Wicklander - Zulawski and Associates, Inc.

The trusted leader in training for over 25 years.

Tips


Why not just give up your evidence since that will help convince the suspect he is caught?"

Back to Tips

We have already pointed out in another chapter that one of the primary reasons for a confession is the subject's belief that his guilt is known. Since that is the case then why not just present the evidence of guilt and really make sure that he is convinced?

Certain cases can be approached in exactly that manner when there is sufficient evidence indicating the suspect's guilt. Showing the suspect a portion of the incriminating evidence can be useful, especially with the more experienced criminal who will be skeptical of the interrogator's truthfulness.However, there is a myriad of problems associated with this strategy that the interrogator must consider.

1)    The first difficulty to content with is that the suspect has not been offered a way to save face. The interrogator is really asking the suspect to make two or more admissions, "I did it" and "I am a bad person." The failure to rationalize the suspect's actions and allow him to save face can increase his resistance even in light of the strong evidence of his guilt.

2)    If during the recitation the interrogator makes any mistakes in the presentation or interpretation of the evidence, it may undermine the suspect's belief that he was really caught. Remember that the suspect is the expert because he was there when the crime took place. In many cases, the investigator is attempting to recreate the crime with an incomplete set of facts. A misinterpretation of a fact creates doubt, which can easily turn the suspect to denials.

3)    Another problem with presenting evidence is it allows the suspect to understand the scope of his exposure in the case. Once the suspect knows what the interrogator does and does not know, it helps him decide what must be admitted. For example, in many embezzlement cases, there may be a number of different schemes in place to defraud the organization. Once the suspect knows which one has been discovered, he can make a rational decision what must be admitted. This clearly will limit the suspect's admission.

4)    The presentation of evidence also plays into the suspect's hands by giving him something to argue about, thus delaying a confession. The legitimacy of the evidence and even what it means may be open for interpretation. The guilty will focus their attack on weaker pieces of evidence, holding them out as indicators of innocence. They may tenaciously argue over incorrect evidence even when there is other evidence, which clearly establishes their guilt.

5)    Finally, the innocent subject has been given enough information to make a plausible false confession using the details provided by the interrogator's factual approach. A better confirmation of guilt is to have the suspect tell what happened and in doing so confirm the investigative findings hopefully providing information the interviewer was not aware of and adding further credibility to the confession.

In general, the use of a factual attack is best limited to those cases where there is an abundant amount of evidence that becomes an avalanche overwhelming the guilty suspect's resolve. For most investigators, extra facts are a luxury not often available


Back to Tips

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