1 00:00:01,440 --> 00:00:04,160 Speaker 1: Hey, folks, Kate Judson here, I'm a lawyer and the 2 00:00:04,200 --> 00:00:07,760 Speaker 1: executive director of the Center for Integrity and Forensic Sciences. 3 00:00:10,400 --> 00:00:13,560 Speaker 1: We're back with another episode of Junk Science, a series 4 00:00:13,600 --> 00:00:17,239 Speaker 1: we first released in twenty twenty. But these stories are 5 00:00:17,400 --> 00:00:21,400 Speaker 1: just as relevant as ever. Confessions, as you'll hear in 6 00:00:21,440 --> 00:00:27,120 Speaker 1: this episode, are frequently unreliable, especially under circumstances that include, 7 00:00:27,440 --> 00:00:33,640 Speaker 1: but aren't limited to, depression, shock, youth, grief, and false 8 00:00:33,640 --> 00:00:38,360 Speaker 1: claims by law enforcement. And since many confessions take place 9 00:00:38,479 --> 00:00:42,080 Speaker 1: in the high stress environment of an interrogation room, there's 10 00:00:42,120 --> 00:00:46,040 Speaker 1: a higher than average likelihood that confessions given to law 11 00:00:46,120 --> 00:00:54,360 Speaker 1: enforcement will be false or unreliable. With how unreliable confessions 12 00:00:54,400 --> 00:00:57,480 Speaker 1: can be, it might surprise you to know that they 13 00:00:57,480 --> 00:01:02,360 Speaker 1: are sometimes used to validate a scientific concept. It works 14 00:01:02,400 --> 00:01:06,680 Speaker 1: like this, Analysts or experts use a risky type of 15 00:01:06,760 --> 00:01:10,640 Speaker 1: analysis in a case and then say that because an 16 00:01:10,680 --> 00:01:15,360 Speaker 1: accused person confessed in the case, the analysis is correct. 17 00:01:16,360 --> 00:01:21,360 Speaker 1: This approach isn't two independent pieces of proof. It's one 18 00:01:21,480 --> 00:01:26,640 Speaker 1: mistake compounding another on their own. Confessions need to be 19 00:01:26,680 --> 00:01:31,520 Speaker 1: treated with skepticism and care, and certainly they should never 20 00:01:31,600 --> 00:01:34,640 Speaker 1: be the main basis for a scientific concept. 21 00:01:41,040 --> 00:01:44,600 Speaker 2: Hi, everyone in our feed you've probably heard the podcast 22 00:01:44,680 --> 00:01:48,800 Speaker 2: Wrongful Conviction, False Confessions hosted by Laura and I Wrider 23 00:01:48,840 --> 00:01:51,840 Speaker 2: and Steve Drizzen. Would they dive into the stories of 24 00:01:51,880 --> 00:01:55,240 Speaker 2: innocent people who have been subject to tactics that elicit 25 00:01:55,320 --> 00:02:00,320 Speaker 2: false confessions. As it turns out, these tactics are actually 26 00:02:00,480 --> 00:02:06,800 Speaker 2: rooted in junk science, just like bitemark evidence, bloodstain pattern analysis, 27 00:02:06,840 --> 00:02:09,560 Speaker 2: and so many others that we have covered in this show, 28 00:02:10,240 --> 00:02:13,359 Speaker 2: we want to make it clear that false confessions are 29 00:02:13,400 --> 00:02:16,919 Speaker 2: another link in this chain of the junk science epidemic. 30 00:02:17,520 --> 00:02:19,960 Speaker 2: For some of our more avid listeners, this will be 31 00:02:20,000 --> 00:02:23,280 Speaker 2: something of a refresher for what you've already heard about 32 00:02:23,280 --> 00:02:26,680 Speaker 2: how twenty five percent of wrongful convictions are based on 33 00:02:26,840 --> 00:02:31,639 Speaker 2: false confessions. But in today's episode, we're going to unpack 34 00:02:31,760 --> 00:02:35,360 Speaker 2: the story not of an individual case, but the story 35 00:02:35,440 --> 00:02:39,480 Speaker 2: of how the junk science that's behind false confessions is 36 00:02:39,560 --> 00:02:47,680 Speaker 2: employed in the interrogation room. Here's our show. It's a 37 00:02:47,760 --> 00:02:50,560 Speaker 2: crisp fall morning, and you're on your way to the 38 00:02:50,600 --> 00:02:54,800 Speaker 2: first class of the day, psychology one onh one. Just 39 00:02:54,840 --> 00:02:57,600 Speaker 2: a few weeks ago, you started as a freshman at 40 00:02:57,600 --> 00:03:01,560 Speaker 2: this small college in Massachusetts and so far, psych is 41 00:03:01,560 --> 00:03:05,280 Speaker 2: your favorite class. You walk into your classroom and start 42 00:03:05,320 --> 00:03:08,120 Speaker 2: taking off your jacket while your teacher makes some announcements. 43 00:03:08,520 --> 00:03:14,200 Speaker 2: He says, the psychology department is conducting an experiment. Participation 44 00:03:14,320 --> 00:03:18,120 Speaker 2: is completely optional, but anyone who decides to participate will 45 00:03:18,240 --> 00:03:22,600 Speaker 2: receive extra credit. You're already doing really well in this class, 46 00:03:22,680 --> 00:03:25,400 Speaker 2: so the extra credit doesn't matter to you that much. 47 00:03:25,440 --> 00:03:29,120 Speaker 2: But you're curious to see what a psychological experiment will 48 00:03:29,160 --> 00:03:33,800 Speaker 2: be like, so you sign up. The next week, you 49 00:03:33,840 --> 00:03:36,560 Speaker 2: show up to the room where the experiment will be conducted. 50 00:03:37,360 --> 00:03:41,320 Speaker 2: When you get there, there's already another student waiting outside 51 00:03:41,520 --> 00:03:45,280 Speaker 2: who says she's also here for the experiment. It's not 52 00:03:45,400 --> 00:03:47,720 Speaker 2: long before a professor comes out into the hall to 53 00:03:47,760 --> 00:03:52,680 Speaker 2: greet you, and he's well, very professor looking. He wears 54 00:03:52,680 --> 00:03:56,280 Speaker 2: a tweed jacket and his hair is slightly gray. The 55 00:03:56,320 --> 00:04:00,440 Speaker 2: professor tells you, in a very authoritative tone, sit in 56 00:04:00,480 --> 00:04:03,280 Speaker 2: front of the computer. He then motions for the other 57 00:04:03,360 --> 00:04:06,200 Speaker 2: student to sit in the chair next to you. On 58 00:04:06,280 --> 00:04:08,520 Speaker 2: the table in front of her, there's a piece of 59 00:04:08,520 --> 00:04:13,320 Speaker 2: paper with letters printed on it. Then the professor takes 60 00:04:13,320 --> 00:04:14,440 Speaker 2: his seat across from you. 61 00:04:14,520 --> 00:04:14,800 Speaker 3: Both. 62 00:04:15,600 --> 00:04:20,720 Speaker 2: He says welcome, thanks for joining us today. This experiment 63 00:04:20,760 --> 00:04:24,400 Speaker 2: will test reaction times. One student will read from a 64 00:04:24,400 --> 00:04:27,040 Speaker 2: list of letters well, the other will type out the 65 00:04:27,120 --> 00:04:31,200 Speaker 2: letters that she calls out. It's actually a very simple experiment. 66 00:04:32,360 --> 00:04:35,239 Speaker 2: He pauses for a moment, then looks you in the eye. 67 00:04:36,400 --> 00:04:40,440 Speaker 2: Just one thing before we begin, be very careful not 68 00:04:40,560 --> 00:04:43,800 Speaker 2: to hit the alt key. You see, it's right there 69 00:04:43,880 --> 00:04:47,160 Speaker 2: next to the space bar. The computer program we are 70 00:04:47,279 --> 00:04:49,760 Speaker 2: using today is a little bit finicky, and hitting that 71 00:04:49,880 --> 00:04:53,240 Speaker 2: alt key will cause the computer to crash. And if 72 00:04:53,279 --> 00:04:56,479 Speaker 2: that happens, we'll lose all of our data, and we 73 00:04:56,520 --> 00:05:00,719 Speaker 2: wouldn't want that to happen. It's not quite the experiment 74 00:05:00,800 --> 00:05:04,360 Speaker 2: you were expecting, but it sounds like it'll be, I guess, 75 00:05:04,440 --> 00:05:08,719 Speaker 2: kind of fun. You sit up straight, fingers hovering over 76 00:05:08,800 --> 00:05:15,440 Speaker 2: the keyboard. The professor says, let's get ready and begin. 77 00:05:17,120 --> 00:05:23,240 Speaker 2: The student next to you starts reading off letters B, A, J, B, T, 78 00:05:23,800 --> 00:05:28,039 Speaker 2: S K. The letters come quickly, but you keep up. 79 00:05:28,720 --> 00:05:30,920 Speaker 2: You think of this as a game, and you want 80 00:05:30,960 --> 00:05:34,440 Speaker 2: to win. You're laser focused on the task in front 81 00:05:34,440 --> 00:05:40,280 Speaker 2: of you. But then the screen suddenly glitches and then 82 00:05:40,320 --> 00:05:56,400 Speaker 2: it goes black. You sit there, frozen, staring at the 83 00:05:56,400 --> 00:06:01,000 Speaker 2: blank screen. The professor running the experiment sees the confused 84 00:06:01,040 --> 00:06:03,640 Speaker 2: look on your face and jumps up from his seat. 85 00:06:03,720 --> 00:06:07,240 Speaker 2: He looks pissed. He walks over to your side of 86 00:06:07,320 --> 00:06:10,440 Speaker 2: the table, looks at the blank screen and says, did 87 00:06:10,440 --> 00:06:11,560 Speaker 2: you hit the alt key? 88 00:06:13,040 --> 00:06:13,200 Speaker 3: No? 89 00:06:13,920 --> 00:06:16,880 Speaker 2: I didn't. I don't know why this happened. I'm gonna 90 00:06:16,920 --> 00:06:20,640 Speaker 2: ask you one more time. The professor says, did you 91 00:06:21,640 --> 00:06:27,320 Speaker 2: hit the alt key? I said no, I really don't 92 00:06:27,360 --> 00:06:31,240 Speaker 2: think I did. You're getting flustered, and the professor is 93 00:06:31,360 --> 00:06:35,839 Speaker 2: clearly angry. What a strange reaction. He stands over you 94 00:06:35,920 --> 00:06:39,279 Speaker 2: and picks up the keyboard and clicks some keys and 95 00:06:39,320 --> 00:06:43,919 Speaker 2: nothing happens. You did hit the alt key. I know 96 00:06:44,160 --> 00:06:47,640 Speaker 2: you did. He turns to the student who is reading 97 00:06:47,640 --> 00:06:50,799 Speaker 2: the letters and asks her if she saw what happened. 98 00:06:51,440 --> 00:06:55,320 Speaker 2: She says, hate to say it, but I did see 99 00:06:55,360 --> 00:06:59,880 Speaker 2: you hit the alt key. The professor storms over to 100 00:07:00,160 --> 00:07:03,880 Speaker 2: seat and starts writing furiously on his pad of paper. 101 00:07:05,000 --> 00:07:08,640 Speaker 2: You're confused, and you feel really bad, like you've messed 102 00:07:08,680 --> 00:07:12,560 Speaker 2: up the whole experiment. You didn't mean to. You thought 103 00:07:12,600 --> 00:07:15,280 Speaker 2: it was going well. But if the other student said 104 00:07:15,320 --> 00:07:18,080 Speaker 2: you did it, I mean the computer did crash. You 105 00:07:18,200 --> 00:07:22,160 Speaker 2: must have hit it by accident. The professor rips off 106 00:07:22,200 --> 00:07:24,920 Speaker 2: the top page of his writing pad and pushes it 107 00:07:25,000 --> 00:07:29,920 Speaker 2: toward you. Sign this, he says. You read what the 108 00:07:29,960 --> 00:07:34,240 Speaker 2: professor has scribbled down. It says, I hit the all 109 00:07:34,440 --> 00:07:39,280 Speaker 2: key and cause the computer program to crash. Data was lost. 110 00:07:40,840 --> 00:07:44,000 Speaker 2: I really don't think I hit it, professor, you say. 111 00:07:44,800 --> 00:07:49,120 Speaker 2: The professor is now fuming. He practically slams the pen 112 00:07:49,280 --> 00:07:52,960 Speaker 2: down on the table in front of you. Sign it. 113 00:07:53,640 --> 00:07:58,000 Speaker 2: The leader of this experiment will call you later today. 114 00:07:58,160 --> 00:08:01,800 Speaker 2: You think this guy's pretty pissed. I'll just talk it 115 00:08:01,840 --> 00:08:05,560 Speaker 2: through the organizer of the experiment. When he calls, you, 116 00:08:05,600 --> 00:08:10,560 Speaker 2: pick up the pen and sign the paper. Just then, 117 00:08:10,760 --> 00:08:14,440 Speaker 2: another student walks into the room. The professor says to her, 118 00:08:14,880 --> 00:08:18,480 Speaker 2: we'll have to reschedule our appointment. As he leaves the 119 00:08:18,560 --> 00:08:22,160 Speaker 2: room to get his appointment book, mumbling something angry to himself, 120 00:08:22,200 --> 00:08:24,960 Speaker 2: the new student in the room raises her eyebrows at you. 121 00:08:25,720 --> 00:08:29,960 Speaker 2: She whispers, Hey, what happened? She must have heard all 122 00:08:30,040 --> 00:08:33,480 Speaker 2: the yelling. I hit a key on the computer that 123 00:08:33,559 --> 00:08:36,679 Speaker 2: I wasn't supposed to, and I guess I crashed the computer, 124 00:08:36,920 --> 00:08:41,319 Speaker 2: you say. The professor comes back he books a new 125 00:08:41,360 --> 00:08:45,200 Speaker 2: appointment with the girl who walks in. When she leaves, 126 00:08:45,720 --> 00:08:48,000 Speaker 2: he sits down and takes a deep breath and says, 127 00:08:49,160 --> 00:08:52,320 Speaker 2: it's okay. I didn't mean to get so upset. Show 128 00:08:52,360 --> 00:08:56,800 Speaker 2: me exactly what happened when you hit the old key. 129 00:08:56,880 --> 00:09:00,359 Speaker 2: You put your hands on the keyboard, and you say, well, 130 00:09:00,679 --> 00:09:04,000 Speaker 2: when I was going to hit the A button, I 131 00:09:04,080 --> 00:09:06,760 Speaker 2: hit the alt key with the side of my hand 132 00:09:06,760 --> 00:09:10,160 Speaker 2: by accident. The professor writes down a note on a 133 00:09:10,160 --> 00:09:15,320 Speaker 2: pad of paper, then looks up. Okay, great. His demeanor 134 00:09:15,400 --> 00:09:21,600 Speaker 2: totally changed. He suddenly calm and seems to be even cheery. 135 00:09:21,800 --> 00:09:24,600 Speaker 2: That's the end of the experiment. Thank you so much 136 00:09:24,679 --> 00:09:29,280 Speaker 2: for participating, and let me explain everything. He tells you 137 00:09:29,360 --> 00:09:33,280 Speaker 2: that the experiment was really not for testing reaction times, 138 00:09:33,920 --> 00:09:37,800 Speaker 2: but to study whether presenting someone with phony evidence and 139 00:09:37,840 --> 00:09:41,560 Speaker 2: then accusing them can lead that person to admit to 140 00:09:41,760 --> 00:09:46,840 Speaker 2: doing something that they did not do. Turns out, everyone 141 00:09:46,920 --> 00:09:49,720 Speaker 2: else that was in that room with you, the student 142 00:09:49,760 --> 00:09:52,640 Speaker 2: reading out the letters, the one that later asked you 143 00:09:52,679 --> 00:09:57,280 Speaker 2: what happened, they were all in on the experiment. The 144 00:09:57,280 --> 00:10:00,240 Speaker 2: professor tells you that you did not, in fact hit 145 00:10:00,280 --> 00:10:03,559 Speaker 2: the ald key, but you certainly aren't the only person 146 00:10:04,000 --> 00:10:09,520 Speaker 2: to falsely admit that you did. The story you just 147 00:10:09,600 --> 00:10:12,800 Speaker 2: heard is based on an experiment that was conducted by 148 00:10:12,840 --> 00:10:18,400 Speaker 2: psychology professor Saulcaston at Williams College in nineteen ninety six. Now, 149 00:10:18,640 --> 00:10:22,920 Speaker 2: he did the experiment to better understand why people confess 150 00:10:23,000 --> 00:10:27,040 Speaker 2: to crimes they did not commit. You might be thinking, well, 151 00:10:27,200 --> 00:10:30,040 Speaker 2: admitting to hitting an ald key sounds like a sort 152 00:10:30,080 --> 00:10:33,880 Speaker 2: of low stake scenario. It's nothing like admitting to a 153 00:10:34,000 --> 00:10:38,600 Speaker 2: rape or a murder, and that's precisely the point. In 154 00:10:38,679 --> 00:10:42,680 Speaker 2: the low stake scenario of Casson's experiment, it seems like 155 00:10:42,720 --> 00:10:45,800 Speaker 2: there would be less of a reason to lie. So 156 00:10:45,920 --> 00:10:50,960 Speaker 2: the experiment actually underscores how a combination of applying pressure 157 00:10:51,520 --> 00:10:56,120 Speaker 2: and false inculpatory evidence can cause someone to doubt themselves 158 00:10:56,360 --> 00:10:58,800 Speaker 2: to the point of admitting to something they did not 159 00:10:59,000 --> 00:11:04,439 Speaker 2: do in a low stress situation. So it logically follows 160 00:11:04,760 --> 00:11:07,319 Speaker 2: that when the stakes are as high as being accused 161 00:11:07,360 --> 00:11:12,120 Speaker 2: of something like rape or murder, the stress and vulnerability increases, 162 00:11:12,840 --> 00:11:18,200 Speaker 2: as does the likelihood that someone will falsely confess. Often, 163 00:11:18,559 --> 00:11:22,320 Speaker 2: when I tell people about Chorus confessions, they say I 164 00:11:22,360 --> 00:11:25,760 Speaker 2: would never confess to something I didn't do. But if 165 00:11:25,800 --> 00:11:28,760 Speaker 2: you were able to relate to the student in this experiment, 166 00:11:29,280 --> 00:11:32,520 Speaker 2: if you could just imagine yourself second guessing your own 167 00:11:32,600 --> 00:11:36,480 Speaker 2: actions in that scenario, then it's likely that you too 168 00:11:37,080 --> 00:11:40,640 Speaker 2: are susceptible to the tactics that are often employed by 169 00:11:40,720 --> 00:11:45,280 Speaker 2: law enforcement to obtain a confession, regardless of whether you 170 00:11:45,320 --> 00:11:51,480 Speaker 2: are innocent or guilty. I'm Josh Dubin's civil rights and 171 00:11:51,520 --> 00:11:55,840 Speaker 2: criminal defense attorney, an innocent ambassador to the Innocence Project 172 00:11:55,880 --> 00:12:01,080 Speaker 2: in New York. Today, on Wrongful Conviction Junks Science, we 173 00:12:01,200 --> 00:12:07,559 Speaker 2: examine the psychology behind coerce confessions. Interrogation techniques that detectives 174 00:12:07,679 --> 00:12:11,520 Speaker 2: use when questioning a suspect are in fact, very efficient 175 00:12:11,960 --> 00:12:16,760 Speaker 2: and extremely effective. They routinely result in getting people to 176 00:12:16,800 --> 00:12:21,160 Speaker 2: confess to committing crimes, and that presents a really unique 177 00:12:21,160 --> 00:12:25,880 Speaker 2: dilemma for detectives investigating those crimes. They know that once 178 00:12:25,920 --> 00:12:29,240 Speaker 2: they get someone in that windowless room of a police precinct, 179 00:12:29,640 --> 00:12:32,440 Speaker 2: they will oftentimes be able to get them to confess, 180 00:12:33,480 --> 00:12:38,520 Speaker 2: which means those detectives better have real evidence, not merely 181 00:12:38,559 --> 00:12:42,640 Speaker 2: a gut feeling or a hunch, real proof tying a 182 00:12:42,679 --> 00:12:46,840 Speaker 2: suspect to a crime before subjecting them to the crucible 183 00:12:47,040 --> 00:12:51,400 Speaker 2: of an interrogation, because while this process is great at 184 00:12:51,400 --> 00:12:55,040 Speaker 2: getting guilty people to confess to crimes they committed, it 185 00:12:55,160 --> 00:12:59,400 Speaker 2: is also great for getting innocent people to confess the 186 00:12:59,520 --> 00:13:01,440 Speaker 2: crimes they did not commit. 187 00:13:06,640 --> 00:13:10,000 Speaker 3: When three dozen former Brooklyn Navy yard workers found themselves 188 00:13:10,040 --> 00:13:13,439 Speaker 3: irreparably poisoned by the asbestos they used in the construction 189 00:13:13,520 --> 00:13:16,400 Speaker 3: of the battleships that won World War Two, Perry Whites 190 00:13:16,440 --> 00:13:19,880 Speaker 3: and Arthur Luxembourg literally put everything on the line to 191 00:13:19,960 --> 00:13:23,520 Speaker 3: successfully represent them. Since then, they've championed the rights of 192 00:13:23,559 --> 00:13:27,640 Speaker 3: over fifty thousand regular Americans injured through the negligence and 193 00:13:27,679 --> 00:13:31,959 Speaker 3: malfeasance of mainly large corporations. Their ability to level the 194 00:13:32,000 --> 00:13:35,600 Speaker 3: playing field against seemingly insurmountable odds has led them to 195 00:13:35,679 --> 00:13:39,760 Speaker 3: litigate against opponents as diverse as Big Pharma all the 196 00:13:39,760 --> 00:13:43,080 Speaker 3: way to those responsible for rendering the water of Flint, 197 00:13:43,080 --> 00:13:46,920 Speaker 3: Michigan undrinkable. Whites and Luxembourg take it personally when there's 198 00:13:46,960 --> 00:13:50,400 Speaker 3: a miscarriage of justice anywhere, and therefore they feel a 199 00:13:50,480 --> 00:13:54,120 Speaker 3: sense of responsibility to support Bramfel Conviction podcasts. You can 200 00:13:54,240 --> 00:13:58,000 Speaker 3: learn more about them by visiting whiteeslux dot com. That's 201 00:13:58,160 --> 00:14:09,520 Speaker 3: weitz lx dot com. 202 00:14:10,679 --> 00:14:13,400 Speaker 2: Coarse confessions have been a part of our criminal justice 203 00:14:13,440 --> 00:14:17,120 Speaker 2: system for a long time. Take for example, the case 204 00:14:17,160 --> 00:14:21,760 Speaker 2: of Stephen Born in eighteen nineteen, detectives found three big 205 00:14:21,840 --> 00:14:25,840 Speaker 2: bones in Stephen's backyard in Vermont. The police alleged that 206 00:14:25,920 --> 00:14:28,240 Speaker 2: the bones belonged to his brother in law, who had 207 00:14:28,240 --> 00:14:31,640 Speaker 2: gone missing and was presumed to have been murdered. The 208 00:14:31,680 --> 00:14:34,840 Speaker 2: police told Stephen, the only way you're going to avoid 209 00:14:34,880 --> 00:14:38,680 Speaker 2: the death penalty is to confess and stand trial, and 210 00:14:38,760 --> 00:14:42,600 Speaker 2: so Stephen confessed. He put his fate in the hands 211 00:14:42,640 --> 00:14:45,400 Speaker 2: of a jury who declared him guilty of murdering his 212 00:14:45,480 --> 00:14:49,600 Speaker 2: brother in law. Stephen was convicted and sentenced to death. 213 00:14:50,480 --> 00:14:54,160 Speaker 2: Luckily for him, before his execution date, his brother in 214 00:14:54,280 --> 00:14:57,840 Speaker 2: law was found alive and well hanging out in New Jersey. 215 00:14:58,360 --> 00:15:02,000 Speaker 2: And those bones they found the stea Evan's backyard turns 216 00:15:02,040 --> 00:15:05,880 Speaker 2: out they were animal bones all along. He was lucky 217 00:15:05,920 --> 00:15:11,120 Speaker 2: to escape the gallows. And still, even after so many 218 00:15:11,160 --> 00:15:15,360 Speaker 2: false confessions, just like Stephen Bourne's, the confession of a 219 00:15:15,440 --> 00:15:19,360 Speaker 2: suspect continues to be seen as the gold standard and 220 00:15:19,440 --> 00:15:23,320 Speaker 2: evidence of a person's guilt. Jurors can never seem to 221 00:15:23,320 --> 00:15:26,640 Speaker 2: wrap their heads around the fact that someone might confess 222 00:15:26,960 --> 00:15:31,720 Speaker 2: to a crime they didn't commit, and the tactic for 223 00:15:31,800 --> 00:15:36,040 Speaker 2: obtaining a confession from a suspect only got better. In 224 00:15:36,160 --> 00:15:40,160 Speaker 2: nineteen forty seven, a detective named John Reid began to 225 00:15:40,240 --> 00:15:45,200 Speaker 2: distill the methods and principles of interrogations into a scientific 226 00:15:45,320 --> 00:15:50,800 Speaker 2: procedure designed to increase the likelihood that a suspect would confess. 227 00:15:53,280 --> 00:15:56,800 Speaker 2: John Reid was a polygraph expert for the Chicago Police 228 00:15:57,120 --> 00:16:00,120 Speaker 2: when he began to develop his nine step process, is 229 00:16:00,240 --> 00:16:04,480 Speaker 2: called the Read technique. He claimed that his technique could 230 00:16:04,520 --> 00:16:10,080 Speaker 2: diagnose truth interception. The retechnique spread throughout the country and 231 00:16:10,200 --> 00:16:15,880 Speaker 2: is still popular today. According to the Red and Associate's website, 232 00:16:16,080 --> 00:16:19,600 Speaker 2: over half a million law enforcement and security officers have 233 00:16:19,720 --> 00:16:24,640 Speaker 2: attended their training programs. And while John Reid's technique indeed 234 00:16:24,720 --> 00:16:28,680 Speaker 2: increased the likelihood of securing a confession from crime suspects, 235 00:16:29,280 --> 00:16:32,440 Speaker 2: not much had been done to understand whether these tactics 236 00:16:32,480 --> 00:16:37,400 Speaker 2: produced confessions that were actually accurate and truthful. That is 237 00:16:37,880 --> 00:16:42,760 Speaker 2: until Saul Cassen began conducting his computer crash experiments at 238 00:16:42,760 --> 00:16:47,800 Speaker 2: Williams College. Doctor Casson's experiment tested for some of the 239 00:16:47,880 --> 00:16:51,520 Speaker 2: variables that are often used during the reed technique. The 240 00:16:51,600 --> 00:16:56,880 Speaker 2: first variable is vulnerability. Cassen made his test subjects feel 241 00:16:56,960 --> 00:17:00,480 Speaker 2: vulnerable by putting them in the mildly stressful set situation 242 00:17:00,960 --> 00:17:05,040 Speaker 2: of having them type letters at a rapid pace. Another 243 00:17:05,160 --> 00:17:10,600 Speaker 2: variable was false incriminating evidence. When students in the experiment 244 00:17:10,640 --> 00:17:13,800 Speaker 2: were told that someone saw them hit the alt key, 245 00:17:14,320 --> 00:17:18,399 Speaker 2: they were much more likely to sign a confession. In fact, 246 00:17:18,880 --> 00:17:21,000 Speaker 2: of the students who were asked to type at a 247 00:17:21,040 --> 00:17:24,040 Speaker 2: fast pace and then we're told that someone saw them 248 00:17:24,119 --> 00:17:28,200 Speaker 2: hit the alt key, one hundred percent of them confessed. 249 00:17:29,160 --> 00:17:32,000 Speaker 2: Although none of them actually hit the alt key, they 250 00:17:32,040 --> 00:17:36,200 Speaker 2: all admitted to the crime when presented with false incriminating evidence. 251 00:17:37,280 --> 00:17:40,879 Speaker 2: On top of that, sixty five percent of students who 252 00:17:40,920 --> 00:17:44,920 Speaker 2: were presented with false incriminating evidence actually believed in their 253 00:17:44,920 --> 00:17:48,159 Speaker 2: own guilt. This was measured by how many of the 254 00:17:48,160 --> 00:17:51,560 Speaker 2: students said, I hit the key when that third student, 255 00:17:51,760 --> 00:17:54,040 Speaker 2: remember the one that enters the room for their quote 256 00:17:54,119 --> 00:17:58,200 Speaker 2: unquote appointment, A seemingly more neutral party comes into the 257 00:17:58,280 --> 00:18:03,119 Speaker 2: room and says, hey, what happened. Finally, thirty five percent 258 00:18:03,160 --> 00:18:06,600 Speaker 2: of the students actually internalize their guilt to such a 259 00:18:06,640 --> 00:18:09,720 Speaker 2: degree that they made up details about it by saying, 260 00:18:09,800 --> 00:18:12,439 Speaker 2: for example, oh, I hit the alt key with the 261 00:18:12,480 --> 00:18:15,800 Speaker 2: side of my hand. The fact is that none of 262 00:18:15,840 --> 00:18:19,000 Speaker 2: these students had hit the alt key, yet under these 263 00:18:19,119 --> 00:18:24,520 Speaker 2: controlled conditions, they confess to something they didn't do. Inducing 264 00:18:24,640 --> 00:18:29,359 Speaker 2: vulnerability and presenting false, incriminating evidence are the cornerstones of 265 00:18:29,359 --> 00:18:34,040 Speaker 2: the red technique. What doctor Casson's experiment shows is that 266 00:18:34,119 --> 00:18:39,160 Speaker 2: interrogation techniques like John Reid's are a recipe for causing 267 00:18:39,240 --> 00:18:43,240 Speaker 2: innocent people to admit to things that they did not do. 268 00:18:47,040 --> 00:18:50,200 Speaker 4: You can flip a coin and be as accurate in 269 00:18:50,359 --> 00:18:53,840 Speaker 4: determining whether somebody is telling the truth or not as 270 00:18:54,000 --> 00:18:57,760 Speaker 4: a trained police officer, and trained police officers are no 271 00:18:58,000 --> 00:19:02,280 Speaker 4: more effective at that than your average person. And in fact, 272 00:19:02,280 --> 00:19:07,560 Speaker 4: there have been numerous psychological studies and nothing correlates to 273 00:19:07,960 --> 00:19:12,280 Speaker 4: being able to do that to any degree of scientific validity. 274 00:19:12,560 --> 00:19:16,439 Speaker 4: And that's really where the junk science of this technique 275 00:19:16,560 --> 00:19:21,680 Speaker 4: comes in, because the reality is you can't tell whether 276 00:19:21,760 --> 00:19:26,320 Speaker 4: or not somebody is lying by verbal and nonverbal behavior. 277 00:19:27,560 --> 00:19:31,680 Speaker 2: So with us today we have the amazing David Rudolph 278 00:19:32,119 --> 00:19:38,680 Speaker 2: David is a phenomenal, phenomenal criminal defense attorney, civil rights attorney, 279 00:19:38,760 --> 00:19:42,120 Speaker 2: criminal justice reform advocate. The list goes on and on. 280 00:19:42,680 --> 00:19:45,880 Speaker 2: He is a friend of mine, a personal hero of mine, 281 00:19:46,400 --> 00:19:49,679 Speaker 2: and many of you have probably seen him in the 282 00:19:49,720 --> 00:19:56,080 Speaker 2: Netflix series The Staircase, which followed the trials of his client, 283 00:19:56,200 --> 00:20:01,160 Speaker 2: Michael Peterson, who was accused of murdering his wife. Now, 284 00:20:01,320 --> 00:20:05,440 Speaker 2: David has worked on countless wrongful conviction cases and cases 285 00:20:05,440 --> 00:20:08,960 Speaker 2: in which people have found themselves sitting in an interrogation 286 00:20:09,119 --> 00:20:13,359 Speaker 2: room getting broken down by detectives. And he is someone 287 00:20:13,400 --> 00:20:16,600 Speaker 2: who has studied corese confessions and really dug into how 288 00:20:16,680 --> 00:20:22,000 Speaker 2: the psychological techniques used by these interrogators can result in 289 00:20:22,040 --> 00:20:25,840 Speaker 2: a wrongful conviction. So, David, I want to dive right 290 00:20:25,920 --> 00:20:29,680 Speaker 2: into the red technique. What is it and how is 291 00:20:29,720 --> 00:20:32,920 Speaker 2: it different than say, standard police interview. 292 00:20:33,800 --> 00:20:36,639 Speaker 4: When you're trying to elicit information, what you're really doing 293 00:20:36,800 --> 00:20:42,240 Speaker 4: is interviewing, not interrogating. You're asking open ended questions, You're 294 00:20:42,400 --> 00:20:45,879 Speaker 4: following up on things, not for the purpose of confronting 295 00:20:45,880 --> 00:20:48,480 Speaker 4: the person, but rather for the purpose of finding out 296 00:20:48,800 --> 00:20:55,040 Speaker 4: what actually happened, and that's not designed to get a confession. 297 00:20:55,359 --> 00:21:01,679 Speaker 4: The retechnique is simply a protocol for how to interrogate someone, 298 00:21:01,880 --> 00:21:05,080 Speaker 4: and this is important who you already believe is guilty. 299 00:21:05,920 --> 00:21:09,719 Speaker 4: You don't use the retechnique in order to elicit information. 300 00:21:10,119 --> 00:21:14,680 Speaker 4: You only use the retechnique in order to secure admissions 301 00:21:14,720 --> 00:21:16,639 Speaker 4: and then ultimately a confession. 302 00:21:17,440 --> 00:21:20,160 Speaker 2: Okay, so let's talk about that for a second, because 303 00:21:20,200 --> 00:21:24,880 Speaker 2: you said something interesting, and that is that the interrogator 304 00:21:25,480 --> 00:21:29,080 Speaker 2: will actually use this technique on the person they believe 305 00:21:29,240 --> 00:21:32,960 Speaker 2: to be the guilty suspect. They might not have any 306 00:21:33,040 --> 00:21:36,080 Speaker 2: physical evidence to prove that, but they have a hunch, 307 00:21:36,800 --> 00:21:39,720 Speaker 2: or they're zeroing in on someone because of tunnel vision, 308 00:21:39,760 --> 00:21:42,760 Speaker 2: whatever the case may be. They think this is their guy, 309 00:21:43,800 --> 00:21:47,040 Speaker 2: and they bring that person in for questioning. And they're 310 00:21:47,080 --> 00:21:50,520 Speaker 2: not simply trying to find out the truth, right, They're 311 00:21:50,680 --> 00:21:54,560 Speaker 2: sole objective when they employ this technique is to get 312 00:21:54,560 --> 00:21:55,280 Speaker 2: a confession. 313 00:21:56,040 --> 00:22:00,280 Speaker 4: Absolutely. It's intuition plus arrogance. You know that. That's my 314 00:22:00,480 --> 00:22:04,000 Speaker 4: recipe for how this all starts. You have a police 315 00:22:04,000 --> 00:22:08,280 Speaker 4: officer who's done one hundred five hundred one thousand investigations 316 00:22:09,040 --> 00:22:12,000 Speaker 4: and they know who they like for the crime. You know, 317 00:22:12,080 --> 00:22:14,960 Speaker 4: if it's a wife who's dead, they like the husband 318 00:22:14,960 --> 00:22:19,800 Speaker 4: immediately if the husband has a mistress, well that's the clincher. 319 00:22:20,400 --> 00:22:23,679 Speaker 4: So there's all these sort of preconceptions, and then the 320 00:22:23,840 --> 00:22:26,960 Speaker 4: arrogance is that they know because they've done it so 321 00:22:27,040 --> 00:22:29,680 Speaker 4: many times. And you know, part of what we ought 322 00:22:29,680 --> 00:22:32,560 Speaker 4: to recognize here is that when you're doing that, you're 323 00:22:32,600 --> 00:22:36,199 Speaker 4: obviously already thinking the person's guilty, and so confirmation bias 324 00:22:36,560 --> 00:22:39,919 Speaker 4: is going to start leaking in. And this is especially 325 00:22:39,960 --> 00:22:44,400 Speaker 4: true and it's ironic where there's not much other evidence. 326 00:22:44,960 --> 00:22:49,000 Speaker 4: Picture this situation. So there's a vicious crime, just an 327 00:22:49,119 --> 00:22:54,199 Speaker 4: awful uproar in the community, and this police officer believes, 328 00:22:54,880 --> 00:22:58,560 Speaker 4: legitimately believes that this other person is the purp, but 329 00:22:58,600 --> 00:23:02,040 Speaker 4: there's no evidence. The pressure to get that person to 330 00:23:02,200 --> 00:23:08,320 Speaker 4: confess becomes enormous because if you don't, then there's no case. 331 00:23:09,080 --> 00:23:13,560 Speaker 4: And so ironically enough, there's much more pressure to get 332 00:23:13,600 --> 00:23:18,240 Speaker 4: a false confession when there's no evidence. So that means 333 00:23:18,280 --> 00:23:21,920 Speaker 4: there's much more pressure to get a false confession when 334 00:23:21,960 --> 00:23:23,480 Speaker 4: the person is innocent. 335 00:23:24,680 --> 00:23:27,320 Speaker 2: So David walk us through this technique. Let's say you 336 00:23:27,440 --> 00:23:33,080 Speaker 2: have a husband suspected of killing his wife. Police ask 337 00:23:33,119 --> 00:23:35,480 Speaker 2: them to come down to the station. What's the first 338 00:23:35,520 --> 00:23:36,360 Speaker 2: thing that happens. 339 00:23:37,000 --> 00:23:40,000 Speaker 4: What you do in the retechnique is first you isolate 340 00:23:40,080 --> 00:23:43,960 Speaker 4: the person. You put the person in an uncomfortable position, 341 00:23:44,720 --> 00:23:49,080 Speaker 4: You shut them off from any support system, and you 342 00:23:49,200 --> 00:23:53,520 Speaker 4: make them anxious so that they're more susceptible to the 343 00:23:53,960 --> 00:23:56,919 Speaker 4: other techniques that are going to follow, and so the 344 00:23:57,040 --> 00:24:02,440 Speaker 4: person is feeling vulnerable. When you feel vulnerable, you're much 345 00:24:02,600 --> 00:24:07,880 Speaker 4: more likely to give in to pressure, particularly if you're 346 00:24:07,920 --> 00:24:12,879 Speaker 4: all alone in a strange place, surrounded by imposing authority 347 00:24:12,960 --> 00:24:16,560 Speaker 4: figures who have guns. I don't think there's very many 348 00:24:16,600 --> 00:24:21,959 Speaker 4: people who wouldn't feel a bit of panic at that situation, 349 00:24:22,200 --> 00:24:27,000 Speaker 4: just psychological panic. So it's a whole notion of creating 350 00:24:27,040 --> 00:24:30,159 Speaker 4: a situation where you are uncomfortable that you want to 351 00:24:30,200 --> 00:24:34,159 Speaker 4: get out of, and then creating a situation where the 352 00:24:34,200 --> 00:24:38,160 Speaker 4: only way out is to say what those bullies want 353 00:24:38,240 --> 00:24:47,600 Speaker 4: you to say. 354 00:24:48,400 --> 00:24:51,680 Speaker 2: You know, I'm imagining the guy in our hypothetical who 355 00:24:51,840 --> 00:24:57,359 Speaker 2: is probably just overcome with grief from having just lost 356 00:24:57,440 --> 00:25:01,800 Speaker 2: his wife, and then the last place he wants to 357 00:25:01,840 --> 00:25:04,320 Speaker 2: be is where he ends up, you know, in some 358 00:25:04,760 --> 00:25:09,159 Speaker 2: dank room at a police station, and it's you know, 359 00:25:09,400 --> 00:25:13,600 Speaker 2: got no windows, it's always got those uncomfortable chairs and 360 00:25:14,280 --> 00:25:18,119 Speaker 2: they leave them to cool as heels right, and he 361 00:25:18,240 --> 00:25:21,040 Speaker 2: sits there by himself for a while, and then the 362 00:25:21,119 --> 00:25:26,280 Speaker 2: detectives come in and the questions start, and tell our 363 00:25:26,359 --> 00:25:32,080 Speaker 2: listeners what techniques the interrogators use to sort of capitalize 364 00:25:32,200 --> 00:25:33,680 Speaker 2: on his vulnerability. 365 00:25:34,359 --> 00:25:37,320 Speaker 4: What you do during the interview phase is you ask 366 00:25:37,400 --> 00:25:41,080 Speaker 4: a series of questions, some of which are called behavior 367 00:25:41,160 --> 00:25:45,439 Speaker 4: provoking questions, and there are questions that are designed, at 368 00:25:45,520 --> 00:25:49,800 Speaker 4: least in the officer's mind, to provoke responses that they 369 00:25:49,840 --> 00:25:53,480 Speaker 4: can then use to determine whether the person is telling 370 00:25:53,520 --> 00:25:55,600 Speaker 4: the truth or not. So, you know, it might be 371 00:25:55,720 --> 00:25:58,679 Speaker 4: questions like why would somebody be saying that you were 372 00:25:58,680 --> 00:26:02,919 Speaker 4: at the crime scene if you really weren't, Or what 373 00:26:02,960 --> 00:26:05,400 Speaker 4: do you think should happen to the person who did this? 374 00:26:06,200 --> 00:26:10,400 Speaker 4: You know, when you ask a husband, why would your 375 00:26:10,440 --> 00:26:14,560 Speaker 4: own friends be saying that they think that you might 376 00:26:14,720 --> 00:26:18,720 Speaker 4: have done this? And you're thinking to yourself, well, you know, 377 00:26:19,560 --> 00:26:22,840 Speaker 4: maybe some of my friends saw that time when you know, 378 00:26:23,400 --> 00:26:25,679 Speaker 4: my wife and I got into an argument over the 379 00:26:25,720 --> 00:26:29,160 Speaker 4: car or whatever it is. And so you're just trying 380 00:26:29,200 --> 00:26:33,159 Speaker 4: to come up with some explanation because the officer is 381 00:26:33,200 --> 00:26:36,399 Speaker 4: asking you for one, and you minimize it because it 382 00:26:36,480 --> 00:26:39,320 Speaker 4: wasn't a big deal, and so you talk about it, 383 00:26:39,400 --> 00:26:42,199 Speaker 4: and then all of a sudden, that then becomes the 384 00:26:42,280 --> 00:26:45,679 Speaker 4: takeoff point. Well, that wasn't the only time that you 385 00:26:45,720 --> 00:26:48,400 Speaker 4: had an argument, wasn't. No, it wasn't the only time 386 00:26:48,440 --> 00:26:50,840 Speaker 4: we had an argument. Well, let's talk about some of 387 00:26:50,840 --> 00:26:54,520 Speaker 4: the other times you had arguments. And the idea is 388 00:26:54,720 --> 00:26:58,600 Speaker 4: that if you ask enough of these behavior inducing questions, you, 389 00:26:58,640 --> 00:27:02,040 Speaker 4: as a trained police officer, sir, looking at verbal and 390 00:27:02,119 --> 00:27:07,320 Speaker 4: nonverbal cues, you know, hesitation, how their eyes are looking, 391 00:27:07,480 --> 00:27:09,199 Speaker 4: that you can tell if they're lying or not. 392 00:27:10,320 --> 00:27:13,040 Speaker 2: A lot of us have this notion that investigators have 393 00:27:13,119 --> 00:27:15,679 Speaker 2: this heightened ability to tell if someone is lying or not, 394 00:27:16,480 --> 00:27:18,960 Speaker 2: and that's just not the case. We know that there's 395 00:27:19,000 --> 00:27:22,439 Speaker 2: no science to back up that an officer can tell 396 00:27:22,720 --> 00:27:25,199 Speaker 2: if you are or are not telling the truth. But 397 00:27:25,280 --> 00:27:28,359 Speaker 2: that doesn't help the person sitting in that interrogation chair. 398 00:27:29,119 --> 00:27:34,520 Speaker 4: Any answer you give is subject to confirmation, bias, and interpretation. 399 00:27:34,720 --> 00:27:39,640 Speaker 4: And that's why this whole thing is junk science. There's 400 00:27:39,720 --> 00:27:43,920 Speaker 4: no logic to it, there's no basis for it. It's simply, 401 00:27:44,440 --> 00:27:46,760 Speaker 4: let me ask a couple of hard questions and see 402 00:27:46,800 --> 00:27:49,080 Speaker 4: if the person is getting nervous or more nervous. 403 00:27:49,960 --> 00:27:52,800 Speaker 2: Okay, So now the cop is certain, at least in 404 00:27:53,680 --> 00:27:55,639 Speaker 2: his or her mind, that the person in front of 405 00:27:55,680 --> 00:27:59,199 Speaker 2: them committed the crime, even though there's no proof to 406 00:27:59,280 --> 00:28:02,919 Speaker 2: back that job. So what's the next step. 407 00:28:03,840 --> 00:28:08,160 Speaker 4: Now? The goal is to get the confession, especially as 408 00:28:08,160 --> 00:28:12,200 Speaker 4: I said earlier, when there's no other evidence. So the 409 00:28:12,200 --> 00:28:16,199 Speaker 4: tone of the whole conversation changes. It now turns sharp, 410 00:28:16,920 --> 00:28:20,600 Speaker 4: and all of a sudden, the officer says, listen, you know, 411 00:28:20,680 --> 00:28:22,919 Speaker 4: we've been talking for a while and I just have 412 00:28:23,000 --> 00:28:25,680 Speaker 4: to tell you. We know you're guilty. The person says, well, no, 413 00:28:25,760 --> 00:28:29,960 Speaker 4: I'm not, and the officer says, well, don't bother lying 414 00:28:30,000 --> 00:28:33,439 Speaker 4: to me about it. So the person says, no, I 415 00:28:33,440 --> 00:28:36,840 Speaker 4: didn't do it. Well, then can you explain why your 416 00:28:36,960 --> 00:28:41,360 Speaker 4: DNA is on the knife? The officer says, you know, 417 00:28:41,400 --> 00:28:44,200 Speaker 4: maybe it was so horrible that you've blotted it out 418 00:28:44,240 --> 00:28:47,000 Speaker 4: of your memory. You know, maybe that's why you don't 419 00:28:47,040 --> 00:28:49,719 Speaker 4: remember it. But but how do you explain that that 420 00:28:49,840 --> 00:28:53,240 Speaker 4: DNA is on that knife? And there is no DNA 421 00:28:53,320 --> 00:28:57,520 Speaker 4: on the knife? But the officer is now alying to 422 00:28:57,600 --> 00:29:01,920 Speaker 4: the person in order to end use the person to 423 00:29:02,000 --> 00:29:07,000 Speaker 4: be sort of incredulous about his own guilt or innocence. 424 00:29:08,400 --> 00:29:12,760 Speaker 4: And so there are cases where people actually become convinced 425 00:29:12,760 --> 00:29:18,680 Speaker 4: people are innocent, become convinced that, yeah, maybe I actually 426 00:29:18,680 --> 00:29:21,440 Speaker 4: did this, or yeah I did this, and the person 427 00:29:21,520 --> 00:29:26,240 Speaker 4: knows they didn't. But yet if they're told that they did, 428 00:29:26,400 --> 00:29:31,000 Speaker 4: at some point they become convinced that they must have 429 00:29:31,040 --> 00:29:33,400 Speaker 4: done it. Why else would this person be saying that? 430 00:29:34,280 --> 00:29:37,520 Speaker 2: And I think the most important point here is that 431 00:29:37,800 --> 00:29:41,320 Speaker 2: a lot of people think that the police can't lie 432 00:29:41,400 --> 00:29:42,720 Speaker 2: to them. 433 00:29:42,520 --> 00:29:45,120 Speaker 4: And in fact, in most countries they can't. In the 434 00:29:45,160 --> 00:29:48,720 Speaker 4: Great Britain, the cops cannot lie to you about the evidence. 435 00:29:49,120 --> 00:29:51,960 Speaker 4: But our Supreme Court has said, oh no, it's fine 436 00:29:52,000 --> 00:29:54,360 Speaker 4: for you to lie to a suspect about the evidence, 437 00:29:54,360 --> 00:29:57,440 Speaker 4: because after all, he or she knows if he's innocent, 438 00:29:57,920 --> 00:30:02,200 Speaker 4: that it can't be true. That ignores the psychology of it. 439 00:30:02,640 --> 00:30:05,000 Speaker 4: The truth of the matter is that cops are allowed 440 00:30:05,000 --> 00:30:08,920 Speaker 4: to lie during interrogations everywhere in the United States, because 441 00:30:09,000 --> 00:30:12,600 Speaker 4: the United States Supreme Court has said that's not a 442 00:30:12,720 --> 00:30:17,400 Speaker 4: violation of due process, and it's outrageous. Why should they 443 00:30:17,480 --> 00:30:21,360 Speaker 4: be able to lie to you about something as serious 444 00:30:21,480 --> 00:30:24,560 Speaker 4: as a crime. And the evidence of a crime. I'm 445 00:30:24,600 --> 00:30:28,920 Speaker 4: not aware of any other English speaking country where that's okay. 446 00:30:29,120 --> 00:30:32,320 Speaker 4: It's not okay in Canada, it's not okay in Great Britain, 447 00:30:32,600 --> 00:30:35,720 Speaker 4: it's not okay in Australia or New Zealand. We are 448 00:30:35,760 --> 00:30:40,240 Speaker 4: the only country I'm aware of where that's permissible. And 449 00:30:40,840 --> 00:30:44,920 Speaker 4: that's a big, big problem that needs to be corrected. 450 00:30:45,800 --> 00:30:49,480 Speaker 2: I mean, look, I try to put myself in these 451 00:30:49,520 --> 00:30:52,280 Speaker 2: people's shoes all the time, and I think about what 452 00:30:52,280 --> 00:30:55,640 Speaker 2: it would be like if an officer said to me 453 00:30:56,840 --> 00:31:00,640 Speaker 2: that my friend claimed that I murdered someone when I didn't, 454 00:31:01,280 --> 00:31:05,600 Speaker 2: and that there's DNA evidence against me. I mean, I 455 00:31:05,640 --> 00:31:10,960 Speaker 2: would feel just totally screwed, you know, scared alone. And 456 00:31:11,600 --> 00:31:15,480 Speaker 2: you know, after these interrogators confront the suspect, they say 457 00:31:15,520 --> 00:31:18,280 Speaker 2: we have this evidence. They might even tell them that 458 00:31:18,320 --> 00:31:21,280 Speaker 2: they have witnesses that have identified them at the scene. 459 00:31:21,880 --> 00:31:26,000 Speaker 2: They give all of this false, incriminating evidence. This is 460 00:31:26,880 --> 00:31:31,640 Speaker 2: constant psychological pressure being applied to a suspect, and it 461 00:31:31,720 --> 00:31:36,120 Speaker 2: is increasing their vulnerability. Okay, the suspect gets more and 462 00:31:36,240 --> 00:31:42,000 Speaker 2: more scared, more upset, and the detective starts talking about 463 00:31:42,360 --> 00:31:47,720 Speaker 2: the serious consequences and the suspect is starting to get 464 00:31:47,760 --> 00:31:51,360 Speaker 2: convinced that, you know, they're going to go to prison 465 00:31:51,480 --> 00:31:55,200 Speaker 2: for something they didn't do, so tell us what typically 466 00:31:55,280 --> 00:31:56,120 Speaker 2: happens next. 467 00:31:56,920 --> 00:32:01,680 Speaker 4: What happens is the police go into minimization, moral justifications 468 00:32:02,400 --> 00:32:07,240 Speaker 4: excuses for the potential behavior. So they say things like, well, 469 00:32:07,440 --> 00:32:10,000 Speaker 4: you know, we can understand how this might have happened. 470 00:32:10,040 --> 00:32:14,200 Speaker 4: I mean, you know, you may have been provoked, maybe 471 00:32:14,240 --> 00:32:18,560 Speaker 4: this was in self defense. From the minimization, they go 472 00:32:18,720 --> 00:32:23,000 Speaker 4: to two other techniques, and I'll call them active encouragement 473 00:32:23,360 --> 00:32:28,880 Speaker 4: and alternative theories. So active encouragement is they're trying to 474 00:32:28,920 --> 00:32:31,920 Speaker 4: sort of say, you know, we're just trying to help 475 00:32:31,960 --> 00:32:34,440 Speaker 4: you here. It's going to look a lot better for 476 00:32:34,520 --> 00:32:38,200 Speaker 4: you if you explain that this was just because your 477 00:32:38,280 --> 00:32:42,280 Speaker 4: uncle made you do it than if the DA and 478 00:32:42,360 --> 00:32:44,960 Speaker 4: the jury thinks you did this because you're a monster. 479 00:32:45,840 --> 00:32:47,560 Speaker 4: You're telling them that he's going to you're going to 480 00:32:47,600 --> 00:32:51,160 Speaker 4: be charged based on this evidence, and now you're providing 481 00:32:51,200 --> 00:32:55,760 Speaker 4: this lifeline if you will. I've had situations where people 482 00:32:55,800 --> 00:32:58,840 Speaker 4: have been told if you don't confess, you're going to 483 00:32:58,920 --> 00:33:02,440 Speaker 4: get life. If you do confess, we'll treat you as 484 00:33:02,480 --> 00:33:03,640 Speaker 4: a juvenile offender. 485 00:33:04,680 --> 00:33:07,720 Speaker 2: So what's happening here is that the person is told 486 00:33:08,200 --> 00:33:12,160 Speaker 2: you don't really have any good or attractive options. Right. 487 00:33:12,640 --> 00:33:14,920 Speaker 2: They're often told, as you said, you're going to get 488 00:33:15,080 --> 00:33:18,520 Speaker 2: life in prison or even the death sentence if you 489 00:33:18,600 --> 00:33:23,080 Speaker 2: don't confess, and the interrogators tell them that confessing will 490 00:33:23,200 --> 00:33:26,360 Speaker 2: at least get them the better of two horrible options. Right, 491 00:33:26,440 --> 00:33:29,720 Speaker 2: You'll get life instead of the death penalty. It doesn't 492 00:33:29,760 --> 00:33:32,200 Speaker 2: really leave the innocent person with much of a choice, 493 00:33:32,240 --> 00:33:32,560 Speaker 2: does it. 494 00:33:33,320 --> 00:33:37,800 Speaker 4: To top it all off, Josh, if you're innocent and 495 00:33:38,160 --> 00:33:40,800 Speaker 4: all you want to do is get out of that room, 496 00:33:41,040 --> 00:33:43,440 Speaker 4: you know, you've now been in there for two hours, 497 00:33:43,480 --> 00:33:47,880 Speaker 4: three hours, four hours, they haven't accepted any of your denials, 498 00:33:48,520 --> 00:33:52,600 Speaker 4: and now you just wanted to stop. And what you 499 00:33:52,640 --> 00:33:56,280 Speaker 4: think to yourself, if you're innocent, is if I just 500 00:33:56,480 --> 00:33:59,120 Speaker 4: agree with what they're saying. If I just agree with 501 00:33:59,160 --> 00:34:02,360 Speaker 4: what they're saying, this is going to stop. And when 502 00:34:02,400 --> 00:34:05,320 Speaker 4: I get out of here, you know, I can explain 503 00:34:05,400 --> 00:34:08,320 Speaker 4: why this happened, and I and everyone's going to understand 504 00:34:08,320 --> 00:34:10,560 Speaker 4: that I'm innocent because that's what the evidence is going 505 00:34:10,640 --> 00:34:14,520 Speaker 4: to show. Uh. And you know, it just becomes the 506 00:34:14,560 --> 00:34:18,040 Speaker 4: path of least resistance. The other piece you need to 507 00:34:18,080 --> 00:34:20,640 Speaker 4: understand is it's not just a person saying I'm guilty, 508 00:34:21,400 --> 00:34:23,600 Speaker 4: because that's just the first step. 509 00:34:23,840 --> 00:34:26,480 Speaker 2: Right, because a jury's got to be able to believe it. 510 00:34:26,520 --> 00:34:30,080 Speaker 2: The confession has to sound convincing. You know. 511 00:34:30,160 --> 00:34:32,200 Speaker 4: If all it was was the person said, yeah, I 512 00:34:32,200 --> 00:34:34,719 Speaker 4: did it, I don't think a jury's going to give 513 00:34:34,760 --> 00:34:38,360 Speaker 4: that a whole lot of weight. But when the person's 514 00:34:38,400 --> 00:34:43,919 Speaker 4: confession includes details that only the perpetrator could know, well, 515 00:34:44,000 --> 00:34:49,000 Speaker 4: the perpetrator and the police. Once it has those details, 516 00:34:49,520 --> 00:34:53,360 Speaker 4: it becomes persuasive evidence. It's not just why would an 517 00:34:53,400 --> 00:34:57,360 Speaker 4: innocent person confess? It's how would an innocent person know 518 00:34:57,440 --> 00:35:01,400 Speaker 4: these things? And that's where the power comes in, you know. 519 00:35:01,520 --> 00:35:06,120 Speaker 4: It's the details about where the attack occurred, how it occurred, 520 00:35:06,160 --> 00:35:10,600 Speaker 4: what weapon was used, how long it took, what time 521 00:35:10,680 --> 00:35:13,560 Speaker 4: it occurred. All of these are fed into the person, 522 00:35:13,600 --> 00:35:17,279 Speaker 4: you know, with leading questions. So do you remember it 523 00:35:17,320 --> 00:35:19,840 Speaker 4: was about nine pm when you finally entered the house, 524 00:35:20,600 --> 00:35:23,440 Speaker 4: you know? And when you went into the house, do 525 00:35:23,480 --> 00:35:25,480 Speaker 4: you remember that the first place you went was into 526 00:35:25,520 --> 00:35:29,399 Speaker 4: the kitchen and that's where you found the knife. Right, 527 00:35:30,000 --> 00:35:34,560 Speaker 4: So there's all these leading questions that if you're innocent, 528 00:35:35,280 --> 00:35:38,759 Speaker 4: and you're trying to get out of there. You're accepting 529 00:35:38,880 --> 00:35:41,160 Speaker 4: you don't even have to say it, you just say 530 00:35:41,320 --> 00:35:47,000 Speaker 4: yeah or mm hm, and those then get incorporated into 531 00:35:47,040 --> 00:35:50,719 Speaker 4: a written statement. And you've already gone so far as 532 00:35:50,719 --> 00:35:52,359 Speaker 4: to say all this, so you figure, what the hell, 533 00:35:52,400 --> 00:35:54,560 Speaker 4: I'll sign it, and then your life is over. 534 00:35:55,840 --> 00:35:59,799 Speaker 2: So, David, what can we do here? The system keeps 535 00:35:59,840 --> 00:36:03,279 Speaker 2: on on churning out false confessions? How do we get 536 00:36:03,320 --> 00:36:04,200 Speaker 2: this to stop? 537 00:36:05,239 --> 00:36:10,719 Speaker 4: Stop using this particular technique. It's an enormously effective technique 538 00:36:10,760 --> 00:36:14,320 Speaker 4: to get guilty people to confess. We can all agree 539 00:36:14,400 --> 00:36:18,239 Speaker 4: on that. The problem is it's also an enormously effective 540 00:36:18,280 --> 00:36:21,360 Speaker 4: technique to get innocent people to confess. 541 00:36:22,520 --> 00:36:26,239 Speaker 2: I think certain law enforcement officials in this country might 542 00:36:26,360 --> 00:36:29,439 Speaker 2: resist that because they'll think, well, if we don't use this, 543 00:36:29,880 --> 00:36:34,920 Speaker 2: then we are losing this critical tool for getting suspects 544 00:36:34,920 --> 00:36:38,919 Speaker 2: to confess. And if we don't have this, then we're 545 00:36:38,920 --> 00:36:41,800 Speaker 2: not going to be able to convict someone who committed 546 00:36:41,800 --> 00:36:45,440 Speaker 2: a crime. But that's not really the case, right because 547 00:36:45,560 --> 00:36:49,000 Speaker 2: there are other more reliable techniques out there. So tell 548 00:36:49,120 --> 00:36:53,960 Speaker 2: us about some other ways that detectives can obtain a 549 00:36:54,040 --> 00:37:00,680 Speaker 2: confession that doesn't employ or doesn't include employing the re technique. 550 00:37:01,360 --> 00:37:05,759 Speaker 4: In Great Britain, they use a completely different method, and 551 00:37:05,800 --> 00:37:10,640 Speaker 4: it's called the piece method Peacee And you don't try 552 00:37:10,680 --> 00:37:14,520 Speaker 4: to force the conversation in any particular way. You're simply 553 00:37:15,280 --> 00:37:19,479 Speaker 4: conducting a really thorough interrogation or interview that has been 554 00:37:19,520 --> 00:37:22,400 Speaker 4: planned out in advance. You know exactly what you're going 555 00:37:22,480 --> 00:37:25,080 Speaker 4: to ask, you know what you want to talk about, 556 00:37:25,160 --> 00:37:27,440 Speaker 4: you know what you want to ask questions about, you 557 00:37:27,520 --> 00:37:30,240 Speaker 4: know what evidence there is, and so you can judge 558 00:37:30,280 --> 00:37:33,840 Speaker 4: the validity of what the person's saying by the actual evidence, 559 00:37:33,880 --> 00:37:39,000 Speaker 4: not by false evidence. And it's a completely different technique 560 00:37:39,719 --> 00:37:43,480 Speaker 4: and it is not something that results in the kinds 561 00:37:43,520 --> 00:37:47,400 Speaker 4: of false confessions that you see in the United States. 562 00:37:47,800 --> 00:37:54,040 Speaker 4: If there's other evidence, then you don't necessarily need the confession. 563 00:37:54,800 --> 00:37:58,319 Speaker 4: All you may need are some inconsistencies in the person's 564 00:37:58,400 --> 00:38:02,120 Speaker 4: statement to sort of nail the case down. And if 565 00:38:02,160 --> 00:38:06,000 Speaker 4: there is no other evidence, why would you try to 566 00:38:06,320 --> 00:38:10,279 Speaker 4: get a confession where the confession may very well not 567 00:38:10,520 --> 00:38:11,520 Speaker 4: be accurate. 568 00:38:12,400 --> 00:38:15,400 Speaker 2: Now, another part of the problem here that we touched 569 00:38:15,440 --> 00:38:18,640 Speaker 2: on a bit is not just the false confession, but 570 00:38:18,840 --> 00:38:23,120 Speaker 2: also how convincing it ends up being. When it is 571 00:38:23,160 --> 00:38:26,960 Speaker 2: presented to a jury. Is there any insight into what 572 00:38:27,040 --> 00:38:28,960 Speaker 2: other countries do in that regard? 573 00:38:29,880 --> 00:38:32,520 Speaker 4: You know, in the United States, a jury has to 574 00:38:32,560 --> 00:38:35,880 Speaker 4: come back with either guilty or not guilty, and not 575 00:38:35,960 --> 00:38:41,520 Speaker 4: guilty sort of implies innocence. In Scotland, there's a verdict 576 00:38:41,600 --> 00:38:47,359 Speaker 4: called not proven, and I think the verdicts in every 577 00:38:47,400 --> 00:38:51,480 Speaker 4: country should be either proven or not proven, because if 578 00:38:51,480 --> 00:38:57,320 Speaker 4: that was the verdict, the presumption of innocence becomes less 579 00:38:57,360 --> 00:39:01,239 Speaker 4: important in a sense, because the focus is on did 580 00:39:01,280 --> 00:39:04,480 Speaker 4: the state prove its case right? 581 00:39:04,600 --> 00:39:07,479 Speaker 2: Because a journam might be thinking shit, if I say 582 00:39:07,920 --> 00:39:10,840 Speaker 2: not guilty, What I'm really saying is that the person 583 00:39:11,040 --> 00:39:13,759 Speaker 2: absolutely didn't do it. And what I really want to 584 00:39:13,800 --> 00:39:17,359 Speaker 2: say is that who knows. The person may have done it, 585 00:39:17,400 --> 00:39:21,239 Speaker 2: but the prosecution just did improve their case. So if 586 00:39:21,280 --> 00:39:24,759 Speaker 2: you include this other sort of line item or this 587 00:39:24,920 --> 00:39:28,800 Speaker 2: notion that they have in Scotland not proven on the 588 00:39:28,920 --> 00:39:32,320 Speaker 2: verdict form, it would actually be a way to protect 589 00:39:32,520 --> 00:39:35,000 Speaker 2: the presumption of innocence exactly. 590 00:39:35,280 --> 00:39:38,760 Speaker 4: I think that that would go a long way towards 591 00:39:39,520 --> 00:39:42,880 Speaker 4: focusing juror's attention on the actual question. 592 00:39:43,840 --> 00:39:46,680 Speaker 2: These seem to be really big changes that are going 593 00:39:46,719 --> 00:39:49,440 Speaker 2: to take a lot of time and effort to accomplish. 594 00:39:49,920 --> 00:39:52,880 Speaker 2: We like to be able to provide our listeners with 595 00:39:52,960 --> 00:39:55,600 Speaker 2: some insight into what they can be doing to help 596 00:39:55,680 --> 00:39:59,319 Speaker 2: change the system. So what would you tell our listeners 597 00:39:59,520 --> 00:40:03,640 Speaker 2: they can be doing to help effectuate change, especially when 598 00:40:03,640 --> 00:40:08,399 Speaker 2: it comes to wrongful confessions or coerce confessions. 599 00:40:09,360 --> 00:40:13,479 Speaker 4: Please go sit on juris to talk to your fellow 600 00:40:13,560 --> 00:40:16,440 Speaker 4: jurors and talk to your friends and neighbors and co 601 00:40:16,680 --> 00:40:21,160 Speaker 4: workers about these issues. When you hear somebody's confess to 602 00:40:21,239 --> 00:40:25,640 Speaker 4: a crime, go and talk with other people and explain 603 00:40:26,160 --> 00:40:29,720 Speaker 4: that it may not be what it seems, because that's 604 00:40:29,760 --> 00:40:32,640 Speaker 4: how this changes. It changes from the bottom up, not 605 00:40:32,760 --> 00:40:33,600 Speaker 4: from the top down. 606 00:40:35,680 --> 00:40:37,560 Speaker 2: What I want for all of you to take away 607 00:40:37,600 --> 00:40:41,960 Speaker 2: from today's episode is some practical advice. Now you might 608 00:40:42,000 --> 00:40:45,560 Speaker 2: be thinking I'll never be in this situation. This would 609 00:40:45,640 --> 00:40:49,319 Speaker 2: never happen to me. I'm sure that most people that 610 00:40:49,400 --> 00:40:52,520 Speaker 2: have ended up being interrogated by the police thought the 611 00:40:52,600 --> 00:40:55,920 Speaker 2: exact same thing. It's not going to happen to me 612 00:40:57,120 --> 00:41:02,960 Speaker 2: until it does. Unfortunately, your innocence is not a safeguard 613 00:41:03,200 --> 00:41:08,920 Speaker 2: against being incarcerated. As we discussed in this episode, innocent 614 00:41:09,000 --> 00:41:12,759 Speaker 2: people are often more likely to falsely confess than the 615 00:41:12,800 --> 00:41:17,440 Speaker 2: actual perpetrator of a crime for a few reasons. First, 616 00:41:17,800 --> 00:41:20,880 Speaker 2: they think that because they're innocent, they don't need a lawyer. 617 00:41:21,360 --> 00:41:24,799 Speaker 2: They'll just go in there, speak to the cops, tell 618 00:41:24,840 --> 00:41:29,160 Speaker 2: them the truth, and that'll be that. The problem is 619 00:41:29,200 --> 00:41:33,520 Speaker 2: that interrogators who are following the read technique don't take 620 00:41:33,560 --> 00:41:37,279 Speaker 2: the words you say at face value. Instead, they look 621 00:41:37,360 --> 00:41:41,080 Speaker 2: behind the words and look for reasons why those words 622 00:41:41,080 --> 00:41:44,759 Speaker 2: support your guilt. Remember, most of the time, they have 623 00:41:44,920 --> 00:41:48,560 Speaker 2: decided that you were probably involved before you even get 624 00:41:48,560 --> 00:41:51,680 Speaker 2: in that room. That is why you are being interrogated 625 00:41:51,680 --> 00:41:55,880 Speaker 2: in the first place. Another reason why many innocent people 626 00:41:55,920 --> 00:41:59,160 Speaker 2: confess is because none of us are immune from the 627 00:41:59,200 --> 00:42:03,719 Speaker 2: effects of the psychological warfare administered under conditions that are 628 00:42:03,760 --> 00:42:08,359 Speaker 2: simply the perfect storm for vulnerability. And believe me, it 629 00:42:08,400 --> 00:42:11,680 Speaker 2: happens to the toughest among us I have seen it. 630 00:42:11,680 --> 00:42:14,640 Speaker 2: It is simply too difficult to withstand that type of 631 00:42:14,680 --> 00:42:18,960 Speaker 2: pressure until the day comes when we are able to 632 00:42:19,080 --> 00:42:22,240 Speaker 2: enact the type of reform that David talked about, things 633 00:42:22,360 --> 00:42:26,160 Speaker 2: like preventing law enforcement from lying to suspects about the 634 00:42:26,200 --> 00:42:29,880 Speaker 2: existence of evidence tying them to the crime. The reality 635 00:42:30,040 --> 00:42:34,280 Speaker 2: is that we all need to protect ourselves. Preventing false 636 00:42:34,320 --> 00:42:39,239 Speaker 2: confessions starts with an understanding of the tactics investigators use. 637 00:42:40,239 --> 00:42:43,320 Speaker 2: You are now armed with that knowledge, and it should 638 00:42:43,320 --> 00:42:47,200 Speaker 2: always end with if God forbid you ever find yourself 639 00:42:47,239 --> 00:42:54,239 Speaker 2: being interrogated. Is my name is Christopher Ochoa, John Restivo, 640 00:42:55,360 --> 00:43:01,640 Speaker 2: Sante Trible, Clementia Geary, and I want to lawyer and 641 00:43:01,760 --> 00:43:11,120 Speaker 2: you don't answer a single question after that. Next week 642 00:43:11,280 --> 00:43:14,840 Speaker 2: we'll explore the junk signs of roadside drug testing with 643 00:43:15,000 --> 00:43:20,320 Speaker 2: Greg Glaud. Wrongful Conviction Junk Science is a production of 644 00:43:20,400 --> 00:43:24,240 Speaker 2: Lava for Good Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number One. 645 00:43:24,840 --> 00:43:27,719 Speaker 2: Thanks to our executive producer Jason Flamm and the team 646 00:43:27,760 --> 00:43:31,719 Speaker 2: at Signal Company Number One executive producer Kevin Wartis and 647 00:43:31,880 --> 00:43:36,239 Speaker 2: senior producers Kara Kornhaber and Britz Spangler. Our music was 648 00:43:36,239 --> 00:43:39,799 Speaker 2: composed by Jay Ralph. You can follow me on Instagram 649 00:43:39,800 --> 00:43:44,160 Speaker 2: at dubin Josh. Follow the Wrongful Conviction podcast on Facebook 650 00:43:44,400 --> 00:43:47,920 Speaker 2: and on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and on Twitter at 651 00:43:47,960 --> 00:43:48,760 Speaker 2: wrong Conviction