From: jcs
Analyzing interrogations with the benefit of hindsight offers a significant advantage, particularly when evaluating information [00:00:04] and assessing suspect behavior [00:00:11]. When the outcome is known, it allows for a focused search for “guilty behavior,” highlighting imperatives and stripping away non-essentials [00:00:14]. However, “hindsight is 20/20” is an aphorism that is “far more compatible to the innocent than it is to 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 [00:00:36].
While individuals react differently and trauma can cause atypical behavior, such atypical responses are generally distinguishable from guilty behavior with relative ease [00:00:47]. The following case studies illustrate the varied and profound psychological dynamics of innocent individuals facing false accusations.
Case Study: Michael Dixon
On August 15, 2003, in Hamilton, Ontario, 37-year-old Michael Dixon was arrested at gunpoint after police momentarily lost sight of a jewelry store perpetrator [00:01:26]. Dixon, described by peers as popular, friendly, unassuming, and reserved, was an introvert who feared public speaking [00:01:12]. Despite voicing his innocence, he did not resist arrest and offered to help in any way possible [00:01:50].
He was questioned two hours after his arrest [00:01:57]. A significant 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 seemed to have either forgotten to review the dispatch call or decided to reject it as evidence [00:02:26].
During the interrogation, Michael was informed the room was recorded and read his rights, asserting his willingness to speak and help the investigation [00:02:37]. The detective immediately stated that Dixon’s innocence or guilt “isn’t an issue” because the evidence was “conclusive and overwhelming” [00:03:00]. The detective then stated he wouldn’t even ask if Dixon committed the crime, but rather aimed to ascertain “what kind of guy” he was, such as whether he was a “serial burglar” or if this was a “one-off thing” [00:03:16].
Non-Verbal Challenge
Michael maintained a forward-leaning posture with steady eye contact at the same level as the detective, displaying self-confidence and poise [00:03:26]. In contrast, the detective appeared nervous, shifting in his seat and breaking eye contact [00:03:34]. Michael’s exaggerated head movement, which followed the detective’s eye shift, was not just to maintain eye contact but to assert dominance, communicating that he was the more confident person in the room [00:03:56]. This behavior is known as a non-verbal challenge in forensic psychology [00:03:38].
Despite the detective’s assertions of conclusive evidence, Michael calmly maintained his innocence [00:04:37]. He stated, “I didn’t do it, and you’ve heard that a million times,” but offered to answer any questions asked [00:04:38]. The narrator notes Michael’s “incredibly tolerant” composure in the face of injustice, describing it as “the most unusual thing about his behavior” and potentially an “anomaly with respect to innocent subjects” [00:05:11].
When informed about the existence of a video camera as evidence, Michael expressed relief, saying, “that’s relieving” [00:11:54]. However, he quickly realized the contradiction, stating, “that doesn’t even make sense to me because if I’m on the video camera… that doesn’t make sense” [00:12:06]. He then declared he had “no choice but to get a lawyer” if the situation continued this way [00:12:24]. The realization that he would be charged and go to court in the morning caused fear to emerge in his eyes, as he understood he wouldn’t be going home [00:12:36].
He remained intuitive, asking if the detective was “just making this up that you have a video camera so you see how I react” [00:12:59]. Michael asserted that if he were guilty and on video, he would follow procedure, but since he knew he was innocent, he was calling the bluff [00:13:17]. He continued to profess his innocence calmly for another seven minutes [00:13:50].
Michael was 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]. Despite this, the detective stated Dixon would be charged but promised to “investigate this story thoroughly” to find something that would “either prove or disprove” what was discussed [00:14:06]. Michael, visibly stressed, expressed concern about the speed of the process and the initial forceful arrest [00:14:42]. He continued to express his trust in the detective to get the “whole picture” [00:15:57].
Outcome of Michael Dixon's Case
Michael Dixon was kept in jail for three and a half days [00:16:52]. A separate investigator eventually looked into his alibi witnesses and checked surveillance, leading to his immediate exoneration [00:16:54]. 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]. This case study of wrongful arrest and interrogation highlights the devastating personal impact and professional consequences of flawed investigative practices.
Case Study: Justin
Another example of an innocent subject facing false accusations is 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 en route to the police station [00:05:36]. At the start of the footage, Justin was unaware of the charges and believed he had done nothing wrong [00:05:45].
Initially, Justin viewed the interrogators as an inconvenience rather than a threat [00:06:36]. His responses were “short and concise,” not seeking approval but simply responding to questions or stating points [00:06:40]. The detective employed a strategy of revealing charges periodically, starting with the break-in and robbery, then the assault [00:07:20].
When informed about the burglary charge and the accuser’s (Candy) testimony, Justin began to “forcefully assert his innocence” [00:07:56]. He leaned forward, strengthened his vocal emphasis, and denied knowing the accuser or being at her house [00:08:07]. He connected the accuser to her ex-boyfriend, Tim Stallings, who was a known acquaintance of Justin’s [00:08:44].
Innocent Aggression
Justin’s reaction, though “slightly more animated than the average person,” is a common response from the innocent when directly accused [00:11:00]. His aggression was “defensive,” not hostile, and “highly combative” when professing his innocence [00:11:09]. Given that he faced “a considerable amount of time in prison for something you didn’t do,” this level of anger was “warranted” and his conduct “totally justified” [00:11:17].
Justin had previously served three years in prison for robbery in his early twenties [00:10:50], suggesting he likely understood the gravity of the situation and the implications of the investigator’s reassuring tone [00:10:54]. His reference to Tim Stallings proved crucial: the accuser’s testimony was later “picked apart in court” and she was “caught lying on the stand multiple times” [00:08:54]. Justin was “exonerated… beyond all doubt” [00:09:02].
Conclusion
The cases of Michael Dixon and Justin demonstrate the diverse psychological responses of innocent individuals facing wrongful accusations. While Michael displayed an unusual degree of calm tolerance and logical reasoning, Justin reacted with justified, combative aggression. Both, however, consistently asserted their innocence, highlighting that there is no single “innocent behavior.” These examples underscore the critical need for objective investigation, free from the bias of presumed guilt, to prevent the profound psychological impact of wrongful imprisonment.