Wicklander - Zulawski and Associates, Inc.

The trusted leader in training for over 25 years.

Tips

Back to Tips

A suspect says, ­Are you going to get to the point?" ­Are you accusing me?"

This conversational ploy might be used by a suspect at several points in the interview or interrogation. The goal of the suspect here is to draw the interrogator into a direct accusation. The suspect can then deny involvement and learn a little more about what the interrogator might or might not know. Because there has been no direct accusation, the suspect may be uncertain of what lies ahead and is seeking information. Again there are several possible responses to the suspect.

1)  The point is you did (insert issue here). The reply by the interrogator is a direct accusation. With this response the lines of the interrogation have been clearly drawn. The suspect now understands what the interrogator knows or suspects. The problem with this response is it will almost certainly result in a spoken denial by the suspect who then must use additional denials to defend his position. The advantage of this response is it allows the interrogator to gauge the suspect's level of resistance to a confession by listening to the strength of the suspect's denials. With this reply the interrogator is committed to a classic interrogation involving overcoming the suspect's denials. The interrogator has forced the suspect to lie and as a result that lie must be protected with additional denials.

2)  Give me a minute and I think that you will see my point. There are really three things to considerÄ. This response to the suspect does several things for the interrogator. First, it allows him to continue with his plan of not directly identifying the suspect's crime. The suspect is attempting to identify what is being talked about to gain information and assess the amount of trouble he may be in. This reply does not give the suspect any more information than he already had. Second, the statement buys the interrogator additional time to allow the rationalization process to work on the suspect's resistance. Third, the interrogator's response creates curiosity. What are the three things that are going to be discussed? How do they apply to me? While the suspect waits for the answers to these questions, the interrogator continues to use methods of resistance reduction. In general, if the suspect returns to these questions more than twice, the interrogator will have to use a direct accusation in response.

3)  What do you think I am talking about?The interrogator might offer this response with a suspect who is more aggressive or talkative. Since the interrogator's reply offers no additional information, the suspect either identifies the crime he believes the interrogator might know about or he will play dumb saying he has no idea. Either way the interrogator maintains an advantage. If the suspect correctly identifies the incident, the interrogator is referring to, then this supports the investigative findings, indicating the suspect's guilt. If the suspect plays dumb, the interrogator can again take control encouraging the suspect to listen carefully. Generally, these types of statements are a search for information or to afford the suspect an opportunity to make a denial. Selection of the best reply will depend on the interrogator's plan, the type of offense, the timing of the interruption and the way it was said.


Back to Tips

® 2007 Wicklander-Zulawski and Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. - 800-222-7789 - info@w-z.com