1 00:00:01,639 --> 00:00:05,119 Speaker 1: Hi everyone. In our feed you've probably heard the podcast 2 00:00:05,240 --> 00:00:09,360 Speaker 1: Wrongful Conviction, False Confessions, hosted by Laura and I Wrider 3 00:00:09,400 --> 00:00:12,440 Speaker 1: and Steve Drizzen, where they dive into the stories of 4 00:00:12,480 --> 00:00:15,840 Speaker 1: innocent people who have been subject to tactics that elicit 5 00:00:15,880 --> 00:00:20,960 Speaker 1: false confessions. As it turns out, these tactics are actually 6 00:00:21,040 --> 00:00:27,400 Speaker 1: rooted in junk science, just like bitemark evidence, bloodstain pattern analysis, 7 00:00:27,440 --> 00:00:30,160 Speaker 1: and so many others that we have covered in this show, 8 00:00:30,840 --> 00:00:33,959 Speaker 1: we want to make it clear that false confessions are 9 00:00:34,000 --> 00:00:37,480 Speaker 1: another link in this chain of the junk science epidemic. 10 00:00:38,120 --> 00:00:40,519 Speaker 1: For some of our more avid listeners, this will be 11 00:00:40,560 --> 00:00:43,840 Speaker 1: something of a refresher for what you've already heard about 12 00:00:43,880 --> 00:00:47,199 Speaker 1: how twenty five percent of wrongful convictions are based on 13 00:00:47,400 --> 00:00:52,239 Speaker 1: false confessions. But in today's episode, we're going to unpack 14 00:00:52,320 --> 00:00:55,920 Speaker 1: the story not of an individual case, but the story 15 00:00:56,000 --> 00:01:00,120 Speaker 1: of how the junk science that's behind false confessions is 16 00:01:00,160 --> 00:01:08,240 Speaker 1: employed in the interrogation room. Here's our show. It's a 17 00:01:08,319 --> 00:01:11,160 Speaker 1: crisp fall morning and you're on your way to the 18 00:01:11,160 --> 00:01:15,360 Speaker 1: first class of the day, psychology one on one. Just 19 00:01:15,400 --> 00:01:18,160 Speaker 1: a few weeks ago, you started as a freshman at 20 00:01:18,200 --> 00:01:22,120 Speaker 1: this small college in Massachusetts, and so far, psych is 21 00:01:22,160 --> 00:01:25,840 Speaker 1: your favorite class. You walk into your classroom and start 22 00:01:25,880 --> 00:01:28,680 Speaker 1: taking off your jacket while your teacher makes some announcements. 23 00:01:29,120 --> 00:01:34,720 Speaker 1: He says, the psychology department is conducting an experiment. Participation 24 00:01:34,880 --> 00:01:38,720 Speaker 1: is completely optional, but anyone who decides to participate will 25 00:01:38,800 --> 00:01:43,200 Speaker 1: receive extra credit. You're already doing really well in this class, 26 00:01:43,240 --> 00:01:45,960 Speaker 1: so the extra credit doesn't matter to you that much. 27 00:01:46,000 --> 00:01:49,720 Speaker 1: But you're curious to see what a psychological experiment will 28 00:01:49,720 --> 00:01:54,360 Speaker 1: be like, so you sign up. The next week, you 29 00:01:54,440 --> 00:01:57,120 Speaker 1: show up to the room where the experiment will be conducted. 30 00:01:57,920 --> 00:02:01,880 Speaker 1: When you get there, there's already another student waiting outside 31 00:02:02,120 --> 00:02:05,840 Speaker 1: who says she's also here for the experiment. It's not 32 00:02:06,000 --> 00:02:08,320 Speaker 1: long before a professor comes out into the hall to 33 00:02:08,320 --> 00:02:13,240 Speaker 1: greet you, and he's well, very professor looking. He wears 34 00:02:13,280 --> 00:02:17,359 Speaker 1: a tweed jacket and his hair slightly gray. The professor 35 00:02:17,400 --> 00:02:21,000 Speaker 1: tells you in a very authoritative tone, to sit in 36 00:02:21,040 --> 00:02:23,880 Speaker 1: front of the computer. He then motions for the other 37 00:02:23,919 --> 00:02:26,760 Speaker 1: student to sit in the chair next to you. On 38 00:02:26,840 --> 00:02:29,080 Speaker 1: the table in front of her, there's a piece of 39 00:02:29,120 --> 00:02:33,880 Speaker 1: paper with letters printed on it. Then the professor takes 40 00:02:33,880 --> 00:02:38,680 Speaker 1: his seat across from you. Both. He says welcome, Thanks, 41 00:02:38,680 --> 00:02:42,800 Speaker 1: for joining us today. This experiment will test reaction times. 42 00:02:43,520 --> 00:02:46,400 Speaker 1: One student will read from a list of letters well 43 00:02:46,440 --> 00:02:49,000 Speaker 1: the other will type out the letters that she calls out. 44 00:02:49,720 --> 00:02:54,200 Speaker 1: It's actually a very simple experiment. He pauses for a moment, 45 00:02:54,280 --> 00:02:57,919 Speaker 1: then looks you in the eye. Just one thing before 46 00:02:57,960 --> 00:03:03,120 Speaker 1: we begin, be very careful not to hit the alt key. 47 00:03:03,240 --> 00:03:05,600 Speaker 1: You see, it's right there next to the space bar. 48 00:03:06,440 --> 00:03:09,000 Speaker 1: The computer program we are using today is a little 49 00:03:09,000 --> 00:03:12,240 Speaker 1: bit finicky, and hitting that alt key will cause the 50 00:03:12,240 --> 00:03:15,560 Speaker 1: computer to crash. And if that happens, we'll lose all 51 00:03:15,600 --> 00:03:18,359 Speaker 1: of our data, and we wouldn't want that to happen. 52 00:03:19,760 --> 00:03:23,000 Speaker 1: It's not quite the experiment you were expecting, but it 53 00:03:23,120 --> 00:03:26,680 Speaker 1: sounds like it'll be, I guess, kind of fun. You 54 00:03:26,760 --> 00:03:31,919 Speaker 1: sit up straight, fingers hovering over the keyboard. The professor says, 55 00:03:32,680 --> 00:03:38,680 Speaker 1: let's get ready and begin. The student next to you 56 00:03:38,760 --> 00:03:44,920 Speaker 1: starts reading off letters B, A, J, B, T, S K. 57 00:03:46,120 --> 00:03:49,640 Speaker 1: The letters come quickly, but you keep up. You think 58 00:03:49,640 --> 00:03:51,800 Speaker 1: of this as a game, and you want to win. 59 00:03:52,600 --> 00:03:55,240 Speaker 1: You're laser focused on the task in front of you. 60 00:03:56,240 --> 00:04:01,680 Speaker 1: But then the screen suddenly glitches and then it goes black. 61 00:04:14,080 --> 00:04:19,000 Speaker 1: You sit there, frozen, staring at the blank screen. The 62 00:04:19,000 --> 00:04:22,120 Speaker 1: professor running the experiment sees the confused look on your 63 00:04:22,120 --> 00:04:25,440 Speaker 1: face and jumps up from his seat. He looks pissed. 64 00:04:26,480 --> 00:04:29,320 Speaker 1: He walks over to your side of the table, looks 65 00:04:29,360 --> 00:04:31,560 Speaker 1: at the blank screen, and says, did you hit the 66 00:04:31,600 --> 00:04:32,160 Speaker 1: alt key? 67 00:04:33,640 --> 00:04:33,760 Speaker 2: No? 68 00:04:34,480 --> 00:04:37,320 Speaker 1: I didn't. I don't know why this happened. I'm going 69 00:04:37,400 --> 00:04:41,080 Speaker 1: to ask you one more time. The professor says, did 70 00:04:41,160 --> 00:04:47,640 Speaker 1: you hit the alt key? I said no, I really 71 00:04:47,680 --> 00:04:51,640 Speaker 1: don't think I did. You're getting flustered, and the professor 72 00:04:51,720 --> 00:04:56,279 Speaker 1: is clearly angry. What a strange reaction. He stands over 73 00:04:56,360 --> 00:04:59,680 Speaker 1: you and picks up the keyboard and clicks some keys 74 00:04:59,720 --> 00:05:04,200 Speaker 1: and nothing happens. You did hit the alt key. I 75 00:05:04,440 --> 00:05:07,839 Speaker 1: know you did. He turns to the student who is 76 00:05:07,880 --> 00:05:11,400 Speaker 1: reading the letters and asked her if she saw what happened. 77 00:05:12,000 --> 00:05:15,920 Speaker 1: She says, hate to say it, but I did see 78 00:05:15,960 --> 00:05:20,479 Speaker 1: you hit the alt key. The professor storms over to 79 00:05:20,560 --> 00:05:24,480 Speaker 1: his seat and starts writing furiously on his pad of paper. 80 00:05:25,600 --> 00:05:29,200 Speaker 1: You're confused, and you feel really bad like you've messed 81 00:05:29,279 --> 00:05:33,159 Speaker 1: up the whole experiment. You didn't mean to. You thought 82 00:05:33,200 --> 00:05:35,880 Speaker 1: it was going well. But if the other student said 83 00:05:35,880 --> 00:05:38,680 Speaker 1: you did it, I mean the computer did crash. You 84 00:05:38,760 --> 00:05:42,719 Speaker 1: must have hit it by accident. The professor rips off 85 00:05:42,760 --> 00:05:45,520 Speaker 1: the top page of his writing pad and pushes it 86 00:05:45,560 --> 00:05:50,520 Speaker 1: toward you. Sign this, he says. You read what the 87 00:05:50,560 --> 00:05:54,920 Speaker 1: professor has scribbled down. It says, I hit the alt 88 00:05:55,000 --> 00:05:59,440 Speaker 1: key and cause the computer program to crash. Data was lost. 89 00:06:01,400 --> 00:06:05,200 Speaker 1: I really don't think I hit it, professor, you say. 90 00:06:05,360 --> 00:06:09,719 Speaker 1: The professor is now fuming. He practically slams the pen 91 00:06:09,880 --> 00:06:13,560 Speaker 1: down on the table in front of you. Sign it. 92 00:06:14,200 --> 00:06:18,600 Speaker 1: The leader of this experiment will call you later today. 93 00:06:18,720 --> 00:06:22,360 Speaker 1: You think this guy's pretty pissed. I'll just talk it 94 00:06:22,400 --> 00:06:26,080 Speaker 1: through the organizer of the experiment. When he calls, you, 95 00:06:26,160 --> 00:06:31,120 Speaker 1: pick up the pen and sign the paper. Just then, 96 00:06:31,360 --> 00:06:35,040 Speaker 1: another student walks into the room. The professor says to her, 97 00:06:35,440 --> 00:06:39,080 Speaker 1: we'll have to reschedule our appointment. As he leaves the 98 00:06:39,160 --> 00:06:42,760 Speaker 1: room to get his appointment book, mumbling something angry to himself, 99 00:06:42,800 --> 00:06:45,520 Speaker 1: the new student in the room raises her eyebrows at you. 100 00:06:46,320 --> 00:06:50,520 Speaker 1: She whispers, Hey, what happened? She must have heard all 101 00:06:50,560 --> 00:06:53,760 Speaker 1: of the yelling. I hit a key on the computer 102 00:06:54,000 --> 00:06:56,680 Speaker 1: that I wasn't supposed to, and I guess I crashed 103 00:06:56,760 --> 00:07:01,640 Speaker 1: the computer, you say. The professor comes back, he books 104 00:07:01,680 --> 00:07:05,000 Speaker 1: a new appointment with the girl who walks in. When 105 00:07:05,040 --> 00:07:08,119 Speaker 1: she leaves, he sits down and takes a deep breath 106 00:07:08,160 --> 00:07:12,200 Speaker 1: and says, it's okay, I didn't mean to get so upset. 107 00:07:12,640 --> 00:07:17,360 Speaker 1: Show me exactly what happened when you hit the alt key. 108 00:07:17,480 --> 00:07:20,440 Speaker 1: You put your hands on the keyboard, and you say, well, 109 00:07:21,280 --> 00:07:24,560 Speaker 1: when I was going to hit the A button, I 110 00:07:24,640 --> 00:07:27,320 Speaker 1: hit the alt key with the side of my hand 111 00:07:27,360 --> 00:07:30,760 Speaker 1: by accident. The professor writes down a note on a 112 00:07:30,760 --> 00:07:35,880 Speaker 1: pad of paper, then looks up. Okay, great, His demeanor 113 00:07:35,960 --> 00:07:42,160 Speaker 1: totally changed. He suddenly calm and seems to be even cheery. 114 00:07:42,360 --> 00:07:45,200 Speaker 1: That's the end of the experiment. Thank you so much 115 00:07:45,240 --> 00:07:49,880 Speaker 1: for participating, and let me explain everything. He tells you 116 00:07:49,920 --> 00:07:53,840 Speaker 1: that the experiment was really not for testing reaction times, 117 00:07:54,520 --> 00:07:58,360 Speaker 1: but to study whether presenting someone with phony evidence and 118 00:07:58,400 --> 00:08:02,160 Speaker 1: then accusing them can lead that person to admit to 119 00:08:02,320 --> 00:08:07,480 Speaker 1: doing something that they did not do. Turns out, everyone 120 00:08:07,480 --> 00:08:10,280 Speaker 1: else that was in that room with you, the student 121 00:08:10,320 --> 00:08:13,200 Speaker 1: reading out the letters, the one that later asked you 122 00:08:13,240 --> 00:08:17,840 Speaker 1: what happened, they were all in on the experiment. The 123 00:08:17,880 --> 00:08:20,800 Speaker 1: professor tells you that you did not, in fact hit 124 00:08:20,800 --> 00:08:24,120 Speaker 1: the ald key, but you certainly aren't the only person 125 00:08:24,560 --> 00:08:30,120 Speaker 1: to falsely admit that you did. The story you just 126 00:08:30,200 --> 00:08:33,320 Speaker 1: heard is based on an experiment that was conducted by 127 00:08:33,400 --> 00:08:37,800 Speaker 1: psychology professor Saulcasten at Williams College in nineteen ninety six. 128 00:08:38,679 --> 00:08:42,600 Speaker 1: Now he did the experiment to better understand why people 129 00:08:43,080 --> 00:08:47,600 Speaker 1: confess to crimes they did not commit. You might be thinking, well, 130 00:08:47,760 --> 00:08:50,600 Speaker 1: admitting to hitting an ald key sounds like a sort 131 00:08:50,640 --> 00:08:54,480 Speaker 1: of low stake scenario. It's nothing like admitting to a 132 00:08:54,600 --> 00:08:59,200 Speaker 1: rape or a murder, and that's precisely the point. In 133 00:08:59,240 --> 00:09:03,400 Speaker 1: the state scenario of Casson's experiment. It seems like there 134 00:09:03,440 --> 00:09:06,600 Speaker 1: would be less of a reason to lie. So the 135 00:09:06,720 --> 00:09:12,200 Speaker 1: experiment actually underscores how a combination of applying pressure and 136 00:09:12,400 --> 00:09:17,040 Speaker 1: false inculpatory evidence can cause someone to doubt themselves to 137 00:09:17,120 --> 00:09:19,760 Speaker 1: the point of admitting to something they did not do, 138 00:09:20,400 --> 00:09:25,040 Speaker 1: even in a low stress situation. So it logically follows 139 00:09:25,360 --> 00:09:27,920 Speaker 1: that when the stakes are as high as being accused 140 00:09:27,960 --> 00:09:32,720 Speaker 1: of something like rape or murder, the stress and vulnerability increases, 141 00:09:33,440 --> 00:09:38,800 Speaker 1: as does the likelihood that someone will falsely confess. Often 142 00:09:39,120 --> 00:09:42,920 Speaker 1: when I tell people about Chorus confessions, they say I 143 00:09:42,960 --> 00:09:46,360 Speaker 1: would never confess to something I didn't do. But if 144 00:09:46,400 --> 00:09:49,360 Speaker 1: you were able to relate to the student in this experiment, 145 00:09:49,840 --> 00:09:53,080 Speaker 1: if you could just imagine yourself second guessing your own 146 00:09:53,200 --> 00:09:57,080 Speaker 1: actions in that scenario, then it's likely that you too 147 00:09:57,679 --> 00:10:01,240 Speaker 1: are susceptible to the tactics that are often employed by 148 00:10:01,320 --> 00:10:05,880 Speaker 1: law enforcement to obtain a confession, regardless of whether you 149 00:10:05,920 --> 00:10:12,040 Speaker 1: are innocent or guilty. I'm Josh Dubens, civil rights and 150 00:10:12,080 --> 00:10:16,440 Speaker 1: criminal defense attorney, an innocent ambassador to the Innocence Project 151 00:10:16,480 --> 00:10:21,640 Speaker 1: in New York. Today, on Wrongful Conviction Junk Science, we 152 00:10:21,760 --> 00:10:28,160 Speaker 1: examine the psychology behind coerce confessions. Interrogation techniques that detectives 153 00:10:28,240 --> 00:10:32,120 Speaker 1: use when questioning a suspect are in fact, very efficient 154 00:10:32,559 --> 00:10:37,320 Speaker 1: and extremely effective. They routinely result in getting people to 155 00:10:37,400 --> 00:10:41,720 Speaker 1: confess to committing crimes, and that presents a really unique 156 00:10:41,720 --> 00:10:46,439 Speaker 1: dilemma for detectives investigating those crimes. They know that once 157 00:10:46,520 --> 00:10:49,839 Speaker 1: they get someone in that windowless room of a police precinct, 158 00:10:50,240 --> 00:10:53,000 Speaker 1: they will oftentimes be able to get them to confess, 159 00:10:54,080 --> 00:10:59,120 Speaker 1: which means those detectives better have real evidence, not merely 160 00:10:59,160 --> 00:11:03,200 Speaker 1: a gut feeling or a hunch, real proof tying a 161 00:11:03,280 --> 00:11:07,400 Speaker 1: suspect to a crime before subjecting them to the crucible 162 00:11:07,600 --> 00:11:11,920 Speaker 1: of an interrogation, because while this process is great at 163 00:11:11,960 --> 00:11:15,600 Speaker 1: getting guilty people to confess the crimes they committed, it 164 00:11:15,720 --> 00:11:20,040 Speaker 1: is also great for getting innocent people to confess the 165 00:11:20,120 --> 00:11:22,040 Speaker 1: crimes they did not commit. 166 00:11:26,840 --> 00:11:30,200 Speaker 2: When three dozen former Brooklyn Navy yard workers found themselves 167 00:11:30,280 --> 00:11:33,640 Speaker 2: irreparably poisoned by the asbestos they used in the construction 168 00:11:33,720 --> 00:11:36,559 Speaker 2: of the battleships that won World War Two, Perry White 169 00:11:36,679 --> 00:11:40,080 Speaker 2: and Arthur Luxembourg literally putting everything on the line to 170 00:11:40,160 --> 00:11:43,720 Speaker 2: successfully represent them. Since then, they've championed the rights of 171 00:11:43,760 --> 00:11:47,840 Speaker 2: over fifty thousand regular Americans injured through the negligence and 172 00:11:47,880 --> 00:11:52,200 Speaker 2: malfeasance of mainly large corporations. Their ability to level the 173 00:11:52,200 --> 00:11:55,840 Speaker 2: playing field against seemingly insurmountable odds has led them to 174 00:11:55,880 --> 00:11:59,880 Speaker 2: litigate against opponents as diverse as Big Pharma all the 175 00:11:59,840 --> 00:12:03,280 Speaker 2: way to those responsible for rendering the water of Flint, 176 00:12:03,320 --> 00:12:07,240 Speaker 2: Michigan undrinkable. Whites and Luxembourg ticket personally when there's a 177 00:12:07,240 --> 00:12:10,920 Speaker 2: miscarriage of justice anywhere, and therefore they feel a sense 178 00:12:10,960 --> 00:12:14,640 Speaker 2: of responsibility to support Bramfel Conviction podcasts. You can learn 179 00:12:14,640 --> 00:12:18,200 Speaker 2: more about them by visiting White's lux dot com. That's 180 00:12:18,400 --> 00:12:29,880 Speaker 2: we t z lux dot com. 181 00:12:30,200 --> 00:12:32,920 Speaker 1: Course, confessions have been a part of our criminal justice 182 00:12:32,920 --> 00:12:36,600 Speaker 1: system for a long time. Take, for example, the case 183 00:12:36,640 --> 00:12:41,280 Speaker 1: of Stephen Born in eighteen nineteen, detectives found three big 184 00:12:41,320 --> 00:12:45,319 Speaker 1: bones in Stephen's backyard in Vermont. The police alleged that 185 00:12:45,400 --> 00:12:47,720 Speaker 1: the bones belonged to his brother in law, who had 186 00:12:47,760 --> 00:12:51,160 Speaker 1: gone missing and was presumed to have been murdered. The 187 00:12:51,200 --> 00:12:54,360 Speaker 1: police told Stephen, the only way you're going to avoid 188 00:12:54,360 --> 00:12:58,160 Speaker 1: the death penalty is to confess and stand trial, and 189 00:12:58,280 --> 00:13:02,120 Speaker 1: so Stephen confessed. He put his fate in the hands 190 00:13:02,160 --> 00:13:04,959 Speaker 1: of a jury who declared him guilty of murdering his 191 00:13:05,000 --> 00:13:09,079 Speaker 1: brother in law. Stephen was convicted and sentenced to death. 192 00:13:09,960 --> 00:13:13,679 Speaker 1: Luckily for him, before his execution date, his brother in 193 00:13:13,760 --> 00:13:17,319 Speaker 1: law was found alive and well hanging out in New Jersey, 194 00:13:17,880 --> 00:13:21,760 Speaker 1: and those bones they found in Stephen's backyard turns out 195 00:13:21,920 --> 00:13:25,480 Speaker 1: they were animal bones all along. He was lucky to 196 00:13:25,600 --> 00:13:31,679 Speaker 1: escape the gallows. And still, even after so many false confessions, 197 00:13:32,000 --> 00:13:36,599 Speaker 1: just like Stephen Bourne's, the confession of a suspect continues 198 00:13:36,640 --> 00:13:39,560 Speaker 1: to be seen as the gold standard and evidence of 199 00:13:39,600 --> 00:13:43,240 Speaker 1: a person's guilt. Jurors can never seem to wrap their 200 00:13:43,280 --> 00:13:46,760 Speaker 1: heads around the fact that someone might confess to a 201 00:13:46,840 --> 00:13:51,880 Speaker 1: crime they didn't commit, and the tactic for obtaining a 202 00:13:51,920 --> 00:13:56,840 Speaker 1: confession from a suspect only got better. In nineteen forty seven, 203 00:13:57,000 --> 00:14:01,040 Speaker 1: a detective named John Reid began to still the methods 204 00:14:01,080 --> 00:14:06,520 Speaker 1: and principles of interrogations into a scientific procedure designed to 205 00:14:06,800 --> 00:14:13,360 Speaker 1: increase the likelihood that a suspect would confess. John Reid 206 00:14:13,480 --> 00:14:16,960 Speaker 1: was a polygraph expert for the Chicago Police when he 207 00:14:17,080 --> 00:14:22,040 Speaker 1: began to develop his nine step process, called the Read technique. 208 00:14:22,080 --> 00:14:25,680 Speaker 1: He claimed that his technique could diagnose truth and deception. 209 00:14:26,760 --> 00:14:30,120 Speaker 1: The Reed technique spread throughout the country and is still 210 00:14:30,200 --> 00:14:35,760 Speaker 1: popular today. According to the Red and Associate's website, over 211 00:14:35,920 --> 00:14:39,760 Speaker 1: half a million law enforcement and security officers have attended 212 00:14:39,760 --> 00:14:44,680 Speaker 1: their training programs. And while John Reid's technique indeed increased 213 00:14:44,680 --> 00:14:48,880 Speaker 1: the likelihood of securing a confession from crime suspects, not 214 00:14:49,080 --> 00:14:52,400 Speaker 1: much had been done to understand whether these tactics produced 215 00:14:52,400 --> 00:14:57,680 Speaker 1: confessions that were actually accurate and truthful. That is until 216 00:14:57,800 --> 00:15:04,360 Speaker 1: Saul Cassen began conducting his computer crash experiments at Williams College. 217 00:15:04,480 --> 00:15:07,960 Speaker 1: Doctor Casson's experiment tested for some of the variables that 218 00:15:08,000 --> 00:15:12,040 Speaker 1: are often used during the red technique. The first variable 219 00:15:12,360 --> 00:15:17,480 Speaker 1: is vulnerability. Cassen made his test subjects feel vulnerable by 220 00:15:17,480 --> 00:15:21,160 Speaker 1: putting them in the mildly stressful situation of having them 221 00:15:21,200 --> 00:15:26,280 Speaker 1: type letters at a rapid pace. Another variable was false 222 00:15:26,360 --> 00:15:31,000 Speaker 1: incriminating evidence. When students in the experiment were told that 223 00:15:31,160 --> 00:15:34,520 Speaker 1: someone saw them hit the alt key, they were much 224 00:15:34,600 --> 00:15:38,600 Speaker 1: more likely to sign a confession. In fact, of the 225 00:15:38,680 --> 00:15:41,200 Speaker 1: students who were asked to type at a fast pace 226 00:15:41,600 --> 00:15:43,920 Speaker 1: and then were told that someone saw them hit the 227 00:15:43,960 --> 00:15:49,280 Speaker 1: alt key, one hundred percent of them confessed. Although none 228 00:15:49,320 --> 00:15:52,200 Speaker 1: of them actually hit the alt key, they all admitted 229 00:15:52,200 --> 00:15:56,920 Speaker 1: to the crime when presented with false incriminating evidence. On 230 00:15:57,000 --> 00:16:00,440 Speaker 1: top of that, sixty five percent of student udens who 231 00:16:00,440 --> 00:16:04,400 Speaker 1: were presented with false incriminating evidence actually believed in their 232 00:16:04,440 --> 00:16:07,640 Speaker 1: own guilt. This was measured by how many of the 233 00:16:07,680 --> 00:16:11,040 Speaker 1: students said, I hit the key When that third student, 234 00:16:11,240 --> 00:16:13,560 Speaker 1: remember the one that enters the room for their quote 235 00:16:13,600 --> 00:16:17,720 Speaker 1: unquote appointment, A seemingly more neutral party comes into the 236 00:16:17,800 --> 00:16:22,600 Speaker 1: room and says, hey, what happened. Finally, thirty five percent 237 00:16:22,640 --> 00:16:26,080 Speaker 1: of the students actually internalize their guilt to such a 238 00:16:26,120 --> 00:16:29,240 Speaker 1: degree that they made up details about it by saying, 239 00:16:29,280 --> 00:16:31,920 Speaker 1: for example, oh, I hit the alt key with the 240 00:16:31,960 --> 00:16:35,280 Speaker 1: side of my hand. The fact is that none of 241 00:16:35,320 --> 00:16:38,480 Speaker 1: these students had hit the alt key, yet under these 242 00:16:38,600 --> 00:16:44,000 Speaker 1: controlled conditions, they confessed to something they didn't do. Inducing 243 00:16:44,120 --> 00:16:48,840 Speaker 1: vulnerability and presenting false, incriminating evidence are the cornerstones of 244 00:16:48,880 --> 00:16:53,520 Speaker 1: the red technique. What doctor Casson's experiment shows is that 245 00:16:53,640 --> 00:16:58,640 Speaker 1: interrogation techniques like John Reid's are a recipe for causing 246 00:16:58,720 --> 00:17:02,720 Speaker 1: innocent people to admit to things that they did not do. 247 00:17:06,520 --> 00:17:09,720 Speaker 3: You can flip a coin and be as accurate in 248 00:17:09,840 --> 00:17:13,200 Speaker 3: determining whether somebody is telling the truth or not as 249 00:17:13,480 --> 00:17:17,280 Speaker 3: a trained police officer, and trained police officers are no 250 00:17:17,480 --> 00:17:21,720 Speaker 3: more effective at that than your average person. And in fact, 251 00:17:21,800 --> 00:17:27,040 Speaker 3: there have been numerous psychological studies and nothing correlates to 252 00:17:27,440 --> 00:17:31,800 Speaker 3: being able to do that to any degree of scientific validity. 253 00:17:32,080 --> 00:17:35,879 Speaker 3: And that's really where the junk science of this technique 254 00:17:36,080 --> 00:17:41,120 Speaker 3: comes in, because the reality is you can't tell whether 255 00:17:41,240 --> 00:17:45,800 Speaker 3: or not somebody is lying by verbal and nonverbal behavior. 256 00:17:47,080 --> 00:17:51,240 Speaker 1: So with us today we have the amazing David Rudolph. 257 00:17:51,640 --> 00:17:58,160 Speaker 1: David is a phenomenal, phenomenal criminal defense attorney, civil rights attorney, 258 00:17:58,280 --> 00:18:01,600 Speaker 1: criminal justice reform, AVAC. The list goes on and on. 259 00:18:02,160 --> 00:18:05,440 Speaker 1: He is a friend of mine, a personal hero of mine, 260 00:18:05,880 --> 00:18:09,159 Speaker 1: and many of you have probably seen him in the 261 00:18:09,200 --> 00:18:14,959 Speaker 1: Netflix series The Staircase, which followed the trials of his 262 00:18:15,160 --> 00:18:20,680 Speaker 1: client Michael Peterson, who was accused of murdering his wife. Now, 263 00:18:20,840 --> 00:18:24,920 Speaker 1: David has worked on countless wrongful conviction cases and cases 264 00:18:24,920 --> 00:18:28,440 Speaker 1: in which people have found themselves sitting in an interrogation 265 00:18:28,600 --> 00:18:32,879 Speaker 1: room getting broken down by detectives. And he is someone 266 00:18:32,880 --> 00:18:36,080 Speaker 1: who has studied course confessions and really dug into how 267 00:18:36,160 --> 00:18:41,520 Speaker 1: the psychological techniques used by these interrogators can result in 268 00:18:41,560 --> 00:18:45,320 Speaker 1: a wrongful conviction. So, David, I want to dive right 269 00:18:45,400 --> 00:18:49,159 Speaker 1: into the read technique. What is it and how is 270 00:18:49,200 --> 00:18:52,880 Speaker 1: it different than say standard police interview. 271 00:18:53,280 --> 00:18:56,119 Speaker 3: When you're trying to elicit information, What you're really doing 272 00:18:56,280 --> 00:19:01,720 Speaker 3: is interviewing, not interrogating. You're asking open ended questions, You're 273 00:19:01,920 --> 00:19:05,359 Speaker 3: following up on things, not for the purpose of confronting 274 00:19:05,400 --> 00:19:08,000 Speaker 3: the person, but rather for the purpose of finding out 275 00:19:08,320 --> 00:19:14,520 Speaker 3: what actually happened, And that's not designed to get a confession. 276 00:19:14,840 --> 00:19:21,199 Speaker 3: The retechnique is simply a protocol for how to interrogate someone. 277 00:19:21,400 --> 00:19:24,560 Speaker 3: And this is important. Who you already believe is guilty. 278 00:19:25,400 --> 00:19:29,199 Speaker 3: You don't use the retechnique in order to elicit information. 279 00:19:29,600 --> 00:19:34,200 Speaker 3: You only use the retechnique in order to secure admissions 280 00:19:34,200 --> 00:19:36,119 Speaker 3: and then ultimately a confession. 281 00:19:36,960 --> 00:19:39,640 Speaker 1: Okay, so let's talk about that for a second, because 282 00:19:39,680 --> 00:19:44,359 Speaker 1: you said something interesting, and that is that the interrogator 283 00:19:45,000 --> 00:19:48,560 Speaker 1: will actually use this technique on the person they believe 284 00:19:48,720 --> 00:19:52,520 Speaker 1: to be the guilty suspect. They might not have any 285 00:19:52,520 --> 00:19:55,600 Speaker 1: physical evidence to prove that, but they have a hunch, 286 00:19:56,320 --> 00:19:59,200 Speaker 1: or they're zeroing in on someone because of tunnel vision, 287 00:19:59,240 --> 00:20:02,240 Speaker 1: whatever the case, maybe they think this is their guy, 288 00:20:03,320 --> 00:20:06,520 Speaker 1: and they bring that person in for questioning. And they're 289 00:20:06,560 --> 00:20:10,000 Speaker 1: not simply trying to find out the truth, right, They're 290 00:20:10,160 --> 00:20:14,040 Speaker 1: sole objective when they employ this technique is to get 291 00:20:14,080 --> 00:20:14,760 Speaker 1: a confession. 292 00:20:15,560 --> 00:20:20,520 Speaker 3: Absolutely. It's intuition plus arrogance. You know, that's my recipe 293 00:20:21,240 --> 00:20:23,879 Speaker 3: for how this all starts. You have a police officer 294 00:20:23,880 --> 00:20:28,720 Speaker 3: who's done one hundred five hundred, one thousand investigations and 295 00:20:28,800 --> 00:20:31,479 Speaker 3: they know who they like for the crime. You know, 296 00:20:31,560 --> 00:20:35,000 Speaker 3: if it's a wife who's dead, they like the husband immediately. 297 00:20:35,200 --> 00:20:39,280 Speaker 3: If the husband has a mistress, well that's the clincher. 298 00:20:39,880 --> 00:20:43,200 Speaker 3: So there's all these sort of preconceptions, and then the 299 00:20:43,320 --> 00:20:46,480 Speaker 3: arrogance is that they know because they've done it so 300 00:20:46,520 --> 00:20:49,119 Speaker 3: many times. And you know, part of what we ought 301 00:20:49,200 --> 00:20:52,080 Speaker 3: to recognize here is that when you're doing that, you're 302 00:20:52,080 --> 00:20:55,679 Speaker 3: obviously already thinking the person's guilty, and so confirmation bias 303 00:20:56,080 --> 00:20:59,399 Speaker 3: is going to start leaking in. And this is especially 304 00:20:59,440 --> 00:21:03,920 Speaker 3: true and it's ironic where there's not much other evidence. 305 00:21:04,480 --> 00:21:08,520 Speaker 3: Picture this situation. So there's a vicious crime, just an 306 00:21:08,600 --> 00:21:13,720 Speaker 3: awful uproar in the community, and this police officer believes, 307 00:21:14,400 --> 00:21:18,080 Speaker 3: legitimately believes that this other person is the purp, but 308 00:21:18,119 --> 00:21:21,520 Speaker 3: there's no evidence. The pressure to get that person to 309 00:21:21,720 --> 00:21:27,800 Speaker 3: confess becomes enormous because if you don't, then there's no case. 310 00:21:28,600 --> 00:21:33,080 Speaker 3: And so ironically enough, there's much more pressure to get 311 00:21:33,119 --> 00:21:37,720 Speaker 3: a false confession when there's no evidence. So that means 312 00:21:37,760 --> 00:21:41,400 Speaker 3: there's much more pressure to get a false confession when 313 00:21:41,440 --> 00:21:42,960 Speaker 3: the person is innocent. 314 00:21:44,160 --> 00:21:46,800 Speaker 1: So David walk us through this technique. Let's say you 315 00:21:46,920 --> 00:21:52,560 Speaker 1: have a husband suspected of killing his wife. Police ask 316 00:21:52,640 --> 00:21:54,960 Speaker 1: him to come down to the station. What's the first 317 00:21:55,000 --> 00:21:56,000 Speaker 1: thing that happens. 318 00:21:56,520 --> 00:21:59,480 Speaker 3: What you do in the retechnique is first you isolate 319 00:21:59,560 --> 00:22:03,480 Speaker 3: the person. You put the person in an uncomfortable position, 320 00:22:04,240 --> 00:22:08,560 Speaker 3: you shut them off from any support system, and you 321 00:22:08,680 --> 00:22:13,040 Speaker 3: make them anxious so that they're more susceptible to the 322 00:22:13,480 --> 00:22:16,439 Speaker 3: other techniques that are going to follow. And so the 323 00:22:16,520 --> 00:22:21,520 Speaker 3: person is feeling vulnerable. And when you feel vulnerable, you're 324 00:22:21,640 --> 00:22:27,199 Speaker 3: much more likely to give in to pressure, particularly if 325 00:22:27,200 --> 00:22:31,720 Speaker 3: you're all alone in a strange place, surrounded by imposing 326 00:22:31,800 --> 00:22:35,800 Speaker 3: authority figures who have guns. I don't think there's very 327 00:22:35,800 --> 00:22:40,560 Speaker 3: many people who wouldn't feel a bit of panic at 328 00:22:40,600 --> 00:22:45,159 Speaker 3: that situation, just psychological panic. So it's a whole notion 329 00:22:45,320 --> 00:22:49,240 Speaker 3: of creating a situation where you are uncomfortable that you 330 00:22:49,359 --> 00:22:53,200 Speaker 3: want to get out of, and then creating a situation 331 00:22:53,280 --> 00:22:56,720 Speaker 3: where the only way out is to say what those 332 00:22:56,800 --> 00:23:01,240 Speaker 3: bullies want you to say. 333 00:23:07,240 --> 00:23:10,520 Speaker 1: You know, I'm imagining the guy in our hypothetical who 334 00:23:10,680 --> 00:23:16,199 Speaker 1: is probably just overcome with grief from having just lost 335 00:23:16,280 --> 00:23:20,639 Speaker 1: his wife, and then the last place he wants to 336 00:23:20,680 --> 00:23:23,159 Speaker 1: be is where he ends up, you know, in some 337 00:23:23,600 --> 00:23:28,000 Speaker 1: dank room at a police station, and it's you know, 338 00:23:28,240 --> 00:23:32,479 Speaker 1: got no windows, it's always got those uncomfortable chairs and 339 00:23:33,119 --> 00:23:36,960 Speaker 1: they leave them to cool as heels, right, and he 340 00:23:37,080 --> 00:23:39,879 Speaker 1: sits there by himself for a while, and then the 341 00:23:39,960 --> 00:23:45,119 Speaker 1: detectives come in and the questions start and tell our 342 00:23:45,200 --> 00:23:51,000 Speaker 1: listeners what techniques the interrogators use to sort of capitalize 343 00:23:51,080 --> 00:23:52,520 Speaker 1: on his vulnerability. 344 00:23:53,240 --> 00:23:56,200 Speaker 3: What you do during the interview phase is you ask 345 00:23:56,240 --> 00:23:59,919 Speaker 3: a series of questions, some of which are called behavior 346 00:24:00,080 --> 00:24:04,320 Speaker 3: provoking questions, and there are questions that are designed, at 347 00:24:04,359 --> 00:24:08,680 Speaker 3: least in the officer's mind, to provoke responses that they 348 00:24:08,680 --> 00:24:12,320 Speaker 3: can then use to determine whether the person is telling 349 00:24:12,359 --> 00:24:14,439 Speaker 3: the truth or not. So, you know, it might be 350 00:24:14,560 --> 00:24:17,520 Speaker 3: questions like why would somebody be saying that you were 351 00:24:17,560 --> 00:24:21,800 Speaker 3: at the crime scene if you really weren't, Or what 352 00:24:21,840 --> 00:24:24,280 Speaker 3: do you think should happen to the person who did this? 353 00:24:25,040 --> 00:24:29,240 Speaker 3: You know, when you ask a husband, why would your 354 00:24:29,280 --> 00:24:33,440 Speaker 3: own friends be saying that they think that you might 355 00:24:33,560 --> 00:24:37,600 Speaker 3: have done this? And you're thinking to yourself, well, you know, 356 00:24:38,440 --> 00:24:41,679 Speaker 3: maybe some of my friends saw that time when you know, 357 00:24:42,240 --> 00:24:44,560 Speaker 3: my wife and I got into an argument over the 358 00:24:44,560 --> 00:24:48,040 Speaker 3: car or whatever it is. And so you're just trying 359 00:24:48,040 --> 00:24:52,000 Speaker 3: to come up with some explanation because the officer is 360 00:24:52,040 --> 00:24:55,240 Speaker 3: asking you for one, and you minimize it because it 361 00:24:55,320 --> 00:24:58,160 Speaker 3: wasn't a big deal, and so you talk about it 362 00:24:58,240 --> 00:25:01,080 Speaker 3: and then all of a sudden that then becomes the 363 00:25:01,119 --> 00:25:04,520 Speaker 3: takeoff point. Well, that wasn't the only time that you 364 00:25:04,600 --> 00:25:07,240 Speaker 3: had an argument, wasn't. No, it wasn't the only time 365 00:25:07,280 --> 00:25:09,639 Speaker 3: we had an argument. Well, let's talk about some of 366 00:25:09,720 --> 00:25:13,320 Speaker 3: the other times you had arguments. And the idea is 367 00:25:13,560 --> 00:25:16,800 Speaker 3: that if you ask enough of these behavior inducing questions, 368 00:25:17,320 --> 00:25:20,879 Speaker 3: you as a trained police officer looking at verbal and 369 00:25:21,000 --> 00:25:26,159 Speaker 3: nonverbal cues, you know, hesitation, how their eyes are looking, 370 00:25:26,320 --> 00:25:28,080 Speaker 3: that you can tell if they're lying or not. 371 00:25:29,160 --> 00:25:31,879 Speaker 1: A lot of us have this notion that investigators have 372 00:25:31,960 --> 00:25:34,560 Speaker 1: this heightened ability to tell if someone is lying or not, 373 00:25:35,359 --> 00:25:37,800 Speaker 1: and that's just not the case. We know that there's 374 00:25:37,880 --> 00:25:41,280 Speaker 1: no science to back up that an officer can tell 375 00:25:41,560 --> 00:25:44,080 Speaker 1: if you are or are not telling the truth. But 376 00:25:44,119 --> 00:25:47,240 Speaker 1: that doesn't help the person sitting in that interrogation chair. 377 00:25:47,960 --> 00:25:53,359 Speaker 3: Any answer you give is subject to confirmation, bias, and interpretation. 378 00:25:53,560 --> 00:25:58,480 Speaker 3: And that's why this whole thing is junk science. There's 379 00:25:58,560 --> 00:26:02,040 Speaker 3: no logic to it. No, there's no basis for it. 380 00:26:02,040 --> 00:26:05,160 Speaker 3: It's simply, let me ask a couple of hard questions 381 00:26:05,200 --> 00:26:07,960 Speaker 3: and see if the person is getting nervous or more nervous. 382 00:26:08,800 --> 00:26:11,680 Speaker 1: Okay, so now the cop is certain at least in 383 00:26:12,560 --> 00:26:14,520 Speaker 1: his or her mind that the person in front of 384 00:26:14,560 --> 00:26:18,040 Speaker 1: them committed the crime, even though there's no proof to 385 00:26:18,160 --> 00:26:21,800 Speaker 1: back that hunch up. So what's the next step. 386 00:26:22,680 --> 00:26:27,000 Speaker 3: Now? The goal is to get the confession, especially, as 387 00:26:27,040 --> 00:26:31,040 Speaker 3: I said earlier, when there's no other evidence. So the 388 00:26:31,080 --> 00:26:35,040 Speaker 3: tone of the whole conversation changes. It now turns sharp, 389 00:26:35,760 --> 00:26:39,480 Speaker 3: and all of a sudden, the officer says, listen, you know, 390 00:26:39,520 --> 00:26:41,760 Speaker 3: we've been talking for a while and I just have 391 00:26:41,840 --> 00:26:44,560 Speaker 3: to tell you. We know you're guilty. The person says, well, no, 392 00:26:44,640 --> 00:26:48,840 Speaker 3: I'm not, and the officer says, well, don't bother lying 393 00:26:48,880 --> 00:26:52,280 Speaker 3: to me about it. So the person says, no, I 394 00:26:52,320 --> 00:26:55,720 Speaker 3: didn't do it. Well, then can you explain why your 395 00:26:55,800 --> 00:27:00,239 Speaker 3: DNA is on the knife? The officer says, you know, 396 00:27:00,280 --> 00:27:03,040 Speaker 3: maybe it was so horrible that you've blotted it out 397 00:27:03,080 --> 00:27:05,880 Speaker 3: of your memory. You know, maybe that's why you don't 398 00:27:05,880 --> 00:27:09,120 Speaker 3: remember it. But how do you explain that that DNA 399 00:27:09,200 --> 00:27:12,280 Speaker 3: is on that knife? And there is no DNA on 400 00:27:12,320 --> 00:27:16,560 Speaker 3: the knife. But the officer is now aligning to the 401 00:27:16,600 --> 00:27:21,480 Speaker 3: person in order to induce the person to be sort 402 00:27:21,520 --> 00:27:27,879 Speaker 3: of incredulous about his own guilt or innocence. And so 403 00:27:28,520 --> 00:27:32,640 Speaker 3: there are cases where people actually become convinced people are innocent, 404 00:27:33,359 --> 00:27:38,320 Speaker 3: become convinced that, yeah, maybe I actually did this, or 405 00:27:38,400 --> 00:27:41,119 Speaker 3: yeah I did this, and the person knows they didn't, 406 00:27:42,119 --> 00:27:45,560 Speaker 3: but yet if they're told that they did, at some 407 00:27:45,760 --> 00:27:50,199 Speaker 3: point they become convinced that they must have done it. 408 00:27:50,240 --> 00:27:52,240 Speaker 3: Why else would this person be saying that. 409 00:27:53,119 --> 00:27:56,400 Speaker 1: And I think the most important point here is that 410 00:27:56,640 --> 00:28:00,399 Speaker 1: a lot of people think that the police can't lie. 411 00:28:00,280 --> 00:28:03,760 Speaker 3: To them, and in fact, in most countries they can't. 412 00:28:03,840 --> 00:28:06,560 Speaker 3: In the Great Britain, the cops cannot lie to you 413 00:28:06,640 --> 00:28:10,119 Speaker 3: about the evidence. But our Supreme Court has said, oh no, 414 00:28:10,240 --> 00:28:12,800 Speaker 3: it's fine for you to lie to a suspect about 415 00:28:12,840 --> 00:28:15,680 Speaker 3: the evidence, because after all, he or she knows if 416 00:28:15,680 --> 00:28:19,760 Speaker 3: he's innocent that it can't be true. Well, that ignores 417 00:28:19,800 --> 00:28:22,520 Speaker 3: the psychology of it. The truth of the matter is 418 00:28:22,560 --> 00:28:26,480 Speaker 3: that cops are allowed to lie during interrogations everywhere in 419 00:28:26,520 --> 00:28:30,080 Speaker 3: the United States, because the United States Supreme Court has 420 00:28:30,160 --> 00:28:35,120 Speaker 3: said that's not a violation of due process and it's outrageous. 421 00:28:35,520 --> 00:28:38,840 Speaker 3: Why should they be able to lie to you about 422 00:28:39,080 --> 00:28:42,320 Speaker 3: something as serious as a crime and the evidence of 423 00:28:42,320 --> 00:28:45,680 Speaker 3: a crime. I'm not aware of any other English speaking 424 00:28:45,720 --> 00:28:49,880 Speaker 3: country where that's okay. It's not okay in Canada, it's 425 00:28:49,880 --> 00:28:52,880 Speaker 3: not okay in Great Britain, it's not okay in Australia 426 00:28:53,000 --> 00:28:56,200 Speaker 3: or New Zealand. We are the only country I'm aware 427 00:28:56,200 --> 00:29:01,000 Speaker 3: of where that's permissible. And that's there's a big, big 428 00:29:01,080 --> 00:29:03,800 Speaker 3: problem that needs to be corrected. 429 00:29:04,640 --> 00:29:08,360 Speaker 1: I mean, look, I try to put myself in these 430 00:29:08,400 --> 00:29:11,120 Speaker 1: people's shoes all the time, and I think about what 431 00:29:11,160 --> 00:29:14,520 Speaker 1: it would be like if an officer said to me 432 00:29:15,720 --> 00:29:19,480 Speaker 1: that my friend claimed that I murdered someone when I didn't, 433 00:29:20,120 --> 00:29:24,440 Speaker 1: and that there's DNA evidence against me. I mean, I 434 00:29:24,480 --> 00:29:29,800 Speaker 1: would feel just totally screwed, you know, scared alone. And 435 00:29:30,480 --> 00:29:34,320 Speaker 1: you know, after these interrogators confront the suspect, they say 436 00:29:34,360 --> 00:29:37,160 Speaker 1: we have this evidence. They might even tell them that 437 00:29:37,200 --> 00:29:40,120 Speaker 1: they have witnesses that have identified them at the scene. 438 00:29:40,720 --> 00:29:44,880 Speaker 1: They give all of this false, incriminating evidence. This is 439 00:29:45,760 --> 00:29:50,520 Speaker 1: constant psychological pressure being applied to a suspect and it 440 00:29:50,560 --> 00:29:55,000 Speaker 1: is increasing their vulnerability. Okay, The suspect gets more and 441 00:29:55,080 --> 00:30:00,840 Speaker 1: more scared, more upset, and the detective starts talking about 442 00:30:01,200 --> 00:30:06,560 Speaker 1: the serious consequences, and the suspect is starting to get 443 00:30:06,640 --> 00:30:10,240 Speaker 1: convinced that you know, they're going to go to prison 444 00:30:10,320 --> 00:30:14,080 Speaker 1: for something they didn't do, so tell us what typically 445 00:30:14,120 --> 00:30:14,920 Speaker 1: happens next. 446 00:30:15,760 --> 00:30:20,520 Speaker 3: What happens is the police go into minimization, moral justifications 447 00:30:21,240 --> 00:30:26,080 Speaker 3: excuses for the potential behavior. So they say things like, well, 448 00:30:26,280 --> 00:30:28,840 Speaker 3: you know, we can understand how this might have happened. 449 00:30:28,880 --> 00:30:33,080 Speaker 3: I mean, you know, you may have been provoked, maybe 450 00:30:33,080 --> 00:30:37,440 Speaker 3: this was in self defense. From the minimization, they go 451 00:30:37,560 --> 00:30:41,840 Speaker 3: to two other techniques, and I'll call them active encouragement 452 00:30:42,200 --> 00:30:47,720 Speaker 3: and alternative theories. So active encouragement is they're trying to 453 00:30:47,800 --> 00:30:50,760 Speaker 3: sort of say, you know, we're just trying to help 454 00:30:50,800 --> 00:30:53,320 Speaker 3: you here. It's going to look a lot better for 455 00:30:53,360 --> 00:30:57,040 Speaker 3: you if you explain that this was just because your 456 00:30:57,160 --> 00:31:01,120 Speaker 3: uncle made you do it than if the DA and 457 00:31:01,240 --> 00:31:03,800 Speaker 3: the jury thinks you did this because you're a monster. 458 00:31:04,720 --> 00:31:06,320 Speaker 3: You're telling them that he's going to do You're going 459 00:31:06,360 --> 00:31:09,360 Speaker 3: to be charged based on this evidence, and now you're 460 00:31:09,440 --> 00:31:14,240 Speaker 3: providing this lifeline if you will. I've had situations where 461 00:31:14,320 --> 00:31:17,600 Speaker 3: people have been told if you don't confess, you're going 462 00:31:17,680 --> 00:31:21,080 Speaker 3: to get life. If you do confess, we'll treat you 463 00:31:21,120 --> 00:31:22,480 Speaker 3: as a juvenile offender. 464 00:31:23,520 --> 00:31:26,600 Speaker 1: So what's happening here is that the person is told 465 00:31:27,040 --> 00:31:31,000 Speaker 1: you don't really have any good or attractive options. Right, 466 00:31:31,480 --> 00:31:33,760 Speaker 1: they're often told, as you said, you're going to get 467 00:31:33,920 --> 00:31:37,360 Speaker 1: life in prison or even the death sentence if you 468 00:31:37,440 --> 00:31:41,960 Speaker 1: don't confess, And the interrogators tell them that confessing will 469 00:31:42,040 --> 00:31:45,200 Speaker 1: at least get them the better of two horrible options. Right, 470 00:31:45,280 --> 00:31:48,600 Speaker 1: You'll get life instead of the death penalty. It doesn't 471 00:31:48,600 --> 00:31:51,040 Speaker 1: really leave the innocent person with much of a choice, 472 00:31:51,080 --> 00:31:51,400 Speaker 1: does it. 473 00:31:52,160 --> 00:31:56,640 Speaker 3: To top it all off, Josh, if you're innocent and 474 00:31:57,000 --> 00:31:59,640 Speaker 3: all you want to do is get out of that room, 475 00:31:59,840 --> 00:32:02,280 Speaker 3: you know you've now been in there for two hours, 476 00:32:02,320 --> 00:32:06,719 Speaker 3: three hours, four hours, they haven't accepted any of your denials, 477 00:32:07,360 --> 00:32:11,440 Speaker 3: and now you just wanted to stop. And what you 478 00:32:11,520 --> 00:32:15,120 Speaker 3: think to yourself if you're innocent, is if I just 479 00:32:15,320 --> 00:32:17,960 Speaker 3: agree with what they're saying, If I just agree with 480 00:32:18,000 --> 00:32:21,240 Speaker 3: what they're saying, this is going to stop. And when 481 00:32:21,240 --> 00:32:24,160 Speaker 3: I get out of here, you know, I can explain 482 00:32:24,240 --> 00:32:27,880 Speaker 3: why this happened, and everyone's going to understand that I'm innocent, 483 00:32:27,960 --> 00:32:31,240 Speaker 3: because that's what the evidence is going to show, and 484 00:32:32,080 --> 00:32:34,880 Speaker 3: you know, it just becomes the path of least resistance. 485 00:32:35,600 --> 00:32:37,840 Speaker 3: The other piece you need to understand is it's not 486 00:32:37,880 --> 00:32:41,240 Speaker 3: just a person saying I'm guilty, because that's just the 487 00:32:41,320 --> 00:32:42,440 Speaker 3: first step. 488 00:32:42,680 --> 00:32:45,360 Speaker 1: Right, because a jury's got to be able to believe it. 489 00:32:45,360 --> 00:32:47,920 Speaker 1: The confession has to sound convincing. 490 00:32:48,720 --> 00:32:48,920 Speaker 2: You know. 491 00:32:49,040 --> 00:32:51,040 Speaker 3: If all it was was the person said, yeah, I 492 00:32:51,040 --> 00:32:53,320 Speaker 3: did it, I don't think a jury is going to 493 00:32:53,400 --> 00:32:56,600 Speaker 3: give that a whole lot of weight. But when the 494 00:32:56,680 --> 00:33:02,800 Speaker 3: person's confession includes details that own only the perpetrator could know, well, 495 00:33:02,880 --> 00:33:07,880 Speaker 3: the perpetrator and the police. Once it has those details, 496 00:33:08,400 --> 00:33:12,239 Speaker 3: it becomes persuasive evidence. It's not just why would an 497 00:33:12,240 --> 00:33:16,200 Speaker 3: innocent person confess? It's how would an innocent person know 498 00:33:16,320 --> 00:33:20,280 Speaker 3: these things? And that's where the power comes in, you know. 499 00:33:20,400 --> 00:33:24,960 Speaker 3: It's the details about where the attack occurred, how it occurred, 500 00:33:25,040 --> 00:33:29,480 Speaker 3: what weapon was used, how long it took, what time 501 00:33:29,520 --> 00:33:32,400 Speaker 3: it occurred. All of these are fed into the person, 502 00:33:32,480 --> 00:33:36,120 Speaker 3: you know, with leading questions. So do you remember it 503 00:33:36,160 --> 00:33:38,680 Speaker 3: was about nine pm when you finally entered the house, 504 00:33:39,440 --> 00:33:42,280 Speaker 3: you know? And when you went into the house, do 505 00:33:42,320 --> 00:33:44,360 Speaker 3: you remember that the first place you went was into 506 00:33:44,360 --> 00:33:48,280 Speaker 3: the kitchen and that's where you found the knife? Right, 507 00:33:48,840 --> 00:33:53,440 Speaker 3: So there's all these leading questions that if you're innocent 508 00:33:54,120 --> 00:33:57,600 Speaker 3: and you're trying to get out of there, you're accepting 509 00:33:57,760 --> 00:34:00,120 Speaker 3: you don't even have to say it. You just say 510 00:34:00,200 --> 00:34:05,840 Speaker 3: yeah or mm hm, and those then get incorporated into 511 00:34:05,880 --> 00:34:09,560 Speaker 3: a written statement. And you've already gone so far as 512 00:34:09,600 --> 00:34:11,239 Speaker 3: to say all this, so you figure, what the hell, 513 00:34:11,239 --> 00:34:13,399 Speaker 3: I'll sign it, and then your life is over. 514 00:34:14,680 --> 00:34:18,800 Speaker 1: So, David, what can we do here? The system keeps 515 00:34:18,840 --> 00:34:22,319 Speaker 1: on churning out false confessions? How do we get this 516 00:34:22,440 --> 00:34:23,000 Speaker 1: to stop? 517 00:34:24,080 --> 00:34:29,520 Speaker 3: Stop using this particular technique. It's an enormously effective technique 518 00:34:29,600 --> 00:34:33,240 Speaker 3: to get guilty people to confess. We can all agree 519 00:34:33,239 --> 00:34:37,080 Speaker 3: on that. The problem is it's also an enormously effective 520 00:34:37,160 --> 00:34:40,240 Speaker 3: technique to get innocent people to confess. 521 00:34:41,360 --> 00:34:45,120 Speaker 1: I think certain law enforcement officials in this country might 522 00:34:45,200 --> 00:34:48,279 Speaker 1: resist that because they'll think, well, if we don't use this, 523 00:34:48,719 --> 00:34:53,759 Speaker 1: then we are losing this critical tool for getting suspects 524 00:34:53,800 --> 00:34:57,759 Speaker 1: to confess. And if we don't have this, then we're 525 00:34:57,800 --> 00:35:00,200 Speaker 1: not going to be able to convict someone who who 526 00:35:00,239 --> 00:35:03,839 Speaker 1: committed a crime. But that's not really the case, right 527 00:35:03,920 --> 00:35:07,399 Speaker 1: because there are other more reliable techniques out there. So 528 00:35:07,600 --> 00:35:12,680 Speaker 1: tell us about some other ways that detectives can obtain 529 00:35:12,719 --> 00:35:18,680 Speaker 1: a confession that doesn't employ or doesn't include employing the 530 00:35:18,719 --> 00:35:19,520 Speaker 1: read technique. 531 00:35:20,239 --> 00:35:24,600 Speaker 3: In Great Britain, they use a completely different method, and 532 00:35:24,640 --> 00:35:29,520 Speaker 3: it's called the piece method peacee And you don't try 533 00:35:29,520 --> 00:35:33,360 Speaker 3: to force the conversation in any particular way. You're simply 534 00:35:34,120 --> 00:35:38,279 Speaker 3: conducting a really thorough interrogation or interview that has been 535 00:35:38,360 --> 00:35:41,239 Speaker 3: planned out in advance. You know exactly what you're going 536 00:35:41,320 --> 00:35:43,960 Speaker 3: to ask, you know what you want to talk about, 537 00:35:44,040 --> 00:35:46,279 Speaker 3: you know what you want to ask questions about, you 538 00:35:46,360 --> 00:35:49,080 Speaker 3: know what evidence there is, and so you can judge 539 00:35:49,120 --> 00:35:52,680 Speaker 3: the validity of what the person's saying by the actual evidence, 540 00:35:52,719 --> 00:35:57,920 Speaker 3: not by false evidence. And it's a completely different technique, 541 00:35:58,560 --> 00:36:02,320 Speaker 3: and it is not something that results in the kinds 542 00:36:02,360 --> 00:36:06,280 Speaker 3: of false confessions that you see in the United States. 543 00:36:06,680 --> 00:36:12,880 Speaker 3: If there's other evidence, then you don't necessarily need the confession. 544 00:36:13,680 --> 00:36:17,200 Speaker 3: All you may need are some inconsistencies in the person's 545 00:36:17,239 --> 00:36:21,000 Speaker 3: statement to sort of nail the case down. And if 546 00:36:21,000 --> 00:36:24,879 Speaker 3: there is no other evidence, why would you try to 547 00:36:25,160 --> 00:36:29,120 Speaker 3: get a confession where the confession may very well not 548 00:36:29,360 --> 00:36:30,360 Speaker 3: be accurate. 549 00:36:31,280 --> 00:36:34,280 Speaker 1: Now, another part of the problem here that we touched 550 00:36:34,320 --> 00:36:37,480 Speaker 1: on a bit is not just the false confession, but 551 00:36:37,680 --> 00:36:41,960 Speaker 1: also how convincing it ends up being when it is 552 00:36:42,040 --> 00:36:45,799 Speaker 1: presented to a jury. Is there any insight into what 553 00:36:45,880 --> 00:36:47,800 Speaker 1: other countries do in that regard. 554 00:36:48,719 --> 00:36:51,360 Speaker 3: You know, in the United States, a jury has to 555 00:36:51,400 --> 00:36:54,759 Speaker 3: come back with either guilty or not guilty, and not 556 00:36:54,800 --> 00:37:00,440 Speaker 3: guilty sort of implies innocence. In Scotland there's a vertict 557 00:37:00,480 --> 00:37:06,160 Speaker 3: called not proven, and I think the verdicts in every 558 00:37:06,239 --> 00:37:10,319 Speaker 3: country should be either proven or not proven, because if 559 00:37:10,360 --> 00:37:16,160 Speaker 3: that was the verdict, the presumption of innocence becomes less 560 00:37:16,200 --> 00:37:20,200 Speaker 3: important in a sense, because the focuses on did the 561 00:37:20,320 --> 00:37:23,359 Speaker 3: state prove its case right? 562 00:37:23,440 --> 00:37:26,360 Speaker 1: Because a journam might be thinking shit, if I say 563 00:37:26,800 --> 00:37:29,680 Speaker 1: not guilty, what I'm really saying is that the person 564 00:37:29,920 --> 00:37:32,640 Speaker 1: absolutely didn't do it. And what I really want to 565 00:37:32,680 --> 00:37:36,200 Speaker 1: say is that who knows. The person may have done it, 566 00:37:36,239 --> 00:37:40,120 Speaker 1: but the prosecution just did improve their case. So if 567 00:37:40,160 --> 00:37:43,640 Speaker 1: you include this other sort of line item or this 568 00:37:43,800 --> 00:37:47,680 Speaker 1: notion that they have in Scotland not proven on the 569 00:37:47,760 --> 00:37:51,240 Speaker 1: verdict form, it would actually be a way to protect 570 00:37:51,360 --> 00:37:53,880 Speaker 1: the presumption of innocence exactly. 571 00:37:54,120 --> 00:37:57,600 Speaker 3: I think that that would go a long way towards 572 00:37:58,400 --> 00:38:01,680 Speaker 3: focusing jurors attention on the actual question. 573 00:38:02,680 --> 00:38:05,560 Speaker 1: These seem to be really big changes that are going 574 00:38:05,600 --> 00:38:08,320 Speaker 1: to take a lot of time and effort to accomplish. 575 00:38:08,760 --> 00:38:11,759 Speaker 1: We like to be able to provide our listeners with 576 00:38:11,800 --> 00:38:14,439 Speaker 1: some insight into what they can be doing to help 577 00:38:14,560 --> 00:38:18,200 Speaker 1: change the system. So what would you tell our listeners 578 00:38:18,360 --> 00:38:22,480 Speaker 1: they can be doing to help effectuate change, especially when 579 00:38:22,520 --> 00:38:27,279 Speaker 1: it comes to wrongful confessions or coerce confessions. 580 00:38:28,239 --> 00:38:32,360 Speaker 3: Please go sit on juris to talk to your fellow 581 00:38:32,440 --> 00:38:35,320 Speaker 3: jurors and talk to your friends and neighbors and co 582 00:38:35,520 --> 00:38:40,000 Speaker 3: workers about these issues. When you hear somebody's confess to 583 00:38:40,120 --> 00:38:44,480 Speaker 3: a crime, go and talk with other people and explain 584 00:38:45,040 --> 00:38:48,560 Speaker 3: that it may not be what it seems, because that's 585 00:38:48,600 --> 00:38:51,520 Speaker 3: how this changes. It changes from the bottom up, not 586 00:38:51,600 --> 00:38:52,480 Speaker 3: from the top down. 587 00:38:54,520 --> 00:38:56,440 Speaker 1: What I want for all of you to take away 588 00:38:56,480 --> 00:39:00,839 Speaker 1: from today's episode is some practical advice. Now you might 589 00:39:00,880 --> 00:39:04,399 Speaker 1: be thinking, I'll never be in this situation. This would 590 00:39:04,480 --> 00:39:08,160 Speaker 1: never happen to me. I'm sure that most people that 591 00:39:08,239 --> 00:39:11,360 Speaker 1: have ended up being interrogated by the police thought the 592 00:39:11,440 --> 00:39:14,799 Speaker 1: exact same thing. It's not going to happen to me 593 00:39:15,960 --> 00:39:21,839 Speaker 1: until it does. Unfortunately, your innocence is not a safeguard 594 00:39:22,040 --> 00:39:27,760 Speaker 1: against being incarcerated. As we discussed in this episode, innocent 595 00:39:27,840 --> 00:39:31,640 Speaker 1: people are often more likely to falsely confess than the 596 00:39:31,680 --> 00:39:36,280 Speaker 1: actual perpetrator of a crime. For a few reasons. First, 597 00:39:36,640 --> 00:39:39,720 Speaker 1: they think that because they're innocent, they don't need a lawyer. 598 00:39:40,239 --> 00:39:43,680 Speaker 1: They'll just go in there, speak to the cops, tell 599 00:39:43,680 --> 00:39:48,000 Speaker 1: them the truth, and that'll be that. The problem is 600 00:39:48,040 --> 00:39:52,399 Speaker 1: that interrogators who are following the read technique don't take 601 00:39:52,440 --> 00:39:56,160 Speaker 1: the words you say at face value. Instead, they look 602 00:39:56,239 --> 00:39:59,800 Speaker 1: behind the words and look for reasons why those words 603 00:40:00,160 --> 00:40:03,640 Speaker 1: port your guilt. Remember, most of the time, they have 604 00:40:03,760 --> 00:40:07,399 Speaker 1: decided that you were probably involved before you even get 605 00:40:07,440 --> 00:40:10,480 Speaker 1: in that room. That is why you were being interrogated 606 00:40:10,560 --> 00:40:14,720 Speaker 1: in the first place. Another reason why many innocent people 607 00:40:14,760 --> 00:40:18,040 Speaker 1: confess is because none of us are immune from the 608 00:40:18,040 --> 00:40:22,560 Speaker 1: effects of the psychological warfare administered under conditions that are 609 00:40:22,640 --> 00:40:27,239 Speaker 1: simply the perfect storm for vulnerability. And believe me, it 610 00:40:27,280 --> 00:40:30,520 Speaker 1: happens to the toughest among us I have seen it. 611 00:40:30,520 --> 00:40:33,480 Speaker 1: It is simply too difficult to withstand that type of 612 00:40:33,520 --> 00:40:37,839 Speaker 1: pressure until the day comes when we are able to 613 00:40:37,920 --> 00:40:41,080 Speaker 1: enact the type of reform that David talked about, things 614 00:40:41,200 --> 00:40:45,000 Speaker 1: like preventing law enforcement from lying to suspects about the 615 00:40:45,040 --> 00:40:48,759 Speaker 1: existence of evidence tying them to the crime. The reality 616 00:40:48,920 --> 00:40:53,120 Speaker 1: is that we all need to protect ourselves. Preventing false 617 00:40:53,160 --> 00:40:58,120 Speaker 1: confessions starts with an understanding of the tactics investigators use. 618 00:40:59,080 --> 00:41:02,160 Speaker 1: You are now armed with that knowledge, and it should 619 00:41:02,200 --> 00:41:06,080 Speaker 1: always end with if God forbid you ever find yourself 620 00:41:06,120 --> 00:41:13,120 Speaker 1: being interrogated, is my name is Christopher Ochoa, John Restivo, 621 00:41:14,239 --> 00:41:20,480 Speaker 1: Sante Tribble, Clementia Geary, and I want a lawyer, and 622 00:41:20,600 --> 00:41:29,960 Speaker 1: you don't answer a single question after that. Next week 623 00:41:30,120 --> 00:41:33,719 Speaker 1: we'll explore the junk signs of roadside drug testing with 624 00:41:33,840 --> 00:41:39,200 Speaker 1: Greg Glaud. Wrongful Conviction Junk Science is a production of 625 00:41:39,280 --> 00:41:43,120 Speaker 1: Lava for Good Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number One. 626 00:41:43,680 --> 00:41:46,600 Speaker 1: Thanks to our executive producer Jason Flam and the team 627 00:41:46,600 --> 00:41:50,600 Speaker 1: at Signal Company Number One executive producer Kevin Wardis and 628 00:41:50,719 --> 00:41:55,080 Speaker 1: senior producers Karen Kornhaber and Britz Spangler. Our music was 629 00:41:55,120 --> 00:41:58,640 Speaker 1: composed by Jay Ralph. You can follow me on Instagram 630 00:41:58,680 --> 00:42:03,000 Speaker 1: at dubin Josh. Follow the Wrongful Conviction podcast on Facebook 631 00:42:03,239 --> 00:42:06,759 Speaker 1: and on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and on Twitter at 632 00:42:06,840 --> 00:42:07,600 Speaker 1: wrong Conviction