Detecting Deception Via Strategic Disclosure of Evidence

Deception detection research has largely neglected an important aspect of many investigations, namely that there often exists evidence against a suspect. This study examined the potentials of timing of evidence disclosure as a deception detection tool. The main prediction was that observers (N = 116) would obtain higher accuracy rates if the evidence against the suspects (N = 58) was presented in a late rather than early stage of the interrogation. This prediction was based on the idea that late evidence disclosure would trigger lack of consistencies between the liars’ stories and the evidence; this could be used as a cue to deception. The main prediction received support. Late disclosure observers obtained an overall accuracy of 61.7%, compared to 42.9% of Early disclosure observers. Deceptive statements were identified with high accuracy (67.6%) in Late disclosure, indicating that the technique in this form is beneficial mainly for pinpointing lies.     

谈对犯罪嫌疑人的第一次讯问

对犯罪嫌疑人进行第一次讯问,在侦查讯问中起着举足轻重的作用。准确确定第一次讯问的目标和任务,可使讯问工作及以后的侦查工作少走或不走弯路。侦查人员在第一次讯问中,要认真研究案件材料,牢牢掌握讯问的主动权;深入调查、掌握犯罪嫌疑人心理,以便在讯问中有针对性地实施相应的心理对策;制定第一次讯问计划,使第一次讯问紧张而有序地进行;根据犯罪嫌疑人在第一次讯问中的不同表现实施相应的对策;对不同到案情形的犯罪嫌疑人,采取不同的讯问策略。     

“He's guilty!”: Investigator Bias in Judgments of Truth and Deception

Detecting deception is an inherently difficult task, but one that plays a critical role for law enforcement investigators in the interrogation room. In general, research has failed to indicate that performance in this domain is improved by training or prior experience. A signal detection framework is applied to the paradigm to better conceptualize the influence of these two factors. We found that although neither factor influenced discrimination accuracy, there was an effect on response bias such that training and prior experience appeared to increase the likelihood of responding deceit as opposed to truth. This investigator bias was observed both in a review of the literature and in this study of North American law enforcement investigators who took part in a forensically based deception-detection task. Possible theoretical mechanisms and practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

刑事侦讯的“两方组合”及其相互关系——基于西方刑事侦讯的分析

无论在大陆法国家还是英美法国家,从侦讯运作情况和具体环节来看,侦讯者都居于主导性和支配性地位,而应讯者尽管享有沉默权、律师帮助权等基本权利,也拥有相应的权利保障措施,但其仍处于被动和受支配的地位。在刑事侦讯中,两者不同的地位决定了两者不均衡与不对称的关系:第一,侦讯者与应讯者主体地位的不均衡;第二,侦讯者与应讯者权利(权力)和义务关系的不对称;第三,应讯者对刑事侦讯的心理服从;第四,侦讯者的角色所具有的道德优势。西方刑事侦讯两方组合及其相互关系的基本特征对我国刑事侦讯制度及侦查程序的改革具有借鉴意义。     

Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during police interrogations

Abstract

Deception detection has largely failed to investigate guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies. In this study, mock suspects (n=82) were interrogated by police trainees (n=82) who either were or were not trained in the technique to strategically use the evidence (the SUE technique). Analyses revealed that guilty suspects to a higher degree than innocent suspects applied strategies in order to appear truthful. Guilty suspects reported diverse strategies, while innocent suspects reported the strategy to tell the truth like it had happened, indicating a belief in the visibility of innocence. The realism in the suspects’ expectation about how their veracity was judged was largely dependent on the way in which they had been interrogated. The truth-telling suspects who were interrogated according to the SUE technique were optimistic about being judged as truthful; this optimism was warranted as the vast majority of them were classified as truthful. The SUE technique seems to help (a) spotting guilty suspects without them being aware of it and (b) spotting innocent suspects, and they become aware of it. That innocent (but not guilty) suspects can read how the interrogator views them is advantageous for the investigative process.     

Deception among pairs: “Let's say we had lunch and hope they will swallow it!”

Deception research has neglected the fact that legal-workers often have to try to detect deceit on the basis of statements derived from pairs of suspects, each having been interrogated repeatedly. To remedy this shortcoming we conducted a study where each member of 10 truth-telling pairs and 10 lying pairs was interrogated twice about an alibi. One hundred and twenty undergraduate students were enrolled as lie-catchers. The main findings were that (a) overall deception detection accuracy was modest; (b) lie-catchers given access to a large number of statements did not outperform lie-catchers given access to a lesser number of statements; (c) when asked to justify their veracity assessments the most frequently reported cue was ‘consistency within pairs of suspects’; (d) all cues to deception were of low diagnostic value. Psycho-legal aspects of integrating sequential information in deception detection contexts are discussed.     

Innocent of the crime under investigation: suspects’ counter-interrogation strategies and statement-evidence inconsistency in strategic vs. non-strategic interviews

ABSTRACT

The study examines the counter-interrogation strategies applied by mock suspects (N?=?94), who are innocent of a mock crime under investigation but who were present at the scene, for different reasons, at around the time the crime occurred. Half were present at the crime scene to carry out a lawful act, the other half to carry out an unlawful act. Furthermore, this study examines the effect of the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique as a strategic interviewing technique (vs. a non-strategic technique), on suspects’ statement-evidence inconsistencies. Participants were randomly assigned to the two interview conditions (strategic vs. non-strategic) and were interviewed as suspects of a crime, which none of them had committed. The results show that the most commonly used counter-interrogation strategy in both groups was to be honest. However, 26.1% of the innocent suspects, performing an unlawful act, reported the strategy to be deceptive. In addition, the statements of suspects executing an unlawful act were significantly more inconsistent with the evidence in the strategic than the non-strategic interview condition. The increased statement-evidence inconsistency rates potentially put these suspects at risk of being assessed as guilty of a crime they did not commit.     

‘I'm a photographer,not a terrorist’: the use of photography to detect deception

When planning large-scale incidents or bombing campaigns, terrorists often conduct reconnaissance research to identify key targets. This may include taking photographs of potential target locations. Identifying an effective real-time method to distinguish between genuine photographers and those with more sinister intent may be beneficial for law enforcement and security agencies. Participants took photographs in a public place with a genuine intent (truth tellers) or sinister intent (liars). After taking these photographs, the participants were approached by an undercover interviewer (a mime artist) who asked them whether he could see the photographs. Later, the participants discussed their photographs in a formal interview. First, liars were less cooperative in their interaction with the undercover interviewer than truth tellers. Second, in the formal interview, liars mentioned some security features that appeared in the photographs more than truth tellers. The findings suggest that ‘using photographs to detect deception’ is a subject that could prove important to explore to benefit forensic and counter-terrorist practice.     

On Lie Detection “Wizards”

M. O'Sullivan and P. Ekman (2004) claim to have discovered 29 wizards of deception detection. The present commentary offers a statistical critique of the evidence for this claim. Analyses reveal that chance can explain results that the authors attribute to wizardry. Thus, by the usual statistical logic of psychological research, O'Sullivan and Ekman's claims about wizardry are gratuitous. Even so, there may be individuals whose wizardry remains to be uncovered. Thus, the commentary outlines forms of evidence that are (and are not) capable of diagnosing lie detection wizardry.     

国外侦查讯问制度之比较

侦查讯问是案件侦查和刑事诉讼中的常用措施,各国由于价值观念、历史文化传统的差异,侦查讯问制度的内容不尽相同。具体差异主要体现在讯问主体、对象、程序、方法、时间等若干方面。     

从规范执法到诉讼证据——以检察机关侦查讯问全程同步录音录像为视角

检察机关讯问犯罪嫌疑人全程同步录音录像在刑事诉讼中具有证据的属性,而且,不会突破现行法定证据种类。赋予全程同步录音录像证据效力,对检察机关既是机遇,也有挑战。赋予全程同步录音录像证据资格,必须规范全程同步录音录像的制作过程,确立统一的技术规范、确定事前告知义务、完善始后全程和档案保存制度等。全程同步录音录像作为证据,基于其特殊性,应该在示证提起权、举示决定权、示证过程等方面作特别规定。     

“Intuitive” Lie Detection of Children’s Deception by Law Enforcement Officials and University Students

Adults ability to detect childrens deception was examined. Police officers, customs officers, and university students attempted to differentiate between children who lied or told the truth about a transgression. When children were simply questioned about the event (Experiment 1), the adult groups could not distinguish between lie-tellers and truth-tellers. However, participants were more accurate when the children had participated in moral reasoning tasks (Experiment 2) or promised to tell the truth (Experiment 3) before being interviewed. Additional exposure to the children did not affect accuracy (Experiment 4). Customs officers were more certain about their judgments than other groups, but no more accurate. Overall, adults have a limited ability to identify childrens deception, regardless of their experience with lie detection.     

Who should I look at? Eye contact during collective interviewing as a cue to deceit

Pairs of liars and pairs of truth tellers were interviewed and the amount of eye contact they made with the interviewer and each other was coded. Given that liars take their credibility less for granted than truth tellers, we expected liars to monitor the interviewer to see whether they were being believed, and to try harder to convince the interviewer that they were telling the truth. It was hypothesised that this monitoring would manifest itself through more eye contact with the interviewer and less eye contact with each other than in the case of truth tellers. A total of 43 pairs of participants took part in the experiment. Truth tellers had lunch in a nearby restaurant. Liars took some money from a purse, and were asked to pretend that instead of taking the money, they had been to a nearby restaurant together for lunch. Pairs of liars looked less at each other and displayed more eye contact with the interviewer than pairs of truth tellers. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

The occurrence of eye blinks during a guilty knowledge test

Abstract

In the present experiment we examined whether eye blinks could discriminate between guilty and innocent examinees in a Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT). Based on the assumption that guilty examinees would experience more cognitive load when responding to the key items than to the control items, we hypothesized that they would display fewer eye blinks during the key items than during the control items. For innocent examinees, responding to the key and control items should be equally demanding, and no differences in eye blinks between key and control items were expected. A total of 26 participants took part in an experiment where 13 guilty examinees committed a mock theft (of an exam paper) and the remaining 13 innocent examinees went on with their normal business. All participants underwent a GKT whereby their eye blinks were measured. Both guilty and innocent examinees displayed the pattern of eye blinks that we predicted. The implications of the findings are discussed.