1

Tactics and confessions

Dave Walsh, University of Derby, UKRay Bull, University of Leicester, UK

2

The percentage of the 40 ‘later’ confession interviews involving the following tactics were

Disclosure of evidence* (100%)

Open questions (100%)*

Repetitive questions (93%)

Leading questions (75%)

Handling suspect's mood (73%)

Emphasising contradictions (65%)*

Positive confrontation (60%)*

Interruptions (55%) Silence (35%)* Challenge account

(28%) Suggest scenario (20%) Gentle prods (15%)* Concern (10%) Situational futility (3%).

Bull and Soukara (2010)

3

Timing of Tactics Tactics most often

found within 10 minutes or less of confession

Disclosure of evidence Open questions Repetitive questions.

Followed by Leading questions Handling suspect's

mood Emphasising

contradictions Positive confrontation.

4

Present study 85 fraud interviews 25 interviews involved confessions in later

stages and 3 immediately interview commenced

5

Presence of tactics in entire sample (%) Disclosure of evidence

(100) Regular summarising (12) Emphasising

contradictions (76) Positive confrontation

(67) Gentle prods (82) Concern (85) Silence (48) Repetitive questioning

(45)

Leading questions (88) Open questions (93) Probing questions (20) Challenging the account

(86) Persistence (78) Providing appropriate

structure (25) Encouraging account (46)

The following tactics were excluded from analysis as they occurred in less than 10% of sample: maximisation, minimisation, intimidation, suggesting scenarios, interruptions, situational futility, handling suspect’s mood

6

Number of ‘later’ confession interviews where tactic found (N = 25)

Confess.Interview

10 mins before

5 minsbefore

At confession

Disclosure of evidence* 25 23 25 25

Regular summarising* 8 7 8 6

Emphasising contradictions* 24 15 21 15

Positive confrontation* 22 10 17 21

Gentle prods 16 3 1 1

Concern 21 13 13 14

Silence (N = 16) 14 5 10 1

Repetitive questioning* 19 17 15 16

Leading questions* 23 23 21 18

Open questions* 24 24 22 21

Probing questions* 12 8 10 7

Challenging the account 20 4 11 3

Persistence* 19 3 13 17

Providing appropriate structure* 18 14 14 14

Encouraging account* 19 13 14 6

7

No of interviews where tactic used

% resulting in confession

Disclosure of evidence 85 29

Regular summarising* 10 80

Emphasising contradictions 65 37

Positive confrontation 57 39

Gentle prods 70 23

Concern 72 29

Silence (58 tapes examined) 28 50

Repetitive questioning 38 50

Leading questions 75 31

Open questions 79 30

Probing questions* 17 71

Challenging the account 73 27

Persistence 66 29

Providing appropriate structure*

21 86

Encouraging account 39 49

8

Procedures Examined Degree of shift towards confession 1 = no shift 5 = complete shift Category A – 3,4,5 (partial, major, complete) Category B – 1,2 (no or little shift)

Assessed skill levels 1 = needs further training 3 = satisfactory (minimum standard) 5 = highly skilled

Usage of tactic interview 1 = no usage of tactic 5 = extensive usage of tactic

9

Skill level of tactics in sample % Satisfactory/skilled in shift interviews

% Satisfactory/skilled in no-shift interviews

Disclosure of evidence 95% of 25 28% of 60

Regular summarising 100% of 8 0% of 2

Emphasising contradictions 58% of 24 25% of 41

Positive confrontation 68% of 22 17% of 35

Gentle prods 62% of 16 9% of 54

Concern 76% of 21 16% of 51

Silence (58 tapes examined) 64% of 14 7% of 14

Repetitive questioning 79% of 19 21% of 19

Open questions 67% of 24 9% of 55

Probing questions 67% of 12 20% of 5

Persistence 76% of 19 23% of 47

Providing appropriate structure 78% of 18 66% of 3

Encouraging account 86% of 19 26% of 20

10

Skills levels of tactics - degree of shift

Mean rank

Cat A Cat B U z r Disclosure of evidence 63.68 32.84 219 5.59 0.61 Regular summarising 58.41 35.43 366.50 4.27 0.46 Emphasising contradictions 63.07 33.14 236 5.45 0.59 Positive confrontation 61.16 34.08 289.50 4.98 0.54 Gentle prods 62.93 33.21 240 5.38 0.58 Concern 62.54 33.40 251 5.32 0.58 Silence 42.48 20.97 104 4.98 0.65 Repeat questioning 63.21 33.07 232 5.52 0.60 Open questions 62.59 33.38 249.50 5.62 0.61 Probing questions 62.79 33.38 244 5.45 0.59 Challenging the account 59.68 34.81 331 4.55 0.49 Persistence 61.27 34.03 286.50 5.01 0.54 Providing app structure 62.43 33.48 254 5.29 0.57 Encouraging account 63.50 32.93 224 5.69 0.62

All ratings significant p ≤0.01

11

Extent of usage of tactics in sample Frequent usage in shift interviews

Frequent usage in no-shift interviews

Disclosure of evidence 88% of 25 23% of 60

Regular summarising 50% of 8 0% of 2

Emphasising contradictions 83% of 24 24% of 41

Positive confrontation 64% of 22 17% of 35

Gentle prods 82% of 16 11% of 54

Concern 90% of 21 16% of 51

Silence (58 tapes examined) 57% of 14 7% of 14

Repetitive questioning 64% of 19 64% of 19

Leading questions 35% of 23 71% of 52

Open questions 100% of 24 33% of 55

Probing questions 66% of 12 20% of 5

Challenging the account 70% of 20 25% of 53

Persistence 74% of 19 23% of 47

Providing appropriate structure 94% of 18 33% of 3

Encouraging account 95% of 19 55% of 20

12

Extent of usage of tactics – degree of shift

Mean rank Cat A Cat B U z r

Disclosure of evidence 64.11 32.63 207 5.71 0.62 Regular summarising 57.73 35.76 385.5 4.39 0.48 Emphasising contradictions 61.43 33.95 282 5.01 0.54 Positive confrontation 61.54 33.89 279 5.10 0.55 Gentle prods 60.25 34.53 315 4.73 0.51 Concern 53.64 37.77 500 3.14 0.34 Silence 43.07 20.59 90.50 5.29 0.69 Repetitive questioning 43.13 42.73 790.50 0.08 0.01 Leading questions 29.36 49.70 416 3.71 0.40 Open questions 56.80 36.22 411.50 3.94 0.43 Probing questions 59.55 34.87 334.50 4.59 0.50 Challenging the account 59.59 34.85 333.50 4.53 0.49 Persistence 60.57 34.37 306 4.81 0.52 Providing appropriate structure 59.07 35.11 384 4.39 0.48 Encouraging account 62.18 33.58 261 5.32 0.58

All ratings significant p ≤0.01

13

Most reliable predictor? Multiple regression analysis conducted A significant model emerged (F (1, 56) =

36.73, p < 0.01, r = 0.39) Disclosure of evidence - tactic associated

with explaining the largest variance ( = .38, p = <.01).

Regular summarising ( = .35, p = <.005) explained a further 6% in the variance (F (2, 55) = 6.56, p = 0.13).

14

Limitations We do not know how many false denials

amongst the 60 cases Or how many false confessions amongst the 25 Weight of (largely documentary) evidence Measured 1 = weak; 5 = very strong Amongst denials, 65% of interviews evidence

weight was assessed as at least ‘3’ Amongst confessions, 72% of interviews

evidence weight was assessed as at least ‘3’ Attitude

15

Conclusion Results suggest that When persuading suspects, reasonably

suspected of being guilty, to confess Important to understand what tactics tend

to be present More skilled and more frequent usage of

certain tactics leads to increased shift towards confession

Future directions

16

GQM – Griffiths & Milne, 2006)

Open

Probing

App.

Closed

Inapp.

Closed

Leading

Multiple

Forced choice

Opinion Stmt

25

20

13

9

1

0

0

Time 6 12 17 18 20 22 24 29 31 33 37 41 46 1 4 12 13 16 19

17

Enhanced GQM – Interview No.43

Open

Probing

Approp.

Closed

Inapprop

Closed

Leading

Multiple

Forced choice

Opinion/Statemt

5

4

3

2

1

Time

5 10 15 20 25

Rating scale

S S S S

E

P

E

E

E

P P C

S

E

18

Any questions Dave Walsh D.walsh@derby.ac.uk

19

Presence of tactics in shift v no-shift interviews

% of shift interviews

% of no – shift interviews

% 10 mins

% 5 mins

% conf point

Disclosure of evidence 100 100 100 92 100

Regular summarising 32 3 32 28 32

Emphasising contradictions 96 68 96 60 84

Positive confrontation 88 58 88 40 68

Gentle prods 64 72 64 12 4

Concern 84 85 84 52 52

Silence 60 43 60 40 40

Repetitive questioning 76 32 76 68 60

Leading questions 92 87 92 92 84

Open questions 96 92 96 96 88

Probing questions 48 8 48 32 40

Challenging the account 80 88 80 16 44

Persistence 76 78 76 12 52

Providing appropriate structure 72 5 72 56 56

Encouraging account 76 45 76 52 56