Real Interrogations

| 36 Comments

Browse this website: http://investigation.discovery.com/tv/real-interrogations/real-interrogations.html

watch some interrogations, take some quizzes.

what did you learn? what most surprised you? what does psychology have to do with it all?

36 Comments

The website addressed some of the same concepts we have been reading about in the textbooks along with a portrayal of these concepts in a natural interrogation room, and explained by actual law enforcement officials. It’s one thing to read about the topics, and as I found out from the website an entirely different understanding when applying these concepts. Often times I discovered that interrogation processes such as social isolation of the perpetrator, making them realize they were not the ones in charge, and controlling every aspect of the setting became very drastic. As the videos I pointed out stated, they control everything from who conducts the interview, were it occurs, race of the interviewer and gender of the interviewer all in attempt to get the suspect to respond to questions.
The three videos I choose to watch were an explanation of the procedural events that occur when interviewing a suspect. Specifically I choose to explore how intimidation of the suspect, deception, and empathy all are taken into account during the interview process. When watching the first video, it became very clear that the social isolation process was used. In attempt to isolate the suspect they make them as uncomfortable as possible, even going as far as badgering the suspect verbally. As we explored previously in the interrogation post this tactic is widely used and accepted as good practice because a confession is ultimately what law enforcement is striving for. After seeing just how loud and personal the investigator yells at the criminal it became clear that the deceptive practices used by the investigator quickly took shape. The videos pointed out that although it may not be ethical practice, it is perfectly legal to lie to the criminal. Investigators go as far as lying about possible evidence they have collected, and so forth. I found it very interesting that after an investigator presents such deceptive practices that when something of truth is then brought up the suspect actually agrees with it. Although I found this to be very unethical and possible a means of coercion, it was interesting. It truly represented the fact that once individuals agree with a ‘figure of authority’ they believe them and divulge more information. A solid psychological concept as that people ideally due submits to, and trust figures of authority.
In terms of psychology as I stated several concepts were portrayed. The loss of control that the suspect are allowed to have is narrowed by using a small, sparse interrogation room. They socially isolate the suspect, and begin badgering the suspect in attempt of portray a certainty of guilt, using evidence ploys in attempt to again get the very important confession. This all relates to psychology because investigators are trained to play on people’s emotions, control aspects of settings in which interrogations take place, and be the dominate role in the investigation process. Although I did not know just how up close and personal the verbal abuse of the suspect got until I watched some of the videos, were the investigator actually repeatedly stated “we know you did it.” Getting louder and louder to the point of turning red, and walking towards the suspect until he finally admitted he was involved.
Perhaps most interestingly was a side note I noticed while taking the quizzes. I took a couple quizzes one on historic mob families, and the other on crimes of the 20th century. I got nine correct on the 20th century quiz, however only a lousy 4 correct on the first quiz. I tried my luck again on the historic women criminals quiz, and again only got three out of ten correct. Although I really never studied nor heard of some of the older crimes, the most famous 20th century ones I recalled with very little study, because I simply knew the answer. I guess I just found this interesting, and perhaps the media’s role and influence on the justice system had something to do with it. I just found it interesting how media might influence the criminal justice process, as that I seemed to remember crimes in which received more media attention, or crimes that simply were remembered because media was around to catalog them. Just something I found peculiar when exploring the site.

The main thing that I took from this website and that I found interesting is how they had 5 most watched videos on the home screen and they were all titled after five different aspects of an interrogation that are undoubtedly important when interrogating a suspect. The first video was entitled Intimidation. Their reasoning behind why this is important is that using intimidation can sometimes be the only way of getting information out of the toughest criminals. Other techniques may not be successful with tough suspects and simply trying to scare them may be the only way to go. The next video is called Deception. They described their use of deception as the starting point for getting crucial information from the suspects. You can look at it as a domino effect of sorts because once you fill their head with false information (such as having them on video tape when you really don’t or saying witnesses saw them at the scene when they really didn’t), they will really start to believe that the investigators are on to them and they may just start talking. Empathy is the subject of the third video. They describe the use of empathy during interrogations as important when trying to establish a form of trust between the interrogator and the suspect. Having a sense of trust in the room may help with getting the suspect to talk simply because they feel as if they can open up to the investigator. Making them feel comfortable may work for some suspects better than others, just like intimidation works best for certain people as well. Next in line was the video entitled Lie Detector. For obvious reasons, being a good lie detector as an interrogator will only benefit you. Suspects will undoubtedly lie to you on a regular basis and being able to tell when they are lying will save investigators a lot of time. Lie detecting helps keep the investigation/interrogation on the right track and moving towards credible leads. The last and most interesting video to me personally was called Weakest Link. The use of weak links in getting information and names out of people is very crucial. If you know as an investigator that someone is involved in the crime in some way and knows who else could potentially be involved, determining if they are the weak link and using that towards your advantage could help you get very important information for solving the crime. You have to be able to know how to use the weaker individuals for giving up names and other important information.
Something that surprised me was the amount of yelling that went on in a lot of the videos that I watched. A lot of the time, the yelling would start because the interrogators believed that the suspect was lying and they felt the only way to really get their point across was to yell and use the intimidation technique. The five most watched videos mentioned above were made out to all be of equal importance and usefulness, but I kind of felt from what I saw that intimidation was definitely their favorite technique overall. It also surprised me that during one of the videos, an investigator said that they pretty much need to pretend to be someone they’re not a lot of the time as interrogators. It doesn’t necessarily surprise me that they do this, because that makes sense. It more surprises me at how often they probably have to do this on a daily basis. I feel like it would get old real fast having to put on an act every day. It would get old, but it is more than likely worth it in the end considering you are trying to solve crimes.
Psychology plays a very large part in all of the videos that I watched. As far as the 5 main videos, the main focus was to get inside the suspects head and mess with them. The purpose behind these techniques is to make the suspect think that the investigators know more than they do and to make them feel as if there is a sense of trust when there more than likely is no trust whatsoever. It’s all about the mind games and doing as much as they legally can to get the information they are looking for from subjects.

The videos in the Investigation Discovery site were really interesting! I enjoyed watching actual footage of interrogations to portray the aspects of this subject that we have been learning about recently. I love using videos of real events and movies to help apply the information we are studying. I watched all five of the videos on the topic and was really intrigued by the different ways officials presented themselves in the interrogation room. The strategies changed each time depending on the investigator and the suspect.

In the first video, officials raised their voices and made sure the suspects were intimidated by their presence. They used their power of authority to try to elicit confessions. By getting loud and putting on the “tough guy” ruse, investigators can show suspects that they are strong and persistent. The second video I watched, portrayed just the opposite strategy. In this clip, officials used empathy to build connections with suspects. The more rapport they built the easier it was for them to get a confession. This technique only works for those who are patient enough to use it. Giving the suspect the comfort they need helps get the confession the police need.

Another of the videos showed the use of police deception. The officer in the video said, “Information is power.” This couldn’t be more true, especially when the suspect doesn’t know where police are getting their information. It isn’t a matter of the information being true, this strategy depends on the use of the information. If police can build credibility by presenting information to the suspect, they can often use the threat of more information (whether real or not) to their advantage and get a confession. Police can also use lie detection methods to their benefit. As we have already read, lie detection isn’t always flawless. However, officials can use it as a psychological tool against suspects. I hadn’t heard of Computer Voice Stress Analysis before the video on lie detection. After a little snooping around, I discovered that it is in fact a real technique, but it is not highly validated. It is not very sensitive to indicators of stress and lying. Even though this seems to be the case, it works enough to threaten suspects into confessing.

I hope it isn’t just me, but I wasn’t able to get any of the quizzes on the topic of interrogations to work. Maybe the site was having difficulties or maybe I just wasn’t trying hard enough, but I had no luck. I was able to take some quizzes about serial killers though! I didn’t know a lot about the specifics of particular crimes, so it provided the opportunity to learn more. There have been 400 serial killers in the US in the past century with an estimated number of victims around 2,500-4,000. The quiz also presented information on typical behavior of serial killers. It tied perfectly into the chapter of profiling. Generally, serial killers are organized and display the MacDonald triad (bed-wetting, arson, and animal cruelty) in childhood. The quizzes also reported that more than 140 million people tuned in to hear the verdict of the the O.J. Simpson cases. It was a unique way to learn new information.

This website is a real treat I would have to say, just because it gives us an insight of the different techniques that police officers and detectives use in the area of interrogation. They can use force, deception, and even different forms of intimidation to somehow get answers out of people. Literally they try and scare the answers and stories out of the suspects just to get what they want.

I learned that police have to do almost anything they can to get what they want to hear from the suspects they are interrogating. Whether it be that they have to yell and scream at the person, or calmly ask some simple questions. Both ways of interrogation can be affective in some ways, I believe that when a police officer yells at someone who is permissive it will scare them half to death and the people would easily come right out with the answers, but when it comes down to the people who think they have more power and cannot open up I think it would be a tough job trying to get through their thick skin and skull.

What I really thought was appealing and interesting, was during the video the weakest link, the make the person feel as if they are the enemy and makes them feel somewhat uncomfortable that reals them into the situation and they start to fail and come down to the real answers and give up either names, places, or other things that may help the police. They tend to give more information than asked for in the initial question.

Psychology plays a role in interrogations because it goes along with how we think and process things, so I think a lot of biological psychology and social psychology is involved here. The mind is full of different things and new things enter every day when we encounter different situations. So when police officers sit people down in a small room with absolutely no windows or other people inside of it our mind starts to shut down and get scared. Then things change when they start to ask us all of these questions and put different situations in our mind to where we go crazy we start to think in different ways and emotions start to flow. When it is social psychology we are talking about we put into mind the different ways we communicate with others and I think this is a perfect example of that.

This website was quite interesting to browse although it was disappointing that they only had 5 real interrogation videos. It was beneficial to hear from real cops because it relates the material we’ve been reading in the textbook to real life scenarios. The videos I watched were basically a nice review of the chapters assigned for this week. One of the videos, titled deception, discussed the process that investigators use to lie to suspects to get them to confess. The investigator remembered a time when he told a suspect that they had been watching her through surveillance cameras. Although this is not true, he said he lied because the suspect would come to believe that the police are everywhere and witnessed her committing her crime. The textbook talks about this controversial topic and whether or not investigators should be allowed to lie to suspects in order to get confessions or other valuable information.


Another one of the real interrogation videos discussed empathy. I noticed that this goes along well with the idea of exculpatory scenarios presented in the book. The detective tries to establish rapport with the suspect so that the suspect will feel comfortable talking about the crime. One of the investigators in the video even said something similar to: “Do you want this person to go to prison for the rest of their lives? Absolutely.” The investigators learn to act empathetic and sympathetic to the suspect in order to create an emotional bond that allows the suspect to feel like they can confide in the investigator. The video on lie detection was also interesting because instead of using a polygraph test like our book so strongly discusses, the investigator used a voice tool to detect lies. Although the investigators in the video never mentioned how accurate they believe these tools to be, they did mention how psychologically relevant they think they are. It aids in the investigation if you can convince a suspect that not only do the police know he’s lying, but an objective machine also knows it.


The quizzes were entertaining. I thought I knew quite a bit about some of the people (Manson, Bundy, etc) but I found out I didn’t know as much as I presumed. It was interesting to learn about some of the female serial killers from the quizzes because obviously they are not nearly recognized as much as the males.


One thing I was really surprised about was how often cops tend to lie to suspects to gain information or a confession. I understand why they do this, but a part of me sees it as unethical. If I were a suspect in a case and I was innocent, I certainly would not enjoy having investigators lie to me and tell me they have been watching me and they know I did the crime etc. It makes me wonder whether or not investigators tell the innocent suspects that they lied before. I hope investigators apologize to their innocent suspects.


Psychology is relevant to the interrogations because these investigators we witnessed in the multiple videos on the site are constantly taking social cues (social psych) from the suspect and processing this information (cognitive psych) in order to get the bigger picture. We can also compare clinical psychologists/counselors to the role that investigators sometimes take when establishing rapport with their “clients” or suspects. I also saw the social psychological concepts of stereotyping/racism/sexism when the investigator talked about matching detectives up with suspects based on race and or gender. Finally, we can see behavior modification relevant throughout the entirety of interrogations/lie detection. Investigators are constantly trying to modify a suspect’s behavior.

In this blog post, I learned even more about the interrogation techniques used by investigators. I feel like it helped a lot to first read about these things in the textbook, then see them in action with real footage of interrogations. It helps because, while we get to see the tactic used by the investigator yelling at them, being empathetic towards them, etc., we also get to see the reaction by the suspect.

The thing I found most surprising about these videos was the one discussing polygraphs and lie detector tests. It’s interesting that suspects have been known to tamper with polygraphs, try to beat the system, etc. One example I found quite ridiculous: a suspect put peanut butter on the roof of their mouth. Do they really think they can get away with tampering with one of these tests? It’s interesting that they think they aren’t going to be seen punching a hole in the polygraph tube while the investigator isn’t in the room. It’s almost like they’re proclaiming their guilt!

In terms of relating this to psychology, I can see many terms demonstrated in these videos. While watching the intimidation video, it reminded me of two tactics: certainty of guilt and loss of control. The investigator repeatedly raised his voice to the suspect, proclaiming his guilt over and over, which seemed like it almost broke down the criminal. This is definitely an example of certainty of guilt, because the investigator’s goal in this video is to make the suspect feel like there is no more use in lying and they have already been proven wrong, thus eliciting a confession. This also may feel like a loss of control for the suspect because of the hostile situation. As the investigator yells at him, he may lose a sense of emotional support and familiarity he would feel in a comfortable situation, thus breaking him down psychologically.

In the polygraph video, I noticed another term from our textbook pop up. As the investigator pulls out the voice recognition device, he explained to the suspect that it “never failed,” etc. etc. He then came back later letting the suspect know that this device had proven his guilt. Whether or not this was true, the investigator was using evidence ploys to try to make the man feel helpless. The psychology behind this is that, since there is now incriminating evidence, there is no point in lying any longer, thus prompting a confession from the criminal.

In the video on empathy for the victim, I immediately thought of the good cop-bad cop approach. While this video did not show the bad cop part of it, I could definitely see how this approach would benefit. The empathy shown by the good cop seemed to make the suspect more relaxed and more willing to confide with the officer. Combining this with a more hostile, intimidating cop could make the suspect feel emotional support from the good cop, making a confession more likely.

Lastly, I just wanted to share a fact I found interesting while taking the serial killer quiz: the FBI says that there have only been about 400 serial killers over the last century, with the number of victims being between 2,500 and 3,800 victims.

The videos to me were very interesting in the fact that we got to see real footage of actual interrogations. It is one thing to read about these things but it’s another to actually see these techniques being used. Each video presented on this website was associated with what we are learning about the interrogation process as well as Lie detection. Many aspects of the interrogation process are controlled and it is seen very clearly in each of these videos; things like where the interrogation process took place, who was conducting the interrogation and what techniques were being used

In the videos you can see the good cop bad cop role being exemplified as well as intimidation, social isolation and the certainty of guilt. The officer in one of the videos is yelling and intimidating the suspect while the other officer in the room is sitting next to the suspect using a calmer voice and is showing sympathy to the situation. Intimidation tactics can go a long way in an interrogation room. This can happen by using social isolation and setting up the room in a manor to which excludes all extraneous variables to get the suspect to pay attention to what is happening in the room and get he/she to respond to questions. The process of interrogation is built upon the amount of loss of control a suspect experiences. Making a suspect as uncomfortable as possible during an interrogation and depriving them of emotional support during an interrogation make the reality of the situation seem much more immense and therefore, as you see in some of the videos, a confession occurs. Another strategy that plays a role in getting a suspect to confess is for the officer to display a certainty of guilt. As shown in many of the videos, almost all suspects at first denied having any involvement in the crimes they were being questioned for. However interrogators are trained to cut off and dismiss all of these claims and keep with the belief that the suspect is guilty. When an officer displays this sort of certainty, they hold a demeanor that is evident to the suspect therefore making any of their future attempts a denying what they did futile. This was displayed in the intimidation video. The man kept yelling at the boy “You did it didn’t ya, you killed him.”, “I know you did it.” One officer said while being interviewed that you have to confront the suspects and let them know that you aren’t going to put up with their lying.

It was interesting to find out that officers will go as far as lie about the information that they have on their suspects in order to get more information out of them. The officers pointed out that while it may not be ethical it is perfectly legal to use such tactics. This was really neat to me because you could see how an officer telling a suspect repetitively that they had more information on them got them to talk more about what the officer wanted to know.

Terms: good cop bad cop, intimidation, social isolation, certainty of guilt, suspect, sympathy, interrogation, loss of control, confessions

This website had videos of actual interrogations. There were different techniques they interrogators used in each different interrogation video.
The first one dealt with intimidation. The interrogator would use a loud and stern voice when talking to the suspect. They would say things like “I KNOW YOU DID IT!” and “DON’T LIE TO ME!” Using this technique essentially scared the suspect into telling the truth. This way is a good way to get information from a suspect when every other technique seems to fail. The video however only should success with this technique when done with men, so women may respond differently.
Another technique that was used in an interrogation was deception. The interrogator would say things that occurred, even if they didn’t. For instance they told a girl that she was under surveillance for days because they thought she was guilty. Even though that was not true, she eventually told the police the information they were looking for. Although there is some controversy of whether police should be able to make up lies to get information, this seems to be a good and effective technique.
The weakest link technique was used in another video of an interrogation. This technique is when the police tell the suspect that even though the other people involved in the crime told them not to the police information, it is better for them to tell the truth. This convinces the suspect that they are better off to tell the truth and get off easier, then to lie about it. This seems to be effective, when the suspect is involved in a crime with many other people, and they are trying to receive a lesser punishment especially if they are clearly guilty.
Empathy is another technique used in an interrogation. Empathy is when the interrogator acts as a counselor, or person the suspect can talk and open up to. Sometimes during this process, they must find someone the suspect will talk to. This can take up to several different interrogators who talk to the suspect before they finally open up. This is a more subtle and effective way of interrogation.
The last way interrogations can be done is with a lying detector. A polygraph is the type of lying detector machine often used. This is a good and clear way to find out if a person is lying or not. Suspects may try to cheat their way through the test such as putting peanut-butter on the top of their mouth or putting devices on their body. This is probably the most reliable technique, as people who lie tend to talk differently or speak in a different tone.
All in this website showed me real life examples of interrogations and different ways they can be done. I think the most effective technique varies from suspect to suspect. It surprised me how effective the lie detector actually is, and how it can pick up peoples’ lies. Psychology has a lot to do with interrogations, because it involves finding out what a particular person will respond to during an interrogation. Understanding what will work for a certain person is probably the most important part of the interrogation, and will give the best answers and results.

Well I would say the most surprising thing that I learned from this website was that I know my serial killers pretty well. At least I thought 7/9 was pretty good on the quiz I took about different serial killers. Another surprising thing that I learned was that there have been 400 serial killers in the United States in the past century. I know when you look at a century that doesn’t seem totally outrageous but still, 400 killers seems kind of scary to me! Another quiz that I took was about famous crimes, and I wasn’t so hot in this area. I only got 4 out of the 9 questions right and most of the ones I got right were the questions that were most recent to the time period I am familiar with. This quiz kind of sparked my attention and got me more interested in famous crimes that have happened in the past. A lot of the ones I recognized were topics we talked about in my history classes and I was very interested in them at that time. Not only did I learn from the reading, but watching a few video clips as well I got the idea that not all interrogations go the same way. Obviously, some people are going to me cooperative then others. I wonder if cooperatively something that interrogators look at and link that to suspicion is. For example, this man is being really difficult with asking questions; doesn’t that make him look more suspicious about committing the crime? I also didn’t view any that were totally out of line. I guess I wouldn’t know if they interrogators were telling the truth about the evidence they had because I don’t know the all the full details of the crime, but that definitely is something that bothered me during our readings. I don’t think making up false information and feeding it to the suspect should be allowed just to get them to confess to the crime. Psychology has to do with a BIG part of interrogations and all the quizzes I took were related to psychology in some way. Take serial killers for instance. There is something different about the way serial killers act. Serial killers definitely can relate to the study of personality psychology. What is it about serial killers personalities that make them act the way they do? What are the similarities in each serial killers personality to the next? As far as interrogations go, you can look at how people react in certain situation. Bio psych can be linked to polygraph tests. How your bodies heart rate increases when you are nervous or how people sweat more when they are under pressure all can be looked at through a different aspect of psychology. I thought this website was really interesting to look at. I didn't know something like this even existed. I guess I am proud to know I know my serial killers HAH? And I learned that I should probably brush up on my knowledge about past famous crime scenes in history.

When watching these videos I noticed that they were talking about many of the interrogation techniques that were discussed in chapter two of the text. One of the ways I tied this in with psychology is the type of technique that worked best on the suspect. One suspect may need to be intimidated to get the truth out of them while another may need to feel connected to the interrogator. This could have something to do with how they grew up or the psychology behind their personality. I still have a hard time grasping the idea of deception, that it is ok for the interrogators to lie to the suspect in order to get a confession out of them. I realize that the end goal is to find out who is guilty, but if someone was telling me they had all of this evidence pointing to me I would feel hopeless. I think that this technique of interrogations may be more likely to lead to false confessions and wrongful conviction. I was also wondering if certain individuals like certain techniques of interrogation better than others and if they would be more likely to use the same technique. That would most likely fall under what type of personality the interrogator has, so this would fall under psychology of personality. In the case of intimidation, good cop-bad cop, a man is more likely to be the aggressor and the woman is more likely to show empathy. Looking at how women and men are raised differently due to gender roles, women are more nurturing than men. So a woman using empathy in order to get a confession may work a lot better for her than using intimidation. I found all of the videos to be incredibly interesting; watching the suspect’s demeanor change with each different interrogation technique used was fascinating to me. For instance when the interrogators used the technique of empathy the suspects would often be quiet and seem calm. They often looked at the ground or had their head hung. It’s almost like after making a bond with the interrogator, it made the suspect feel a little ashamed about them knowing what had actually happened. Unfortunately I could not get the quizzes based off of interrogations to work, it just kept sending me to more videos. But I did take a few of the other quizzes on the site, and I was honestly surprised by the amount of knowledge that I had about serial killers. I did not know that I had that amount of information pertaining to them in my head. All in all I thought that this website was incredibly interesting and it was useful to watch “real” interrogations being conducted.

This site had a lot of videos about investigation techniques that used clips of actual interrogations as examples. This was helpful to see how actual interrogations go, because interrogations on movies and tv's are usually quite extreme cases of people getting angry and banging on the table and yelling as loud as they can. I thought it was interesting to see the empathy technique, because personally I could see that technique being the most helpful. This clip showed that it is important to find someone that the suspect is comfortable talking to. One of the detectives said that he does not usually have very much success when he tries to be the bad guy and force them to give information. He said he usually gets information when he talks to them as if he is their friend just trying to get the facts together. I think establishing trust between the interrogator and suspect could be helpful to get the facts. I think that the empathy technique could be the most effective when dealing with suspects when trying to scare them doesn't work. If nothing else it could be helpful to use empathy after a failed attempt with the good cop bad cop routine, because then they will be more likely to talk to the good cop if they ask the bad cop to leave the room, because the suspect will probably feel more comfortable talking to the good cop after being interrogated by the bad cop.
The next video I found interesting was the lie detection video. They discussed how suspects try a number of different things to change the outcome of the test, such as peanut butter on the roof of their mouth, or a penny in their mouth. I think that would be incriminating if someone was caught trying to affect the polygraph test. One of the detectives said that the polygraph was mostly to be a method to show the suspect the detectives "know" they are lying. This could be helpful to get the suspect to stop lying because the detectives know they are.
The intimidation method was one of my least favorite interrogation techniques. I understand that it is helpful to weaken the suspect in order to get answers, but at the same time I think there are other techniques that could be more helpful. In some cases it might be more effective to use intimidation to make sure the suspect knows the detectives need answers and they don't want to wait around and hear lies.
I thought deception was an interesting method. This method was useful because the detectives provide the suspects with information that they might not really know, but by doing this, they can get the suspect to admit to things, because the suspect will feel obligated to tell them because they think they already know so the only thing left to do is to confess.
The weakest link was another one of my favorite techniques. The detectives told the suspect that it would benefit her to give up the other suspects. He also told her that the detectives were not on the bad side. After asking her more questions and presenting that they could help her, she gives all of the names. I think this technique is very helpful, because it uses empathy to reach a personal level with the suspect.
I took a couple of quizzes on this site, and I found out that I do not know much about famous crimes, or crimes of the 19th century. I only got four out of ten on the 19th century one which was not very good because they were all guesses, and I got six out of ten on the famous crimes because three of the questions were on the 19th century quiz. I thought I knew more about crimes then I really do. I think I will spend some time researching crimes so I will not be so clueless about famous crimes that have taken place throughout history.
All in all I found this to be an interesting and helpful website. There was a lot of information that helped to show examples of different types of interrogation techniques. I really thought it was helpful that they showed real clips from real interrogations. I thought the quizzes were an interesting part of the site, even though I was not very good at them.

While looking at the investigation website I realized that a lot of what I have about interrogations and techniques was illustrated in one of the videos I watched on interrogations. The video was separated into four different sections. The first was called Lie Detector. This segment focused on the use of computerized voice stress analyzer. This machine was used to focus on the FM in one’s voice. If a person was lying, the FM in a person’s voice would drop. The investigator who was running the machine stated that it cannot be beat, and is more accurate than the polygraph. Before the segment ended a investigator shared his experience about how he has seen suspects come in with peanut butter, or pennies in their mouth, or an object in there shoe to try and throw off the detection of the machine.

The next section was called Deception. This segment was about how investigators use this technique in order to get more information out of the suspect. For instants, an investigator might say that he/she knows that you killed person X because they have had you under surveillance for about a week now. Whether this true or not, the suspect thinks that they already know some much about them so they will give up information, and /or tell the truth. One of the investigators at the end of the segment said, “Sometimes you have to lie to get the truth”. I had mixed feelings about that last statement. I kind of feel that it was manipulation, which is, but then I thought, well these are criminals so the whole feeling sorry for them kind of goes out the window. In another sense I also felt that a technique could be misleading, especially if a suspect actually is not guilty, but feels that investigators, somehow, have this information about me, so there’s not much I can do. I think that in cases like that, it generally happens to younger, adolescent suspects.

Next segment was called Establishing Empathy. This section represented the “good-cop” portion of interrogation techniques. The investigator talked about how it is important for the suspect to be able to connect with you, because if they feel comfortable they will be more willing and open to talk to you. There must always be comfort. If an investigator tries to act as though they are better than the suspect, and are out to scare them, then more than likely the suspect will not open up, and there will only tension between the suspect and investigator. This section also briefly talked about how the demographics of the suspect are also important. For instance, if the suspect is not comfortable talking to a female investigator, he/she will be provided with a male. If the suspect does not feel comfortable talking to a white investigator, than he/she will be provided with a person form another race, etc. Whatever aspects that are going to be able to get closer to the truth, than investigators will do just that. I related this segment with that of counseling. If a client calls in to meet with a therapist, generally the receptionist or assistant will ask the client has a preference in which they talk to; race, gender, age, etc.

Next section was about intimidation, the intimidation that took place within the interrogation rooms. If investigators are having difficulty with their suspects providing information or confessing, generally most investigators have to show themselves as intimidating. Kind of in a sense that contradicts with showing empathy. But if investigators need the truth they will usually yell, or become aggressive. Not necessarily hitting, or harming the suspect, but getting in their face, yelling violently at them, because they are fed up with the constant lies. Some things that an investigator might say is, “You did it didn’t you! You killed her!” Anything to cause a little tension and scare within the victim might just be enough to get the truth out.

Lastly, the final section was called the weakest link. The section was about pin pointing a suspects “weak spots” in order to the suspect to start providing information. An example that the segment showed was an investigator interrogating a woman about her involvement in drug transporting/or deal. The investigator laid into her that “men were the enemy”. When he let that be known, the woman opened up and talked about the man that was involved beat her, and that he had cops under his payroll. This gave enough information to the investigators to know that there were more people involved, and that one of the people was a man. I found this to be a very good psychological strategy. After watching the videos I took a few of the investigative quizzes. I the serial killer quiz, Jack the Ripper, famous females, crimes of the 20th century, and famous crimes quiz. I was surprised by the things that I already did know, and the things that I had learned. My favorite quiz that I took was the famous female quiz. I think that many times the last people in the world that people suspect to become serial killers are women. But after taking that quiz I learned that there were a lot more women out there that have done some pretty crazy things. Not that I was excited about these findings, but I thought that this one aspect that shows that women are a lot smarter, creative, and a sometimes a little more deviant that what many people would assume.

I watched some of the real interrogations and the police talked about some of the tactics that they used in the interrogation process. The first video that I watched the police officer was really hard on the suspect and was yelling at him and calling him a liar repetitively. This was used as a scare tactic to get information out of the suspect that they hadn’t previously told them. The next interrogation that I watched, the police officer was using the technique that we had just talked about in the book where they can tell you lies and information that they really don’t know to get you to confess to something that they think you did. They say that they have to lie to get the truth and that it is an investigative trick.

Empathy is another key tactic that interrogators use because that makes the suspect believe that they can trust someone when they are going through the process. They have to have someone in there that they can trust. I thought that this was really interesting because over the broad span of techniques that were used they go from the extreme to becoming empathetic with the suspect. The one case where the woman gave up the name of the person was the most interesting to me because she was scared and the cops reassured her that they would protect her from whoever he was. The women had a hard time trusting men, but yet she trusted the cops because they were trying to empathize with her and hear her out.

Another technique that was described in one of the interrogations was with the voice stress analyzer. It is more accurate than the polygraph he says and it detects when the FM in their voice goes away that is when they are lying. The whole process of the lie detector is psychological and that it is one thing for the police officer to say that you’re lying, but to have more proof that you are lying is a scary thought. I thought it was interesting the different tactics that people use to try and trick the lie detection test. Like poking holes into the device and peanut butter on the roof of your mouth.

There are many aspects of these interrogations that pertain to psychology. All of the methods of interrogation are pertaining psychology. They are mostly all psychological and trying to mess with the suspects mind so that they confess the truth.

These videos were very interesting and directly related to what we learned in chapters 2 and 3. The first video I watched had a lot to do with the good-cop bad-cop technique. One of the officers would be very forceful and a lot of times yelling at the suspect, while the other acted surprised that the suspect lied to them and played more on their soft side. I was very surprised at the extent the cops' yelling would go to. If I was a suspect I would be very scared, and I think the intent is for them to be so intimidated that they just want the interview to end. The next videos i watched were about lying to the suspect. The officers would tell the suspect that they had a piece of evidence that wasn't true in order to get a confession or a DNA sample. I always wondered if this was legal and found out that it is because it is an "investigative technique". My favorite quote at the end of one of the video was "we have to lie in order to get the truth." There was also information on another technique. Instead of scaring the suspect into a confession, the detectives would spend their time connecting and almost sympathizing with them. They would say things like "I know you aren't a cold blooded killer, but you have been through a lot and got drug into an unfortunate situation." One detective said he didn't try to be overbearing because he would never get anywhere with a suspect that way, and instead he would act like he was talking to his best friend. The suspect needs to feel comfortable with who they are interviewing with, and this means putting them with either a man or a woman, a Caucasian person, or an African American, or who ever they most relate with. Lastly, I watched a video that involved polygraph testing. I learned of another technique used in detecting lies, which is the computer analyzed voice stress test. It works by detecting the AM and FM in a person's voice. The more stressed out a person is, the more FM is apparent in their voice. One detective said during an interview that this was more accurate than the polygraph, but I don't know if he was just trying to intimidate the suspect. I thought it was funny that people would try to do certain things in order to throw off the voice detecting test, such as put peanut butter on the roof of their mouth or pennies in their shoes. All in all, I had a good experience with this web site. It was really interesting watching these videos after reading the chapters and finding the similarities between what I read and what I saw. Psychology plays such a big part in the interviewing process. You really have to have an inborn understanding of how people work and what makes them tick, as well as have a good sense of when they are lying.

“Information is power.” The Deception video on this ID website was very interesting. An investigator telling a suspect that they know more than they actually do is a commonly used tool in interrogations, as learned in chapter 2 of the textbook. It helps confirm information that a detective might suspect. It may not seem like a nice thing to do but deceiving a suspect is one of the many techniques that detectives need to use to illicit responses. This relates to psychology because these people believe the investigators maybe because they are nervous, because they believe that they were found out, or because they trust that authority figures will not lie to them. The empathy video discusses creating a bond with the suspects, using human nature to connect with them. This relates to psychology because people need to feel connected and understood, it creates a more relaxed atmosphere for them to talk and discuss the events in question. The investigators in the video discuss how they will accommodate to the suspect’s needs; if they would rather talk to a woman or someone of a different race. These psychological factors relate to how we feel towards other and who makes us feel more comfortable, a mother-figure or someone of your own race might be easier to talk to and relate to, which will create an atmosphere for a suspect to confess. The Weakest Link video tries to make the suspect believe that they are in a true predicament and that they have almost no other option. If a suspect believes that they are at the end of their rope they may end up confessing things or letting out things that they wouldn’t have if they believed they had a shot at getting away with things. The lie detector video talks about how the polygraph or voice test shows the suspect that the detective was correct and knows the person is lying. The video shows that many people are so scared of taking the test that they do things like tamper with the wires, put things in their shows, put things in their mouths, all in attempts to not fail the test. This deals with psychology because it gives the detectives an inanimate object to prove that the suspect is lying. It makes the suspect believe that they have been figured out and that they can’t lie any longer because it is proven by a technological machine. All of the things in this video are things that were discussed in chapter two and three of the textbook and are not much of a surprise, although it is interesting to see the actual videos and hear the investigators discuss their techniques.
I decided to take a few quizzes and was surprised about the knowledge that I already have on some of the topics. I knew quite a bit of information about miscellaneous serial killers from TV shows and movies and I also knew a bit about Jack the Ripper because of our previous text readings. Some of the quiz questions referred to polygraphs and arrests and questioning suspects, which directly relates to what we are discussing in class. All of these things, in the quizzes and the videos, relates to our class. The interrogators try to make suspects comfortable, or empathize with them, or tell them lies and they all work in a psychological way on the suspects. Because physical abuse is no longer allowed in interrogations it is important for investigators to know these methods and to be able to use them to get guilty confessions.

This website was very interesting. I have grown up watching all different kinds of criminal based shows: CSI, Law & Order, Criminal Minds, etc. So, I did not learn a lot from watching these interrogations besides that it is a little like what they do on the shows. I enjoyed watching the clips and seeing how interrogation happening in real life. It was a little surprising to me how loud some of the cops were when they were yelling at the suspects. It was surprising but not at the same time, just something I knew in the back of my mind, but did not fully expect to see or hear.
I saw a lot of what was said in chapter two and three. One needs to make sure they are not forcing a false confession out of someone. They cannot be “bullying” the suspect too much but they also do not want to be so lenient that the suspect, if they are the real perpetrator, does not get away with what they have done. It is also a good thing if officers of the law are good at detecting or reading lies. A lie detector can also be helpful with that.
I thought the video called “Empathy” was very interesting. I like how they try to connect with the criminal. It shows that even though someone has done wrong they still have the same basic needs every person needs. They need people; they need a connection with another person. Personality psychology teaches us that humans are very social beings. We need to be needed and wanted. Humans want to connect with others, so using empathy as a way to get information about the crime or get a confession from the perpetrator. I thought it was all very interesting.
Psychology has everything to do with this. The way you decide to interrogate someone has a lot to do with reading their personality and profiling them. One has to decide what kind of tactics will work on a person. Good-cop, bad-cop routine, intense pressure such as yelling, being empathetic, giving them false information, even being supportive and telling them they understand why they did what they did. This is all psychology, reading their body language to determine if they are lying or giving a false confession. Psychology helps read people in all kinds of situations. It can help understand if a person is truly guilty or if they are just hiding information, not giving the whole truth. In these cases they could then be tested with a lie detector to help solve the case.
The website addressed some of the same concepts we have been reading about in the textbooks along with a portrayal of these concepts in a natural interrogation room, and explained by actual law enforcement officials. It’s one thing to read about the topics, and as I found out from the website an entirely different understanding when applying these concepts. Often times I discovered that interrogation processes such as social isolation of the perpetrator, making them realize they were not the ones in charge, and controlling every aspect of the setting became very drastic. As the videos I pointed out stated, they control everything from who conducts the interview, were it occurs, race of the interviewer and gender of the interviewer all in attempt to get the suspect to respond to questions.
I tried to take the quizzes, but the site would not let me, or maybe it was just a problem with my computer. I wish I would have been able to participate in them.

The website was very interesting. It gave me a much better view on interrogations. I learned a couple different things; such as the different techniques that the police will use to try and get a confession. There were also a couple of things that actually surprised me. The things that surprised me were the fact that the police can actually lie to a person to get a confession. Before I talk about the things that surprised me, I am going to start by talking about the things that I learned. First off, I learned that there are multiple ways that the police can try to get a confession from an individual. The first technique that they try to do is called intimidation. This is when the police are basically saying that the person that they know that they did the crime and won’t take no for an answer. The police during this type of investigation are actually very mean to the defendant. The police basically treat the person like they are already guilty of the crime. Sometimes the police are right in assuming that a person is guilty, however, the police are sometimes wrong. In the case of the law, we want to make sure that the right people go to jail. If the police have already made up their mind that this is the person that did the crime they will ignore any evidence that tells them that the person didn’t commit the crime. This is an example that has been seen in psychology. It is a process where the police/people once they decide that there way is the way it happened, they will ignore anything that tells them otherwise. This is a problem. The second style that the police will use is deception. They will in fact actually lie to people to get a confession. In the videos that I watched on the website, they told them that they had them under watch for a couple of days and they saw them do it; even when they actually hadn’t been doing that. The police that they were interviewing actually said that they lied to get a confession because they want to put that person behind bars. This was something that I didn’t know because I didn’t realize that the police could actually lie to get a confession. It is something that surprised me because of the fact that you would think that if the police were trying to get the truth, they would have to tell the truth. This is something that really bothers me because of the fact that it really gives the police a bad name. Also, it makes people think that the police are out to get them. If you know for a fact that the police will say anything to actually get you to confess, it would actually make me not want to talk to the police at all. The next style of interrogation type is empathy. Basically this is the style where the police try to make you feel like they are on your side. They will say that they know how you feel and that the right thing to do is turn yourself in. This basically is trying to make you feel comfortable with the police so that you will eventually tell them that you did it. The next style that the website talks about is the fact that the police will do something called the weakest link. This is where the police basically tell the person that if they help them, they will cut a good deal with the police. In the video that was shown, the police tell the girl that if she works with them they will work to get a deal with her. This is something that really bothers me because of the fact that the police work off of the assumption that you are guilty and have to be proven innocent. The way our legal system is made to work is that the person is innocent until proven guilty. I think that this is something that the police have gotten away from because they basically want to arrest as many people as they can. The final process of interrogations is the use of lie detection devices. I personally don’t agree with them because I personally don’t think that they are accurate. The police in the video use a thing where it analyzes the tone of the voice to tell whether or not the person is telling the truth or not. I know for a fact that when I talk to police that my voices change. So I personally don’t think that you can use that as proof that they are guilty. All of these things were stuff that surprised me and that I learned about interrogations. The thing that surprised me the most is the fact that the police can actually lie to people to get a confession. It doesn’t seem to be right because of the fact that I see the legal system as a process that looks for the truth, because it is searching for the truth, you would think that the police should have to tell the truth as well. Another thing that I found surprising was the fact that the police can be that mean to a person when interrogating them. Some of the police officers were actually yelling at the person to get a confession. The final thing that I found surprising about this website was the fact that the police actually say that it is better to just confess then to go to trial. They basically make the person feel that they have no chance of being found not guilty and therefore should just confess to get a deal. What psychology has to do with all of this is the fact of how police interrogate people; also, the fact that the police can sometimes get it wrong. In the story that was told in the book “Forensic and Legal Psychology” talks about how five boys were convicted because of their confessions. However, after spending years in prison, they found out that they were actually innocent. I believe that the pressure from the police were what actually led the boys to confess. What probably happened was that the police were using their intimidation style of interrogation and telling them that they knew that they did it and therefore they should just tell them that it was them. Also, when the brain is under a lot of stress, it can sometimes make the person confess to things just to get the stress to stop. If the police make it seem like the only way to get out of the situation is to confess, they are going to confess. Another thing that has to do with psychology is the process of remembering information. If the police during the interrogation are asking questions that are very specific, they can place information that might be false in the mind of the person being interrogated. The reason that this a problem is the fact that because the police can sometimes be a little harsh or even plant evidence that might be false in the minds of the person, it can lead to information being skewed and false. The reason that this is a bad thing is the fact that the police should be after the truth, not necessarily what they think of the truth. The final thing of psychology that found in the case was the fact of how the mind records information. As we have talked about in class, if the police keep on asking questions and keep on asking for details, it can make the memory turn bad. This is something that we have talked about class. Overall this was a very interesting website.

I learned that I don’t know much about some of the most famous serial killers in history despite my ambitions to work with serial killers in the future. I had no idea that Ted Bundy confessed to killing twenty nine people, and I’m reading “Defending the Devil” for my book report which discusses his case at trial from his lawyers point of view. I knew that Manson had a cult following, but I was surprised to find out that many of his followers actually committed murders alongside him, as well as a few actually committing murders on their own as a sort of scary tribute to Manson. Also, while taking the quiz for the Jack the Ripper killings, I was shocked that his murders happened so quickly. Four victims in four months, and then nothing else, which I also find odd because usually serial killers are fulfilling some kind of psychological need by committing their crimes, and they don’t stop, especially if they’re getting away with them.

I was also surprised to see that many of the interrogations I watched were quite violent and loud. I always imagined them to be far more calm, which I suppose is a product of my avid CSI watching. It did seem that the police officers who conducted interrogations had one of two main styles. They were either very forceful and commanding, yelling and hitting their fist on the desk and constantly lying to the suspect, or they were incredibly calm, and sat down right next to the suspect and tried to convince them that they were simply there to talk and only needed a few questions answered. This probably also varies based upon the potential crimes committed and the responsiveness and cooperation of the suspect.

Psychology ties into virtually every topic, because it is important to understand how humans think, so that we can use that knowledge to determine how they might act, why they acted the way they did, and we can also predict their actions to certain stimuli. This becomes incredibly important during interrogations. You have to first look at the crime the suspect potentially committed. What is their possible motivation, do they have any mental conditions that may have contributed to their actions? Then during an actual interrogation, you can use the suspects own personality traits to determine the most effective and quickest way to gain honest answers from them. For example, if a person is more introverted, they may respond better to a calm interrogation that starts slowly as opposed to a screaming police officer, especially if they have any aversion to authority figures. You can also consider the psychology and physiology of fabrication of both the suspect and the interrogator, as well as the psychology of the interrogator. What sort of manipulation, or coercion is the police officer using in order to elicit answers from the suspect. Is he attempting to confuse, intimidate, or otherwise force the answers he needs from the suspect. What does heavy intense continuous interrogation do to a person’s ability to answer questions correctly based upon their own memory? Is the interrogator asking leading questions that could potentially contaminate the suspect’s memory? There are so many ways to tie in psychology and the law.

I learned couple of interesting things from the website. One thing I did not know is that an interrogator can basically lie to a suspect to get their cooperation. Like in the Deception Interrogation video, the interrogator tells the suspect lies to get her to believe that he knows more than he really knows. Maybe if he can convince her that he knows more than she thinks, she will give them information on other things they aren’t aware of. They also kind of lie in the empathy video because they console with the suspect, and give them confidence to give them information. The video explained how making the suspect comfortable with the interrogator is a very important component of the interrogation process. If the suspect doesn’t want a woman, or white interrogator, it is important that they remove those persons and relieve them with someone the suspect would be comfortable with. It was also really interesting since we got to listen and watch real interrogations, instead of reenactments. I also wasn’t very sure how much authority could be used as in the sense of intimidation and if force was allowed at all. You can only use intimidation on certain suspects, because if you try to intimidate someone who also likes to be a tough guy, it might make him freeze up and not talk. The empathy video was used on the tough guy individuals because it makes the suspect confide in the interrogator. One interrogator explained that he rarely, if ever, uses the intimidation method. He said he likes to use empathy because it makes the suspect become best friends with you, and makes them relax to the point where you can get information about the acts they have been suspected of participating in. Some suspects can be labeled as the weakest link, in which you can ensure them that no one will find out that they snitched and gave up information. I did absolutely horrible on the quizzes, but learned quite a bit about serial killers I didn’t know much about. I had heard about them before, but didn’t know many facts. Psychology relates to all of this through cognitive psychology, which is the study of mental processes such as learning, perception, memory and attention. Biological psychology also relates to interrogations because it is the study of the functions of the brain with regards to different psychological triggers. An example of a trigger could be lying and how the individual acts when he/she attempts these psychological processes.

The most interesting part of this website were definitely the interrogation videos. I watched the video on intimidation and saw how the investigators act very tough and confrontational to the suspects, while the suspects remained quiet and acted nervous. I kept thinking that if this were an outside situation, the suspect’s probably would not act that shy and reserved if someone came at them in a confrontational way. The idea of the ‘good cop-bad cop’ approach was used by these investigators by having one cop seem more intimidating and yell, while the other cop sat beside the suspect and seemed to be more understanding.

Another video I watched was the lie detector video. That was the most interesting to me because I learned how suspects would try almost anything to thwart the lie detector. I found it interesting they went as far as cutting the tubes and putting peanut butter on the roof of their mouth to try and make the lie detector not work. My question was, didn’t know they know they were being taped when they tried to cut the tubes? Something else I found interesting about the lie detection video was the idea of Computer Voice Stress Analysis. While watching the video I at first thought the investigator was just using a regular lie detector test, but was trying to trick the suspect into believing it was something more powerful. After watching the full video, I realized that the Stress Analysis test really did exist by using AM/FM sounds to detect when someone is lying or not.

Psychology can be attached to these videos in a variety of ways. Social psychology was used between the investigators when they were using intimidation to try and make the suspects confess. Social psychology was also used in the video where the cop slowly gets the woman into giving the name of the suspect by continuously telling her she was safe and they were ‘not like all men’.

Finally I took the serial killer quiz and learned more about the different serial killers that exist. I was surprised that the MacDonald triad for serial killers is that they display bedwetting, arson, and cruelty to animals. I had heard of cruelty to animals as one example, but not the other two. I also learned from taking this quiz is that there have been approximately 400 serial killers in the US in the past century. This number may not seem like a lot, but multiply that by the number of victims result in these serial killers, and the number actually does add up. I find serial killers interesting to study because I always wonder what is going on inside their head, so this website was very interesting to me with all the information about serial killers.

The videos on this website were a good example of the various methods that police use when interrogating a suspect. It was interesting to actually see the techniques being used in action, as opposed to just reading about them in the book. I watched the videos on intimidation, empathy, and deception. I feel that all of the videos and the techniques used in them best relate to social psychology, due to the fact that they involve the investigators influencing the suspects and appealing to their various personalities in order to get a confession.

All three of the videos showed many of the techniques listed in Chapter 2 of our book. Together, they showed all four of the influence strategies in the Reid technique for interrogation listed in the chapter. These strategies are: indicating a loss of control for the suspect, social isolation, certainty of guilt, and exculpatory scenarios.

The intimidation video and the deception video best showed the loss of control, social isolation, and certainty of guilt strategies. These videos showed the investigators alone in a room with the suspect being interrogated. The room was also fairly small and sparse, including only necessary recording equipment, the table, and a few chairs. The investigators were in control of the conversation at all times. Both videos also demonstrated certainty of guilt, with the intimidation video focusing more on the investigator stating that they knew the suspect was guilty and the deception video focusing more on evidence ploys. In the deception video, the investigator is claiming that they can place the suspect at the scene of the crime, that they have been monitoring her for longer than she thinks, and that they have evidence obtained from questioning other people about the crime in question. The intimidation video also demonstrated the good cop-bad cop approach, with one of the investigators shouting at the suspect and accusing them, and the other investigator being more understanding, sitting next to the suspect and talk normally. It also demonstrated the “good cop” becoming upset with the suspect for continuing to lie to both investigators.

The video on empathy focused more on exculpatory scenarios, while also demonstrating social isolation and loss of control and a bit of certainty of guilt, although it was much more subtle than in the other two videos. One thing that surprised me in the process is when the investigator said that they would remove a female or a white/black investigator if the suspect wasn’t comfortable talking to them and instead replace them with an investigator that they suspect felt more comfortable with. This makes sense though, as the point of the empathy video was to establish a connection with the suspect to ease the process of interrogation. The video best demonstrated exculpatory scenarios by the investigator appealing to the suspect’s good will, saying they weren’t a bad person and were just in a bad scenario. The point of this is to establish the idea that if the suspect cooperates in the reasonable manner that the officer is expecting of them, the punishment may be reduced. This is more likely to get a confession out of the suspect.

All three of these videos were very interesting and I feel that I learned even more from them than I would have if we had only read Chapter 2 in the book. It is important to witness these processes firsthand in order to properly understand how they are applied in the dynamic scenarios that interrogations can present.

This website was extremely interesting to look at, as I was able to learn more about concepts in the book. This site helped me put concepts in the book into real stories that have occurred. It was really interesting to see the different techniques as well as to learn more about different crimes through the quizzes.

It was apparent that investigators try to use every technique possible in an attempt to get their suspect to confess and provide them with information. I would assume that they get to know their suspects personality before they interrogate them. As this would help investigators decide what technique would work best for their particular suspect. Once they are in the interrogation room it appears that they have a so called “game plan” on how they are going to get information; and if their techniques does not work they try something else. I watched intimidation, empathy, deception, weakest link, and lie detector. All of these videos expressed different techniques investigators use. The intimidation video made me feel uncomfortable watching it because there was so much yelling and it was very loud. The suspect did not show any discomfort, this expresses how every person is different and that some techniques work well with some, but not with everyone. This technique almost made the suspect feel comfortable telling them what happened after he had been yelled at for a while. The next video I watched was empathy; this was interesting because it expressed the need that we have to talk to other people. Basically what investigators do is make the suspect feel comfortable and think that the investigator is on their side, when in reality they aren’t. Eventually the suspect feels they can trust the investigator and they tell them everything. During this video they showed a clip of a women investigator interrogating a young man. The investigator felt like the suspect felt comfortable talking to her because in a strange way he may have felt like she was a mother figure. The young man had been interrogated by other men but he never felt comfortable enough to tell them what happened.

The third video I watched was deception; this was interesting because they make the suspect feel like they already know they are involved. This caused the suspect to become flustered in trying to find a way around their questions. Eventually the suspect gets caught in their lies and they tell the investigator hints or short statements that imply they were involved. Then investigators recognize what they said and they eventually get the individual to tell everything. I think we see this technique and the intimidation technique in movie and TV shows more than the others because they are entertaining. The last video I watched was lie detector, this clip expressed concepts that we read in chapter 3. The most interesting part of this video was that the suspects lies get caught up when a third party gets involved. Usually the machine side with investigators and the suspects feels as though there is nothing else they can do because a machine proved they are guilty. This causes the suspect to explain their involvement in the case.

I took several quizzes and I seemed to do terrible on them however it was interesting to learn more about different crimes and techniques. Overall I learned more about what we have read in the text book. I found the videos to be intriguing because each one showed different ways people lie as well as techniques investigators use. A huge factor that comes into effect during an interrogation is the personality or disposition of the suspect, as this influences the way an investigator interrogates them. I noticed that most of the investigators were aware of the way they worded their sentences, as this can impact the final verdict. For example if an investigator used the intimidation technique on someone who is very timid, shy, and quiet; they are likely to scare the person into lying about who committed the crime simply because they do not want to be yelled at anymore. Overall the videos and quizzes were very interesting and each scenario expressed psychological techniques that are used during and interrogation.

First of all I really enjoyed watching the different videos and taking the quizes on this website. I watch a lot of shows on the Investigation Discovery channel so this was fun for me!

I first watched the video about intimidation. The investigators in the video used the 'good cop' and 'bad cop' technique to get a confession out of the suspect. One cop was yelling and trying to get the confession while the other cop was more understanding. This video provides the best example of loss of control and social isolation. The suspect was alone in the room with the interrogator. What I learned from chapter two in the book that I saw in one of the videos is the importance of empathy that a interrogator should display while questioning the suspect. The investigator shouldn't act like they are best friends with the suspect but they should act somewhat casually to try to acquire the confession they need. It is simply human nature to have the want and need to talk to someone. The suspect should feel comfortable with the interrogator, the interragator should be someone who is straight forward.

I also watched the video about lie detection. The most common form of lie detection we learned about in chapter two is the polygraph. The test depicted in the video is the polygraph test. The polygraph is a very important tool for the investigator. The test shows the suspect that the interrogator knows the suspect is lying or telling the truth. I found it interesting that suspects will go to the trouble of tampering with the polygraph machine to try and thwart the whole test, like cutting holes in the tubes connecting them to the machine. I never knew suspects would do that. I learned that deception is a key part in the process of interrogations. The investigator has to pretend to be something they are not. The investigator will go about this by telling the suspect that they know more than the suspect thinks. There are psychological aspects evident in these real interrogation videos. The form of psychology I noticed the most was social psychology. Social psychology was used between the investigators when they were using intimidation on the suspect to get a confession out of them. It is evident just in the ways the investigator has to manipulate the suspects thinking to get an accurate confession.

Over all the videos are a perfect example of what goes on in interrogation and its good to have that first hand experience to comprehend all the different methods investigators use to get a confession.

After watching the interrogation videos, I saw firsthand some of the tactics that police use to elicit a confession from a suspect. The first and best tactic any interrogator can use regardless of race or gender is empathy. Empathy is not much of a tactic as it is an emotional bond that can be established to show trust between the two parties. One of the best examples in the videos of empathy being displayed was the male suspect coming clean to the female interrogator. Previously, the suspect was mum when being interrogated by the two male officers who appeared to be performing a good-cop bad cop approach, but when the female officer was placed in the room and began questioning the suspect he began to open up. The female officer explained that the suspect was raised by his mother and perhaps had more of an emotional tie to females. Thus presenting him with a female interrogator who was able to sympathize and downplay his crimes brought out some emotions not found by the male officers. This in short shows the relationships that can be established even during criminal proceedings such as interrogations. If the suspect feels as if he can trust an officer and not be bullied or manhandled emotionally, one might be able to elicit more of a confession.

Another tactic I saw being used was the evidence ploy strategy. Basically an officer will fabricate some sort of evidence that may place the suspect at the scene of the crime. For example, saying that they have surveillance footage of the suspect and they already know he is guilty. This can be used if a suspect is not cooperating or the officers have not gotten any information out of the suspect. Simply making up evidence may bring about some much needed information or at least get the suspect talking if he/she hasn't already. Coming from the perspective of a suspect, if an officer claimed to have evidence of me leaving the crime scene or some DNA evidence placing me at the scene, one would most likely show some unseen facial expressions that the interrogators could play off of. One loophole I noticed that could possibly be exploited was if a suspect asked to see said surveillance footage of him/her at the crime scene. I'm not aware of legal procedures forbidding an officer to show footage, but if the officer was obliged to show footage and didn't have any, the momentum could swing in the suspect's favor.

I found the interrogation videos fascinating! These videos had some surprising content that I never really associated with interrogations before. The first video I watched was the one on intimidation. I was surprised at how confrontational that the interrogators got with the suspects. It reminded me of the idea of good cop bad cop, but in this case there wasn’t a good cop. Still it showed how easy that some of the suspect were cowed under the verbal assault that they appeared to be breaking down. Which was another surprising thing, besides a few of the videos the interrogations seemed really tense and loud. I always figured a constant calm to the situation of an interrogation from the interrogators side of things. Next was the deception video which had some cues from social psych with the picking up of the social and body/non-verbal cues from the suspect. Then by taking stored information about the suspect they use that to make inferences to start make the suspect sweat, thinking the detectives/interrogators know more than they do. Following that was the video on empathy. What really surprised me about this was how far they go to get someone that the suspect would be agreeable with as an interrogator. I was questioning why they would be so pandering to a suspect of a (most likely) serious crime. Then as I thought about it, they want to get the easiest confession they can out of the suspect so if they have go find someone I suppose it would make sense to find someone that the suspect will be comfortable speaking with. That just brings up how thorough the interrogators have to be to not get a false confession/ or to get a non-confession out of a suspect. I enjoyed the lie detector video because while they mentioned the polygraph test, I liked the fact that they mentioned other tools that can be used for lie detection, like the voice recognition software that they used in the video. The weakest link video reminded of the procedural crime dramas (mostly law and order and its many spin offs). They find one suspect and they grill them and essentially coerce the information out of them about other suspects or if there were others involved in the crime. The one common theme I felt throughout all of the videos was the idea that the interrogators rely on subterfuge and lies to get the information out of the suspects. I always imagined you had to go about thing “by the books” otherwise the confession wouldn’t be admissible as evidence. Still the video were excellent, even though there were only five of them. The quizzes were really fun and interesting as well. I thought I had a good grasp on my knowledge of the major criminals they had there but I was proven wrong pretty fast. It was also interesting to see take the quizzes on some of the female serial killers because no one ever really mentions them. Overall I really enjoyed my time with the site and I will probably stop back and take those quizzes again.

It was very nice to see the interrogation techniques from our textbook put into real life context. This helped me to review what I had read in our chapters and see the differences in the procedures. I was a little disappointed that there were only 5 interrogation videos and I could not get the Interrogation Techniques Quiz or the Wrongly Accused Quiz to work. It would send me deeper into the website.
The videos were listed after the type of technique the interrogators used. This made it easier for me to discern between the different types. It was also interesting to see which investigators used which procedures. One example was the Empathy video. The female investigator seemed to take on the “mother” role to connect with the suspect. She believed just sitting down and talking to the suspect was the best way to get them to give them information. Also, another investigator mentioned about how interrogations were all about making the suspect comfortable, “We checked our ego at the door.” This was the complete opposite from the investigators in the Intimidation video. They believed the best thing was to get a little loud and aggressive in order to get the suspect to talk. I knew that different police departments used different techniques such as these, but I never realized how different those techniques could really be.
One thing that surprised me was how aggressive the investigators were in the Intimidation video. I thought they were going a little overboard with everything. The first clip with the 2 investigators was the one that I thought was a little too aggressive. One of the investigators said, “You have the right not to talk to them, but you don’t have the right to lie to them.” I felt like the investigator losing his temper was what surprised me the most. I feel like he should have been able to handle the situation without yelling at the suspect. I also feel like he could have still been intimidating while still being professional.
I believe psychology has a lot to do with the false confessions that can happen in a situation such as the one in the Intimidation video. Our book states that a lot of false confessions come from interrogations in which either the police are being very coercive or in which the suspect has been in the interrogation room for hours. I cannot tell how the suspect has been in the room just from a clip of only a few seconds, but it was very easy to see when police are being coercive. I also believe if that if the suspect confessed, the whole tape should be shown to jurors to see if the police really coerced the confession out of the suspect rather than the suspect actually admitting to the crime.
Another aspect that I saw that psychology that was discussed in our textbook was the equal-focus camera perspective. In almost all of these videos, you can see both the detective and the suspect; however, you can only see the back of the detective’s head. In one of the videos that is mentioned above, you can see the suspect and one of the detectives. If these videos were shown in a trial, then jurors would be able to distinguish for themselves whether or not the confessions were coerced or voluntary.

The interrogation videos were pretty interesting to see. I have always wanted to see how a real interrogation goes and these videos gave me a good idea. What I thought was most interesting was how many lies the police have to tell to get the truth. There is nothing straight forward with an interrogation. Each side whether its finding the truth, or not confessing the truth, is lying most of the interrogation. There were many different ways the interrogation went though. They either were very aggressive or they were very empathetic or they used deception. I thought it was also interesting how they used the lie detectors. They did not actually use them as lie detectors, but more as catalysts to get the truth from the suspects. I learned that they deceive the suspects by saying that the polygraphs had said they were guilty, so the suspects end up confessing. Psychology has to do with all of these confessions because every interrogation is about getting inside the suspects head and changing their minds on whether to lie or tell the truth. Sometimes they are able to get the suspects to tell the truth, but sometimes they can be so aggressive that they actually get a false confession and the suspect gets thrown in jail for thinking they actually committed a crime, but they didn't. Not everyone is going to believe they committed a crime they didn't, but it has happened before. Interrogation is the best way for where police can get a confession from a suspect. Although there are many lies told throughout the process, they usually work for the advantage of the police. As long as the right people are being thrown in jail for the crimes they committed, I think interrogation by police is a good thing.

In all these videos I can see all the different types of interrogation tactics to get the truth from the suspect. We see the officers playing “good cop, bad cop” and trying to get the suspect to bond with the good cop. In all cases the officers are trying to get into the head of the suspect and try to convince them to talk and give up the truth. One of the officer said “sometimes you have to lie to get the truth” which is very true. It’s all about making the suspect uneasy and keeps the power on the officer’s side. In some of the cases officer will have to yell and scare the offender to make them feel the guilt of what they did. Then if one officer can’t get the truth out them, bring in somebody else that can. For some offenders you must create a bond with them and get them comfortable with you. They are more willing to talk with somebody they feel comfortable with. One officer said that if they suspect doesn’t feel comfortable with this officer bring in another one that might open up to. You can catch a suspect off guard by saying that you know things that you really don’t. After saying that the suspect will start to think how did they find out and scare them. Officers will trick offenders into believing that they have evidence that will send them to jail. From the book they showed examples of having two officers in the room and drilling the suspect with never ending questions. In most of the videos the interrogations were all conducted in small rooms and trying to make the suspect nervous.
These videos showed uses of lie detector and the different ways police will use them to get the truth. When an officer chooses to use the test the offender can’t argue with the results because the officers know that you lied. One lie detector was the stress analyzer that measured how your voice reacted to questions and I had never heard of these being used. It’s strange to see how people will try to beat the tests by bring in tools to help them pass the test. It’s one thing for an officer to tell the offender that they know they’re lying, but now they have paper that proves that they know.

Real Interrogations Blog:

I really enjoyed this website and learning of its existence was even better. Even though this was an assignment I found it so informational and interesting that it was like if I was just surfing the web and taking fun fact quizzes. I really like this one.

What did I learn?

First of all, I learned that most people do not realize that they should request a lawyer for one. There were only five interrogations that I was able to access and in each of them none of the people being questioned even asked whether or not they could call an attorney or use the phone. I know that I only saw a few minutes of each so I am wondering if they asked for one previously or not at all. I also learned a lot of little facts through the quizzes about Charles Mason, Jack the Ripper and the serial killer quiz as well. I learned that the three most combined attributes that serial killers have in common is bed-wetting, arson, and violence with animals at a young age; which I did not know.

Basically, from what I saw this is what I learned, if for any reason I am in a situation like that I should ask for a lawyer because those interrogations rooms seem very intimidating and uncomfortable. And because the police lie to try to get people to say things it would be best to request a lawyer. Whether a person is innocent or guilty I believe they should know their rights and what they say will be used against so the need really be aware of that. People sometimes forget they really do have the right to remain silent and are innocent until proven guilty.

What most surprised you?

The most surprising thing to me was the way the good cop-bad cop approach was used in the interrogations and that is used very often. It was really surprising that normally it is the good interrogator that gets the information however it was necessary for the bad cop to have yelled and intimate the person being questioned. It was also very interesting to see and actually know for a fact how often the police have to lie in order to get the truth out. The police or interrogator usually lies throughout the interrogation in order to get information or make the person believe they know more then they really do.

What does psychology have to do with it all?

Psychology has everything to do with interrogations, arrests, questioning people and/or convictions, and during trials. Psychology and law go hand in hand. Police have to be able to identify whether or not a person is lying or telling the truth. This is done through the study of behavior which is what psychology is. The point of the legal system is to make sure that society is safe and that means people who commit crimes need to be caught and put away but where and for how long. This all is based on the crime and condition of the person who committed the crime. Once again, psychology and law are twisted into one under circumstances of interrogations, substance abuse, criminal crimes etc…

Terms: psychology, crimes, criminals, legal system, interrogator, interrogations, Charles Mason, Jack the Ripper, serial killers, violence, police, abuse, crime, criminals, lying, truth, arson, attorney, lawyer, questioning, good cop-bad cop approach, innocent, law, guilty, rights and legally.

I learned a lot of techniques used in interrogations. These were a little more “real life” than the examples in the book. One technique they talked about was deception. I had no idea how often interrogators lie to suspects. The investigators on these videos talked about how they lie to elect a response. They said that information is power, especially when the suspect doesn’t know how the investigator received the information. The investigator will first tell the suspect facts about them (the suspect) and about their relation to the crime. They do this to gain credibility, because the suspect begins to think that the investigator knows a lot of information about them and their relation to the crime. Next the investigator will lie about certain evidence related to the suspect. The book calls these evidence ploys. They cite real or fabricated evidence that clearly establishes guilt. In one of the videos, an investigator told a suspect that they found gunpowder on his hands. This was fake evidence to try to elicit a response from the suspect.

Another technique investigators use is empathy. The investigators on the videos talked about how important it is to establish a connection with the suspect. They said that it’s human nature to want to connect with someone. If the suspects feel a connection with the investigator, they will feel more comfortable with them, and be more open to share information. This technique of interrogation was mentioned in the book, under the “good cop” aspect of the good cop-bad cop approach. Here, one investigator is intimidating, showing anger and threatening the suspect with the worst possible punishment. The second investigator shows understanding and sympathy toward the suspect, in hopes that this empathy will lead to a confession. One investigator on the videos emphasized how important it is for the suspect to feel comfortable. He even said they choose the race and gender of the investigator based on the race and gender of the suspect, or at least on the comfortability of the suspect. In one case, a female investigator interrogated a male suspect about a murder case. She said that they knew the suspect was raised solely by his mother. The female investigator felt she was acting as a mother figure to the suspect, and this allowed him to talk more freely that with other male investigators. Another investigator said it’s very important to have respect for the suspect so that they will respect you. I think this shows that different investigators have different techniques that they feel work best.

The investigators on the videos also talked about their use of polygraphs. They said that these tests are more psychological than anything. It is a way to show the suspect that the investigators know they are lying. The test backs up them up, and is more convincing to the suspect. One investigator was about to give a suspect a voice stress analyzer test. He told the suspect that this type of test cannot be beaten. This is obviously not true; polygraphs and other such tests cannot be 100% accurate. The investigator said this so that the suspect would believe there was no way out. The investigator hoped that once the suspect saw that he had failed the polygraph, he would believe that he had no hope of being found innocent, and would give a confession. I had no idea that these tests were more used for psychological purposes than actual lie detection.

Psychology is a big part of interrogations. Investigators can form their techniques around how people process information (cognitive psych). By putting suspects in a small room with no windows and straight back chairs the suspects begin to feel a loss of control. The main goal is to remove the psychological comfort of familiar surroundings so that the suspect feels vulnerable, anxious, and off-balance. This may cause them to slip up in their story, or feel less confident about their ability to hide something. Investigators socially isolate the suspect so that they have no emotional support, and are not as aware that the investigators may be lying. Investigators may use empathy techniques so that the suspect feels more comfortable about sharing information. If they feel that the investigator cares about them on a more personal level, they will trust that the investigator has their best interest in mind, and be more apt to share information.

The serial killer quizzes surprised me the most. I was shocked to find that the FBI estimates around 400 serial killers in the US in the past century. In addition, the estimated serial killer victims is around 3,000! One quiz listed traits of serial killers when they are children. I did know that cruelty to animals was a common behavior, but I did not know that bed-wetting is another one. I did some research on this, and found that cruelty to animals, bedwetting (or enuresis), and arson are part of the Macdonald triad. Together, these behavioral characteristics are associated with anti-social personality disorder, which is typical of serial killers. It seems that this is a controversial topic, and the research that has studied it may be statistically insignificant.

When browsing the website, I found it interesting. It had videos and quizzes.I first looked at the most viewed video. Those had to do with the chapter 2 from our test book. The first video talked about deception in interrogations. One of many tactics used in interrogation is coming up with ways to get the suspect to confess. Interrogator will tell false statements like, they have had surveillance on the suspect for a few days, this is said so the suspect might worry that they actually know what he or she was doing. Some interrogators will say other things like if a person was suspected of shooting a gun, the interrogators would say something like with using a certain thing, they can detect gun residue on the person’s hands. In the one video this interrogator decided to anticipate a suspects lie detector results, the suspect as the officer if they had found something, or if the result came back positive, the officer hesitated and told him it was not looking good and he was giving him one last chance to confess before the result tell the truth. Other than the lie detector test where the person is wired, one officer and a man, who was being questioned, were sitting in a room and the officer explained about a new lie detector that measured if you are telling a lie by your voice using the FM and the AM in your voice. I thought that was pretty cool, I had no idea that could be done. Another tactic officer use when interrogating a person is empathy with the suspect. One of the officers explained that everyone had a need to talk to someone, so they send in people who they feel that the suspect could open up and talk to someone about. The officers try to connect with the person they are trying to get information out. They say things that would get the suspect to drop the guard and open up to them. In the one video you have the woman officer trying to relate to a young man. The female officer sat close to the suspect she used a calm voice and tried to get him to reason with her. Throughout the empathy video almost every officer said it was important to connect with a suspect during interrogation. Watching these video, they relate to psychology through different ways. Cognitive psychology is helpful because the officers that do the interrogation are trying to manipulate the suspect mentally. This occurs when they start coming up with tactics to get the suspect to confess. Like the example one the video when the woman was told she had been followed for several days and they saw her in the car that was part of the crime. The officers did not know if it was true or not but they stuck with it and you can see the woman start to believe that they were watching her. Social psychology is also helpful in interrogations. The officers are influencing a connection with the suspect to get them to confess to the crime, or give them more information.

I found this website to be interesting because you got to see interrogations from the police officers point of view. I found many of their view points to be disturbing and terrifying to think that this is what our legal system is actually like. One thing that I found the most surprising as well as horrifying was that these investigators seemed to be coming from the perspective that the suspect is guilty until proven innocent instead on innocent until proven guilty.

Investigators probably come at interrogations from the point of view of guilty until proven innocent because of the experience of seeing guilty criminals walk free. They are passionate about their job and their emotions can sometimes overcome their rational. They also have been given the power to deceive and intimidate criminals, which they abuse because they are in such a high place of power and control.

The video are lie detectors showed that investigators use the results to their full advantage, even though the results are not always correct. Also the suspect assumed that since the lie detector said they were lying that they must be, even if they have no memory of doing the crime. Officers also talked about suspects using counter measures to try to trick the lie detector. Examples include, putting a penny or peanut butter in their mouths, cutting wires, putting objects in their shoes. When officers see this the probably resort to confirmation bias and think that since the suspect was trying to deceive the lie detector that they must have committed the crime, even though some were probably just scared of getting a false positive. Officers use these tests to get into people’s heads and try to trick them into confessing and trick them into thinking that they must have done it.

Deception is also used in interrogations. I found it ironic that in this video one of the officers said “Sometimes you have to lie to get to the truth”. This seemed a little counterproductive. How can you expect to get the truth when you yourself are lying? They also talked about how information is power and they use this power to deceive people. If a suspect feels that someone has power over them they are more likely to conform to their wishes. Detectives tell the suspect that they know more than they actually do, they are fishing for information. I also found it interesting that the officers never said that they were lying; instead they used the word trick. This could be attributed to cognitive dissonance. They are battling between trying to get information but also fighting against the knowledge that lying is wrong. To settle this dilemma they refer to it as tricking to make is seem more ethical.

Investigators also use empathy to establish rapport with a suspect. Someone is more likely to tell a person information if they trust them. This can also be used in the good cop bad cop approach. A comment was also made about how interrogations are all about respect. This seemed off center because since the officers are allowed to lie to suspects how can they expect to gain respect. A comment was also made about wanting to put suspects in jail for the rest of their lives. If officers go into the interrogations with this mind sent how they can expect to do a fair assessment of the information the suspect gives them.

Another video was about intimidation. This is used to scare suspects into confessing. This could also contribute to the reason of false confessions. Because of the intimidation factor suspects feel the need to respect and please authority. They know the investigators want a confession so they give them one because they feel inferior and want to please them.
Investigators also use the weakest link approach. This can be done in two ways. They can find the weakest link of the group and go after them to get the names of the others that were involved in the crime. They can also find someone’s weakness and use that to their advantage. For instance in the video on this the girls weakest link was being scared of getting beating up by a man. The officers used this knowledge to get a confession as well as get the names of the other people involved.

This site demonstrated real life interrogations where the tactics in our textbook were used. After reading the textbook and watching these interrogations and interviews with officers I cannot help but question is these tactics are really ethical.



The main psychological connection in any investigation or interrogation is how the authorities can dictate and manipulate suspects, victims and witness; in order to obtain quality evidence. The impact of authority alone normally makes more individuals cooperative. This psychological manipulation is almost essential to any investigation. However, it may sound easy but no two criminals are the same.
I focused my attention to the different interrogation techniques used by detectives and how they varied from case to case. Empathy, aggression, coercion, deception, and intimidation tactics were all used in order to prove the truth from suspects or timid witnesses. Depending on the crime at hand or the individuals personality, which attitude the detective took into the interrogation room varied. For example, in one of the videos the detectives were interrogation a younger, heavy built man. No only was there two detectives in that small interrogation room but, the detectives were being very aggressive with their questions and demands. This suspect was being accused for murder; if the detectives tried to use a empathetic attitude with this harden criminal I doubt they would have proved the same responses. This all relates to better understanding the psychology and mental make-up of the suspect at hand. If the detectives could better diagram the psychological condition of each suspect, I believe they would have better success in understanding how to obtain the truth from that individual. If interrogating a young, week and confused teenage girl, intimidation and aggression may not be the best approach; it may even scare the individual enough to work against the case and interrogation.
What I found most interesting on the interview and interrogation website was the willingness for detectives to tell blatant lies to the suspects; and even more appalling, the number of suspects that believed the lies. I can understand why telling lies in order to get the truth may be necessary. I don't condone the practice, but at the same time I can see where it would be necessary. In my opinion, once the trusted authorities of our community, such as police and detectives, start lying to public, just that much sooner trust will be lost in those individuals. It's a slippery slope for those involved. How will the community and the defense react when the news breaks that the conviction of a criminal was based on false accusations and false evidence, which in return simply lead to a confession out of fear? However, a confession is a confession. The court of law doesn’t care how it was obtained, just as long as it was justified.
I was also surprised at the willingness of the suspects to simply accept what the detectives were telling them was the truth. As criminals one would think they would be better at detecting lies. In one video the officer even told the female suspect that he personally has been following her for a week. She just simply accepted that she was busted and this detective has been following her ever move for 7 days straight.
The psychology of criminals and detectives play off each other in the interview or interrogation room. There are an abundance of tactics and techniques available for detectives disposal to provoke the truth from even the most harden criminals. Empathy, aggression, intimidation, coercion, deception and even blatant lies can help detectives draw out the answer we all want; the truth.

First of all, I loved taking these quizzes, I find it extremely interesting to read about why people are doing what they’re doing and reading about what happened to them before turning to such crimes to determine what lead to this.
I didn’t learn that much from the interrogations they did however, have to do with some of our readings. It talked about good cop bad cop routine. The fact that they get loud and intense with suspects in order to scare them to confessing. I also found it interesting that in one of the video’s a cop actually stated that they try and convince one suspect of their guilt. I cannot believe that that was actually stated and recorded. This highly correlates with false confessions, there are many factors, this being one of them, which contribute to people falsely confessing.
I was unaware that Elizabeth Smarts’ kidnappers were deemed incompetent to stand trial. I don’t know the background to this story anymore, because it’s been so long but if I remember the right case I thought she developed Stockholm syndrome. She was held captive for 9 months and it’s deemed as bonding with your captor. Even when I police man came up to her, on a bench I believe, she wouldn’t reveal her true identity. This may have been a sign of Stockholm syndrome. Either that or more likely she was scared of what may happen to her or her family if she was caught. I also learned from taking these quizzes that her kidnapper was a man who did miscellaneous work for her family. I didn’t know that that was the case for her. Having someone she knew, from home, taking her away from her family had to have been a huge factor. It may also be a contributing factor to contributing to Stockholm syndrome, if she did actually have it that is. I don’t know for sure if it was ever proven.
I was shocked to learn that the term “Helter Skelter” was taken from a Beetle’s song. Nor did I ever really know the meaning of it, I just knew the association between it and the Manson murders. I don’t understand why it was spelled in correctly, I would assume it was an accident but having such a well-known murder as the Manson’s’ that they would know how to spell their “catch phrase.” I learned that he meant it to mean a coming race-based Armageddon. I find things like this very interesting. I would relate this to social psychology and personality. It means something enough to him to leave it at a murder scene, as we have discussed in a blog about the “signature” of a murderer. He chose this because he believes he’s doing something worthy of the world. I also learned that Charles Manson got his last name from his step-father. I had no idea that that was not his birth name. I think how different it would be to know his from another name. The name Manson wouldn’t be associated with brutal, unnecessary, cruel murders. I also learned the results of his case. I didn’t know that Manson was supposed to be sentenced to death but that changed because California abolished the death penalty in ’72, when his trial was in ’71. He should have to suffer in prison anyway, death penalty is a relief for them.
I was surprised in Kampusch’s case in which she was returned to her home, she stated that she felt sorry for her captor. I can understand why she would think this but it honestly surprised me that they actually feel sorry for the person who put them through such misery. I would think that the normal feelings towards your captor would be hatred, disgust, anguish, etc. Not sympathy or empathy. It takes a strong person to have such compassion for a person who would kidnap them and hold them hostage.
Psychology has a lot to do with what I found on this website. In the quizzes about Hollywood crime it’s prevalent. In the case of the man who was shot in his home, it was by the hand of his own father. The man (whose name I’ve already forgotten) had intervened in an argument between his parents. I would believe the father to be deemed incompetent to stand trial. I have intervened in many fights between my siblings. Not once did my mother ever think to get a gun and shoot me for it. Even though my mother was on serious drugs she would have never done that. Therefore, a man who did that to his son must be insane. People with normally functioning psyches would not do something as drastic.

The real interrogations videos showed some of the methods discussed in the previous blog's chapters in a real life interrogation room. It also had actual investigators explaining their means and methods to get a confession out of the perpetrator. Three of the techniques used were intimidation, deception, and empathy.

The intimidation video was all about using this method to try and wade through the perpetrator's lies. The officer said that these criminals have a right to remain silent, but not the right to lie to them. This statement made a lot of sense to me. He also said you have to be tough to weed out the liars. I am pretty sure they mentioned the good-cop-bad-cop method in that they will trust and confess to the good cop.

The next video was on deception. The investigator said that they often have to pretend to be someone they are not. He also said that you have to tell those being interrogated that you know more than you actually do and convince them of that so that they feel the need to confess. One method they said was to tell them that they have gunshot residue on their hands in order to get them to confess. This seems a little shady to me and reminds me of something I read earlier in they year in that a cop will pull you over and say the car smells like marijuana, even when it doesn't, to try and get permition to search the car. I don't really think I like the idea of cops just flat out lying.

Empathy was the next method on the videos. Here, the investigators stressed the importance to make a connection or bond with the persons being questioned in order to get a confession. It is human nature to need to make connections and feel comfortable with people. They will even change the investigators in order to better fit those being questioned. If the person is black they will get a black investigator, if the person is a woman they will get a woman, etc.

The final two videos were less informative. The first was called the weakest link. Here, investigators stressed the importance of giving those in question something to latch onto in order to speak out. This could mean getting the person to turn on someone they are afraid of and trusting in the police. The last video was over lie detectors. In this video the investigator was using a computerized voice stress analyzer, which he said was better than a polygraph and could not be beat. I don't know if that is actually true or not, but the investigator said that it is all about having something that can back you up when your calling a person out for lying.

I learned many things from these interrogation videos, including the methods and psychological techniques to elicit a confession. Investigators pretty much try and get that confession by any means necessary, and I can see how false confessions can be such a problem. The technique that most surprised me was deception because it showed me that investigators could pretty much do whatever they wanted short of physical abuse. Interrogations have everything to do with psychology, from social psychology in making a connection and bond with the person in question to cognitive psychology in trying to get inside the person's head and elicit a confession. Even biopsychology comes into play when using polygraphs and voice stress analyzers, psychologists are a criminals worst nightmare.

In the Real Interrogations “deceptions” the cop said that they would lie to them in order to get them to tell something or to agree with it. Personally I still do not know if police should be able to lie to suspects during an interview because it may lead to false confessions. A direct quote from one of the sheriffs stated “sometimes we have to do that, sometimes we have to lie to get the truth.” Also in this video of real interrogations I was able to apply some of the things I learned in class and in the chapter to this clip. Such as the process of interrogation, where they want the suspect to have a sense of loss of control and then the second part of the strategy is social isolation, where the suspect is interrogated alone. Also applying the certainty of guilt where it the police begin with a direct accusation that the suspect committed a crime, and in this case it was vehicle theft.
The imitidation clip stated that sometimes you have to be tough with them know that youre not going to put up with the lying. Detective Guy Picketts said, “sometimes you might have to get a little loud and aggressive to get them to tell you what you need to know.” Back in the 1930’s officers would have used physical force in order to get the suspects to tell them the truth. Now a days we are seeing more psychological methods of police interrogating suspects.
Something that surprised me—while watching the clip “lie detectors” I was amazed that there was yet another way to test, in order to see if someone is lying. During this clip the interrogator said that he would not be using a polygraph, but a something called a computerized voice stress analyzer. I had never heard of this before, but evidently it works off of the suspect’s voice. According to this particular police officer it is more accurate than a polygraph. The voice stress works off of the AM and FM in your voice, when someone lies the FM in their voice dissipates.
This was a very cool website, and I'll probably go back to visit it just for the fun of it at a later time!

Leave a comment

Recent Entries

Welcome to Psychology & Law!
Familiarize yourself with the blog. You'll quickly notice that all of your assignments are listed here in chronological order.…
Using Movies
In time for Thursday's, please read the following link: http://www.psychologicalscience.com/kim_maclin/2010/01/i-learned-it-at-the-movies.html  as well as the 3 resource links at the…
Book Selection
There are several options for you to choose from to do your book report. They are: Lush Life, The…