Injury Pattern as an Indication of Seat Belt Failure in Ejected Vehicle Occupants

Prior authors have suggested that when occupant ejection occurs in association with a seat belt failure, entanglement of the outboard upper extremity (OUE) with the retracting shoulder belt will invariably occur, leaving injury pattern evidence of belt use. In the present investigation, the authors assessed this theory using data accessed from the NASS‐CDS for ejected front seat occupants of passenger vehicles. Logistic regression models were used to assess the associations between seat belt failure status and injuries. Injury types associated with seat belt failure were significant OUE and head injuries (OR = 3.87, [95% CI 1.2, 13.0] and 3.1, [95% CI 1.0, 9.7], respectively). The two injury types were found to be a predictor of seat belt use and subsequent failure only if combined with a high (≥0.8) precrash probability of belt use. The injury pattern associated with a seat belt failure‐related ejection has limited use in the forensic investigation of crash‐related ejections.     

Eliciting Cues to False Intent: A New Application of Strategic Interviewing

This article examined how to elicit cues to deception when a suspect is asked both about his/her intentions and his/her corresponding past planning, and when the investigator holds evidence on the suspect’s planning activities. In a new experimental set-up accommodating the main characteristics of intent, participants (N = 120) either planned a criminal or a non-criminal act. They were intercepted before completing the planned act. Each participant was interviewed in accordance with one of three interview techniques: Early Evidence disclosure or one of two versions of the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique. All the interviews were transcribed and scored for consistency. As predicted, the liars were perceived as having a higher degree of inconsistency for two of the three relevant comparisons (Statement on Planning–Evidence on Planning; Statement on Intent–Evidence on Planning). Furthermore, using the evidence strategically resulted in differences between liars and truth tellers being magnified, as predicted. This article advances previous findings in showing that by interviewing strategically with respect to the evidence, it is possible to elicit reliable cues to deception when a suspect is asked about intentions and corresponding planning activities.     

Gathering human intelligence via repeated interviewing: further empirical tests of the Scharff technique

Research on investigative interviewing has only recently started to compare the efficacy of different techniques for gathering intelligence from human sources. So far the research has focused exclusively on sources interviewed once, thus overlooking that most sources are interviewed multiple times. The present study attempts to remedy this gap in the literature. Students (N?=?66) took on the role of semi-cooperative sources, holding incomplete information about an upcoming terrorist attack. The sources were informed that they would be interviewed at least once, and that additional interviews might follow. Half of the sources were interviewed on three occasions with the Scharff technique (consisting of five tactics), and the other half was interviewed on three occasions using the so-called direct approach (i.e. open-ended and specific questions). Collapsing the outcome over the three interviews, the Scharff technique resulted in significantly more new information compared to the direct approach. Furthermore, sources interviewed by the direct approach overestimated how much new information they had revealed, whereas the sources interviewed by the Scharff technique underestimated their contribution (although not significantly so). The current study advances previous research by further contextualizing the tests of the efficacy of human intelligence gathering techniques.     

Taking the stand: defendant statements in court cases of alleged sexual abuse against infants,toddlers and preschoolers

Investigating and adjudicating allegations of child sexual abuse are challenging tasks. In the present study, we examined defendant statements concerning charges of sexual abuse against young children in Swedish district court cases (87 defendants, 140 child complainants, tried between January 2010 to December 2015). A main objective was to test predictive factors for admissions of guilt using inferential statistical analyses. Furthermore, using qualitative thematical analysis, we sought to identify common patterns in the defendants’ explanations to the allegation. Approximately one-third of the defendants (31%) pleaded guilty during trial. Admissions of guilt were more likely if the defendant was young, if the child was young at the onset of abuse, if the child and perpetrator had an extrafamilial relationship, and if the defendant possessed child pornography. A conflict with the person who made the report (e.g. a custody dispute), a testimony from the child, a direct eyewitness, or an informal disclosure recipient were significantly more common in cases of denials. In the qualitative analysis, a range of alternative explanations behind the abuse allegations were identified. Legal professionals and investigators may benefit from considering these alternative hypotheses during their investigative and judicial work.