not an issue, as the evidence was “conclusive and overwhelming” [00:03:00]. The detective intended to ascertain “what kind of guy” Michael was, whether a “serial burglar” or if it was a “one-off thing” [00:03:19].
Michael maintained a forward-leaning posture and kept his eyes at the same level as the detective, displaying self-confidence and poise, while the detective appeared nervous [00:03:26]. This behavior is a “non-verbal challenge” in forensic psychology [00:03:38]. Michael’s exaggerated head movement, which followed the detective’s eye-contact break, was to assert dominance, letting the detective know he was maintaining eye contact and was the more confident person [00:03:56].
Michael acknowledged the detective’s position but consistently stated, “I didn’t do it” [00:04:35]. He remained incredibly tolerant of the injustice, which the narrator described as unusual for an innocent subject [00:05:10]. When the detective claimed there were witnesses and a video camera, Michael pointed out that if he were on camera, it “doesn’t make sense” to him, as he knew he didn’t commit the act [00:12:06]. He suggested he had “no choice but to get a lawyer” [00:12:24].
Michael’s fear emerged when he realized he wouldn’t be going home, but he reacted with reasoning and intuitiveness [00:12:36]. He questioned if the detective was making up the video camera claim to see his reaction, effectively “calling your bluff” [00:12:57]. He continued to profess innocence calmly for another seven minutes [00:13:50]. He was then asked to draw a map and specify his movements before the arrest [00:13:53].
Outcome
Every detail of Michael’s alibi 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, witnesses, and surveillance [00:16:50]. Michael was then immediately exonerated [00:17:00]. A civil trial ensued, 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 (Comparison)
To contrast Michael Dixon’s composure, a common response from an innocent subject facing similar charges was shown through the case of 26-year-old Justin, falsely accused of breaking and entering, first-degree theft, and assault [00:05:25]. Justin was arrested at home and read his rights to silence on the way to the police station [00:05:36]. He was unaware he would be wrongfully imprisoned for over two years [00:05:47].
Detective’s Strategy and Justin’s Reaction
The detective’s strategy was to reveal charges periodically, believing it easier to get a confession to one charge at a time rather than all at once [00:07:17]. The plan was to reveal the break-in and robbery charge first, then the assault [00:07:27].
Initially, Justin saw the interrogators as an inconvenience rather than a threat [00:06:34]. His responses were short and concise, not seeking approval, only responding to questions or stating a point [00:06:40].
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 assertion brought forward his posture and strengthened his vocal emphasis [00:08:05]. He vehemently denied knowing the accuser, “Candy,” and mentioned her ex-boyfriend, Tim Stark, who was later revealed to be the accuser’s ex-boyfriend [00:08:12]. When accused of assault, Justin aggressively denied it and suggested questioning Tim Stark [00:09:51].
Having previously served three years for a robbery, Justin likely knew the reassuring tone of the investigator wasn’t a good sign [00:10:49]. His aggressive yet defensive form of aggression is a commonplace response from innocent individuals being directly accused [00:11:00]. This combative conduct is considered justified when facing significant prison time for something one didn’t do [00:11:13].
Outcome
The accuser’s testimony was later picked apart in court, as she was caught lying multiple times on the stand [00:08:54]. Justin was exonerated, proven innocent “beyond all doubt” [00:08:59].
Distinguishing Innocent and Guilty Behavior
Comparing Justin’s combative yet justified anger to Michael Dixon’s forgiving composure highlights the extraordinary nature of Michael’s behavior [00:11:24]. While both were innocent and falsely accused, their reactions to similar circumstances varied significantly, yet both consistently maintained their innocence.