The tickle of curiosity. The gasp of discovery. Fingers running across the keyboard.

The tickle of curiosity. The gasp of discovery. Fingers running across the keyboard.

The World of Iniquus - Action Adventure Romance

Showing posts with label Detective. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Detective. Show all posts

Sunday, August 3, 2014

The All-important Bathroom Break - How to Get Your Villain to 'Fess Up: Info for Writers with Sgt Pacifico



A roll of toilet paper attached to the wall of...
. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Fiona - 
Well Sgt Pacifico, are you ready to finish the last in our interrogation series? The last time we chatted you were headed to the bathroom ...

Sgt. Pacifico - 
Yes indeed...the bathroom break! So remember back in the beginning when we talked about the constitution a little?

Fiona - 

Yup (Miranda Warnings and the 5th and 6th amendments LINK)

Sgt. Pacifico - 
There is another one called the 14th amendment which addresses coercive things cops may do intentionally or unintentionally that can render an interrogation illegal.

Okay, so here is the scenario. The detectives did a great job building rapport. They conducted a proper interview, learning much from the suspect about his body language and truth-telling style (Those things we spoke about earlier LINK). Now we turn into the interrogation part where we start getting him on the fence, and he exclaims, "I really gotta pee! I gotta go to the bathroom. I can't think anymore, and I can't hold it!" Well, how do we know if this is true or not. And it could be true, we gave him fries and a soda, he may actually have to go.

Fiona - 
Some people have small bladders

Sgt. Pacifico -
If we don't stop and give him a break, our interrogation afterward could - not automatically and always, but could - be determined to be coercive in nature because the man confessed so he could avoid soiling himself. Some may find this acceptable, while others find it ridiculous. It doesn't ever matter what you think. Remember, it is what the judge will rule.

But I digress. In order to avoid this issue, we take a bathroom break. We don't even invite him to go; we just shuttle him there. "Well, guys, I think this is a good place to take a break," the detective says. "I gotta use the head. Come on I'll show you where its at," says the detective to the suspect.

Fiona -
Wait. They pee side by side - that just seems... wrong.

Sgt. Pacifico - 
No. Actually, we take the suspect to the secure bathroom, essentially a small observation cell with a toilet, (a small block wall obscures view of the actual commode). Then we go off and use the employee washroom. We leave him in there with his thoughts, and we are free to roam about our office without the fear of him running away because he is locked in the room. Serves those two purposes wonderfully.

However, if he is a non-custodial interview, we can't lock him in there. We have to walk him back into the interview room and leave a guard nearby to ensure he doesn't wonder about in confidential areas, but not seem like he is under guard. Otherwise, it becomes custodial. Remember that part from earlier?

Fiona - 
Yup.   (LINK)

Sgt. Pacifico - 
What we do once the suspect is settled either in the obs room or back in the interview room is gather together in our sergeant's office and go over what we just learned.

The sergeant, and really everyone in homicide who isn't critically busy, will be watching the interview and interrogation. Everyone wants the detectives to succeed, and this is game time. There may be some jabs and jokes here and there, but it's usually pretty serious. There will be no messing around that causes any interruption in the flow of the detectives or the case.

We discuss what we saw and heard. How did he look when he talked about certain aspects of the story? Did he look direct or away? Did his eyes shift differently? Did his body language change dramatically at certain points? How was his tone, tenor, volume and pitch when we changed from topic to topic getting more and more into the story? Did he seem more nervous or more relaxed? What was an obvious lie, what wasn't? What are we going to spend our time on as a theme to get him to give up the like and confess the truth? What roles are we going to play going back into the room?

Fiona -
Do you use computer software to track micro-expressions?
Also, do you use voice analysis to check for pitch?

Sgt. Pacifico  -
We didn't use any software for micro-expressions. None existed at the time, or at least not at the level of the local police agency. Maybe some of alphabets were using it but not us locals. Voice stress analysis was not considered all that reliable. Besides, when you are good at this, it's way better to be there in the moment, knowing what you are doing. It's like an artist with a blank canvas. A true artist can paint the picture without using paint-by-numbers.
You develop a 6th sense

Fiona - 
So, you've huddled up...

Sgt. Pacifico -
We have all agreed on what we think of this guy and his story. We've also agreed on how we are going to approach him to confront his story. Now its time to head in. For. One. Last. Time. 

You see, the reason for the bathroom break is coming into focus. We legitimately all probably needed one anyway, but now when we get in there and into the next phase and start making him sweat, and he pulls out the bathroom card, we can say no. We can say right there on the video, which is all time-stamped, "You just went 20 minutes ago. Stop making excuses for not telling the truth and ......" We can say this and not worry about our tactics being considered coercive. 

In the time we have had him, we fed him, gave him drink, allowed him to smoke, and let him use the facilities, all the while treating him nicely. Kinda hard to call us mean ole' detectives who berated defense counsel clients into submission through our horrible tactics.

Fiona - 
I know you're running through a thought process here, but could you take a moment to list the 14th amendment no-nos?

Sgt. Pacifico - 
Sure, I'll list them from some obvious ones to the not so obvious. 
* Hitting or striking a suspect probably shoots right to the top. 
   (It doesn't work anyway. A detective so unskilled that he resorts
    to hitting a suspect is probably also leading the statement, and
    forcing the suspect to say what he wants anyway. It's just plain
    garbage!) 
* Sleep deprivation caused by rotating fresh detectives for endless
    hours. 
* Multiple detectives shouting and crowding like drill instructors in
   the military. 
* Threats are up pretty high but are the ones the television writers
   use the most and probably don't know are coercive and
   ridiculously illegal. It's also where cops learn to say
   these things. For example, "If you don't tell me what I need to
   know, I'll just book you until you can make bail, put you in the
   cell tank with our worst criminals, and see if you want to tell me
   something after they've had a go around with you. How much do
   you weigh? A buck-fifty? Let's see if you can make it through the
   night." Believe it or not, real cops have said these things and
   they're strait from badly written movies and books.
* Promises is right up there with threats. If I promise leniency or to
   do some favor, then I have entered a quid pro quo that can rule
   the confession illegal. He only confessed for the deal or the
   promise made. This is so prevalent in the movies and
   television. Yet in reality, cops have no authority over charges
   and leniency; that's the prosecutor's office who has that power.
   The suspect in the room ask for deals, thinking the cops
   can make those deals happen like in the movies. It is a real dance
   in there. It's very stressful to essentially tell the guy there are no
   deals. Stop watching television and this is how the real world
   works. But doing it with care. I have on occasion, said, "Dude,
   you watch way too much TV. That shit only happens in your 
   living room. In here, there are no deals made by cops. That ain't
   the law and this isn't television." Feel free to use that line if you
   want.
Then there is withholding food, water, bathroom. 

Fiona - 
Very interesting.
Thank you.
So there's a technique that could be deemed coercive, I guess, where the detective will not allow the suspect to deny the crime...

Do you know what I'm talking about?

Sgt. Pacifico - 
Yes, but that's not coercive, and that's what we indeed do. let me explain.


The hardest thing for new detectives to do for some reason is make a direct accusation. I don't know why that is, but even in interrogation class during mock interrogations they skip over this part. 

What we do when we walk back into the room for the first time after the break is make a strong, affirmative, confrontational accusation. "John, we have completed our investigation. What we have here (pointing to the newly brought in stack of reports and DVDs) is weeks worth of non-stop investigating. Our investigation clearly points to you! You, John, are the one who killed your neighbor!" And then pause....

Interestingly, that short pause you think would give the suspect the appropriate time to deny. The innocent almost always start denying right away. Wanna know how often, loudly and crazily the guilty suspects deny?

Fiona - 
Yup.

Sgt. Pacifico - 
Almost never. Guilty suspects hardly every say anything and make those, "Hmph. Pfft. Sheesh. Yeah right..." 

That's been my experience most of the time. Or the guilty ones start asking questions like, "Why would I do that? I would never do that!" Now LISTEN to what he ACTUALLY said. "Why WOULD I do that?" Future tense and not a denial of the past act. "I WOULD never do that." Also a future tense and not a denial of the past act. A real denial sounds like this, "I did not kill my neighbor. I didn't do it."

Fiona - 
I didn't, I swear!

The use of the formal "did not" and "neighbor" instead of a name are not distancing (lying) techniques in your experience?

Sgt. Pacifico - 
Oh sure, there is far more to it than what I'm giving you here. In this particular area, we spend several hours if not the better part of an entire day in interrogation school. Actually, this notion of what was said and how it was said is talked about all week.

So directly on the heels of making a pointed and direct accusation that the person killed the victim, and without saying, "You are the one who shot, strangled and suffocated the victim" because this is leading. We get the hows and whys later.

Fiona - 
The fine line of coercion here being - "Our documentation points to you." v. "You stabbed Mrs. Cranach!"

Sgt. Pacifico - 
Well, the point is that we make a specific accusation. 

"You Dave, killed your wife! There was no mystery intruder. We know exactly what happened now and have ruled out all other suspects other than you!"

Fiona - 
Okay - I think I have it. You're still saying that you have drawn a conclusion based on documented findings.

Wow, you have to be really on your toes about what pops out of your mouth. Being that vigilant must be mentally exhausting.


Sgt. Pacifico - 
Yes, it can be mentally exhausting, but only afterward. My very last case I ever worked as an active detective was coincidentally one of my most marathon interrogations. I interrogated five equally guilty suspects in a robbery-homicide where they all repeatedly beat their "friend" to death. It took all day from morning until night, one after another. I was never tired during the process. We had already been up two days straight before so with some naps here and there, I was essentially going on 36 hours with little to no sleep. During the interrogations I was wide awake. But after the adrenaline wore off, I couldn't drive home. I had to stop once to sleep for like an hour on the side of the road because I was asleep at the wheel.

Fiona - 
They need a recovery room with a cot for the interrogators.

Sgt. Pacifico - 
We actually have a bunk room. I thought I'd make it home. I was fine until I got into the quiet comfortable car with no more noise, interaction, or need for my brain to function. It turned off like a switch.

Fiona - 
I'm glad you took a rest break and got home safe.
Okay, a while back, I broke into your sequencing for your final brow-beating - er, I mean - stage of the interrogation.

Sgt. Pacifico - 
(Continuing as the interrogator) "Now Dave, (he not yet having said a word of denial other than to feign some disgust at being accused) what I want to talk to you about is the "why." It seems pretty clear to me, based on what we've talked about, that you are a pretty good guy. But I think something happened that day you wish you could take back. Something snapped maybe? Maybe all the stresses in your life that we talked about (Here SPORTS AND HORSES - LINK) earlier were just too much for you to handle today. You came in and saw you wife with another new expensive item you can't afford. It drove you into a rage you couldn't control. I get it..."


At this point, or after many attempts at points like this, we call THEMES, the suspect will start to crumble and stop any and all denials - if any existed - and really hone in on what we are saying. Eventually, they will chose a theme. They lie and make some sort of admission.

Fiona -
What are some of the typical themes?

Sgt. Pacifico -
Well, we can totally lie and bluff! We make accusations to innocent people who wind up being great witnesses because once they think we think they are the suspect - and maybe we had it wrong, they tell us what we need to know. Also, sometimes we are led astray. We make an accusation, and the subject flatly denies it - strongly, assertively, never waivers, and continues down a path of innocent behaviors. We can make the determination they are not our suspect and clear them from the case. I've cleared falsely accused thieves and child molesters who were vindictively accused by friends and ex-lovers of wrong doing. These tactics work to prove innocence as well as determining guilt.

Fiona - 
Oh good.

Can you tell me some innocent behaviors?

Sgt. Pacifico - 
Innocent people don't make excuses. They don't get nervous, they get angry at false accusations. The anger remains with the continued accusation. Fake anger, put on by guilty people changes to something else because they forget to pretend to be angry.


Guilty people try to stall and avoid answering questions and find other topics to try and talk about it. They try and create physical space distance to "run away." 

Innocent people are adamant, clear spoken, forceful in their convictions, look you in the eye. Get loud and may even be somewhat rude when they weren't before hand. Because the continued accusations of the innocent makes you a jerk, the continued accusations of the guilty makes you a guy doing your job. 

The themes come from the discussions in the interview. The phrase I keep repeating throughout the interrogation school I teach cops is this, "If you don't conduct a proper rapport and interview, how are you going to know what to talk about during the interrogation?" 

Bottom line, we talk in the interrogation until they decide that they know this is not going away, that they are caught, and the evidence has them boxed in. Then they start making micro-admissions to see how much trouble they are in or how they can minimize the trouble they're in.

Fiona - 
Once they admit to a crime, do you make them write it out and sign? Or is it okay just to do it on the video?


Sgt. Pacifico - 
Once they confess, the video and audio is all that we need. However, sometimes they want to write an apology letter to the family of the victims, which of course is a written confession. So we let them do that and put a copy on records, of course. 

Well that's really it, I guess for what we can do in this limited time and space. Remember, this is a 40-hour course for basic interviewing and interrogation with another 40 hours of advanced interviewing, forensic handwriting analysis, polygraph is another 80-hour mini-school, and the list goes on. 

We have only touched on some of the basic ideas and tactics. If your readers want to learn more, they should really attend my Writers Homicide School. Sadly, we are not having anymore in 2014. From this point forward we are going to only host one annual WHS per year. It will be a big blow out event in Las Vegas June 6-7. 2015. Then there may be another one in Australia. I've been invited there, and we are working out some details now. 

Also, any writer anytime can sign up for a private consultation to get the specific answers they need regarding interviews and interrogation or ANY aspect of police work they need. They simply go to www.crimewritersconsultations.com and sign up for a private consultation.

Welcome
www.crimewritersconsultations.com

Fiona - 

 Sgt. - thank you so much for going the extra mile with me and finishing out the series of interviews. 


Thank you so much for stopping by. And thank you for your support. When you buy my books, you make it possible for me to continue to bring you helpful articles and keep ThrillWriting free and accessible to all.


Sunday, May 11, 2014

Logic in Your Plotline - Investigatory Thought Choices with Richard McEachin






Fiona -
Today our guest is Richard McEachin

Richard B. McEachin has been an investigator for 40 years. Since 1993, his firm, McEachin & Associates Ltd., has provided research, training, and consulting to private investigators, law firms, due diligence analysts, journalists, public relations professionals, and government. Since 2006, the author has published The Confidential Resource , which is one of the top 10 Private Investigation blogs . He has also appeared in The Toronto Star, the Financial Post, Profit Magazine, and appeared on Canada's most-watched current affairs and documentary program, W-5. He is the author of Sources & Methods for Investigative Internet Research

Richard, you've been consuming a lot of chicken soup this week to help you with your illness. Wouldn't it be nice if we had such a time-tested remedy for investigations that are suffering?

Richard  - 
That's for sure

Fiona

What kinds of things do you see going wrong that would thwart an investigation from a successful conclusion?

Richard -
Most of the problems I see today relate to a lack of understanding of the sources & methods being employed and not knowing all the sources & methods available to the investigator.

Fiona - 
So today we are talking about crime investigation - sometimes the trail goes cold. What are some options an investigator has at that point?

Richard -
Well, fixing an investigation is about the details, logic, and the human factors that caused it to go off the rails.

Fiona -
Let's start there. What kinds of issues might cause a problem to begin with? These will be very interesting to writers because they act as plot twist material.

Richard -
Let's look at some of the human factors. Detectives are people too. All the things that influence a factory worker or witness also have an influence, to a larger or smaller degree, on the Detective. For example, bias. Bias isn't an indication of any evil in this context. If something in the evidence paints a picture of who the culprit might be, then the detective may start believing this and start molding the investigation around that premise.

Fiona - 
Can investigators train to avoid bias?

Richard - 
Yes, just like LEO's (Law Enforcement Officers) can train not to overreact to verbal taunts.

Fiona -
Bias then is a big issue

Richard -
Bias in this context is most often 'pattern matching' or contextual bias. Something in the evidence starts to point you in a certain direction, and you get tunnel vision and don't recognize other possible avenues of investigation or other possible offenders. 
SVG files
 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Contextual bias appears in the 2009 National Academies of Science report on forensic science. In testing fingerprint examiners, they found that supplying the examiner with too much contextual information influenced his identification of the person associated with a sample fingerprint.

The report is here: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12589&page=1

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward
www.nap.edu

Fiona - 
Excellent. Okay, bias. And what else?

Richard - 
The other two things I see often are failures in logic and failures to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the underlying science. I also see a lot of failures to understand the strengths and weaknesses of data sources, but I think that is related to both of the above.

Fiona - 
Great. So our team has dug themselves into a hole of poor logic, bias, and misunderstanding of forensic sciences. How can we get them out?

Richard -
Once you are in a hole, stop digging. I start by
sifting thru the pile of dirt instead.
Question mark
 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I look at how the team presented their case. I look at all the reports and supporting documentation. How they present this material is very telling. It will tell me a lot about their skill level, particularly about handling the details that have a large impact. The presentation of the 'product' of the investigation has a large impact on how the case proceeds.

This material will usually tell me if they used top-down or bottom-up logic. Top-down (deductive) logic is more prone to produce a problem as its conclusion is a certainty. This is not a small consideration when someone's future is at stake.

Fiona - 
I think this is a very interesting point. Can you give me an example that you can take us through using top-down logic and then take
us through again using bottom up logic?

Richard -
Deductive logic requires that every premise is always true or the conclusion is wrong. The conclusion may be logical but wrong because one premise in the argument was not correct throughout the closed domain of the argument.

Fiona - 
So let's make something up - you have a murder scene, at least the inspector assumes it is a murder scene because everyone hated the victim and everyone threatened to kill the victim. When they found the guy's body, it was badly decomposed. But the investigators are running on the assumption that someone must have killed the horrible guy - something like that?

Richard -
Yes. essentially, you have a dead guy. He was hated. Therefore, he was murdered.

Fiona - 

Quick deductive reasoning tutorial -

1. The investigator creates a hypothesis
2. The investigator looks for data that would support his hypothesis
3. When the investigators gathers enough supporting data, they will draw a conclusion.


Quick Inductive reasoning tutorial

1. Start with a small observation or question
2. Works towards a theory by looking at related data/issues (more exploratory than deductive)


Video Quick Study (1:32) Inductive v. deductive reasoning in a nutshell.
Video Quick Study (1:16) Sherlock Holmes deducing correctly enough that he gets a glass of wine thrown in
                               his face.
Video Quick Study (4:26) Monty Python uses deductive reasoning to discover if a woman is a witch or not

Richard - 
Amazon Link
Bottom-up is Inductive logic. The conclusion of the argument is probable based upon evidence that is not certain and cannot form a premise that is always true.

Fiona - 
But on the inductive it would be - I have a dead guy I believe he was murdered and I will now search for the clues to prove that I'm right?

Richard - 
Yup. You got it.

Fiona - 
Okay good - and you prefer the second. The inductive reasoning? If this is correct can you tell me why?

Richard - 
Yes. The closed domain required by deductive logic is very hard to maintain. An example would be GSR testing. Your suspect might have fired the fatal shot. His clothes and hands test positive for GSR. You got the guy--wrong. Many things that are not GSR will test positive. In 2006 the FBI stopped testing for it, in part because all there labs were found to be contaminated by GSR and GSR-like material

Fiona - 
The labs were covered in gunshot residue, and it was contaminating the evidence? Wow. I'm thinking that probably there's GSR on all of my clothes... well, not my bathing suit. Can you wash it off? Suddenly I feel contaminated. Maybe even a little OCD. Also, what might give a false positive?

Richard - 
You can wash it off. Soap & water for the OCD in you. An auto mechanic would probably test positive but someone who fired a .22 rimfire might not as much .22 RF does not test positive in the chemical test.

Fiona - 
Things like that make it very difficult for investigators but help put kinks and twists into a story line. Thank you so much for coming on today. A ThrillWriting traditional question - Can you tell us about your favorite scar?

Richard - 
Scar: nobody notices the good work but they sure will bitch about the bad work

Fiona - 
LOL You are very cryptic. Richard, my great thanks to you for coming in and helping us out today. 


You can catch up with Richard at: his website and blog



My best wishes to you. 

See this article in action in my novella: MINE


Thank you so much for stopping by. And thank you for your support. When you buy my books, you make it possible for me to continue to bring you helpful articles and keep ThrillWriting free and accessible to all.



Sunday, May 4, 2014

Police Interviews: Preparation and Rapport Building with Sgt. Pacifico


____________________________________


detective
detective (Photo credit: olarte.ollie)
Fiona - 
Good morning, Sgt. Pacifico - Thanks for stopping by ThrillWriting.


Today, I have a some questions for you about the interrogation process. I was watching a movie last night where the arresting officer was the one who conducted the interrogation - is that the norm?

Sgt. Pacifico - 
Well, that depends. Was the "arresting officer" as you called him a uniformed police officer who knew nothing about the case and just picked the guy up at someone's request or maybe a warrant? Or was he the one who had conducted the investigation?

Fiona-
In this case, he was on patrol, witnessed the crime, and made the arrest. Can you help me understand why you're making a distinction in your question?



Sgt. Pacifico - 
Sure. First, let me say that in  the scenario you posed, yes he would conduct the interview. Here is how (in most places and agencies) it works. Contrary to television, the vast majority of interviews and interrogations conducted on a daily basis throughout law enforcement are done by uniformed patrol officers. 

Although the best interrogators are often displayed as detectives -and this is often true - there are far more interrogations and inteviews happening in the uniformed ranks. 

Detectives don't steal cases from patrol officers and start interrogating a suspect without knowing the case very well and having done some of their own work on it. Just like the FBI doesn't come in with their hands on their hips and take cases away from local police departments. 

English: Omar Khadr is interrogated by two Can...
English: Omar Khadr is interrogated by two Canadians (faces obscured) while a female CIA agent oversees. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
A detective will conduct an interrogation of a suspect after he has been assigned the case through an administrative process, or if it is the natural assumption of the major case in progress that detectives respond to from the very beginning. In the natural order of things, as the police officers are no longer needed at the scene, they are relinquished back to handling calls in the field.

Something to consider, if we had complete control over the investigation process, the very last action we want to take is to interrogate the suspect. Often that is done very early in a case both in real life and also in fiction. But it is a mistake.

Now the reality is, sometimes we don't even know our suspect is our suspect when we first talk to them. We may think he is a witness....we just don't know either way. I hated it when my suspects would be put in my lap at the early stages of the investigation, and I didn't have enough knowledge to interrogate properly. Asking questions to which we don't know the answer is a dangerous area to be in.


Fiona - 
At what level of concern will a case require a detective to join the team?

Sgt. Pacifico - 
Detectives get involved in cases for a couple of different reasons. Most often it is a manpower issue. The detective doesn't need to fly off to some other call and can spend all day, or the next three days or intermittently the next three weeks working the case. Patrol officers have to field numerous calls every day and be as available as possible for dealing with emergencies - domestic fights, bar fights, traffic crashes, fires, medical emergency calls (we are sometimes the closest unit to a medical call) and any other 911 you can think of. 

So if we have a major case brewing that is going to require a lot of coordination, follow-up and by its nature is too enormous for patrol to handle, then detectives are requested by the field supervisor. In most cases this is a sergeant. But then there are those cases which naturally get detective calls without any further ado: homicide, severe crimes against children, some rapes, bomb and arson cases for sure, and some serious assaults

Fiona - 
Some rapes?

Sgt Pacifico - 
Me grilling Dan McD in Law & Order SVU's inter...
Me grilling Dan McD in Law & Order SVU's interrogation room (my buddy MikeC works on the show and let us look around the set!) (Photo credit: dpstyles™)
The reason for the "some rapes" is this - If the case is pretty basic in its investigative properties (readers follow the technical answer not anything emotional here), and you have a seasoned officer with great interrogation skills who is a renowned investigator, and you can spare him from patrol, there is no reason to call a detective. 

A basic investigation might include a date rape. Here a friend/acquaintance or family member is the suspect. The location is accessible. And, there is easily obtainable evidence because it was the victim's or suspect's residence. Also, all involved parties are local and available. A good patrol cop will handle this. 

A stranger rape, unknown suspect with extreme violence, a crappy outdoor and contaminated scene or a late reported case where evidence is lost...that is going to need a heck of lot more work and a detective will likely spend weeks if not months on it. 

Remember, detectives don't just materialize from no where as super interrogators. It's those great street cops that we promote to detective. On Friday, he was a street patrol officer; but come Saturday morning, his orders are effective, and he is now officially a detective. The only thing that changed was his clothing

Fiona-
Thank you for clarifying. I feel better.

How might early interrogation or interviews interrupt a good outcome - good meaning finding the guilty person and removing them from society?

Sgt Pacifico -
Well, the interruption of getting a suspect too early is that without any evidence to provide the investigator with confidence he is the person, it takes a lot of the power of the performance away from the interrogation. That is part of the preparation. Knowing what we know that only the suspect and cops could know. Having some form of proof of his involvement, OR having such knowledge of something that we know we can bluff him with evidence that doesn't exist, but he would believe does exist. That is a whole discussion on themes that we will engage in the future.

Fiona - 
Okay so let's say the crime is one of the one's you listed earlier. The police chief wants to put his crack, A+ detective on the scent. What does the detective do prior to entering the interrogation room? (Besides making sure he had an in and out burger a bathroom break and a cig)?

Sgt. Pacifico - 
Interrogation (255/365)
Interrogation (255/365) (Photo credit: andrewrennie)
First of all, the chief ain't involved. That is done by the captain of the division. The chief is running the entire department, (unless we are talking about the small 15 man departments, then yes he might become directly involved in making personnel requests.) 

If a detective is involved in the case at the late hour and was not part of the investigation and now being brought in, he will indeed make sure about the food, water and bathroom and then he will sit down with the investigating officers and get completely briefed on the case. That could take 10 minutes to the better part of an hour. Hence, the In-N-Out Burger is vitally important to obtaining rapport after the detective enters. (And thanks for reminding me that I'm hungry...) 

A good detective will also go over the suspects rap sheet and any written information on the suspects history available. It is in these little bits of history and truths that we know that we can use to test a suspects honesty. 

We want to know as much about a suspect as we can before entering the room to give us an edge. 

Lastly, we need to determine his status. Is he indeed in custody or did he come voluntarily? If he came voluntarily, did he ride in a cop car? If so was he handcuffed? In the cage portion or up front? All these things matter - they help determine the potential defense issues as to whether or not there was defacto custody or not. Bottom line, do we need to do Miranda or not based on the current set of circumstances.

Fiona - 
Now that our detective is up to speed. How does he build the all important rapport necessary to get a confession? Also, concerning Miranda - will the detective who comes in read the miranda rights just to CYA?

Sgt. Pacifico - 
No, with Miranda warnings, we don't automatically read them like on television. If he is NOT in custody we do not need to advise him of his constitutional rights per the Miranda decision if we are NOT going to ask him questions against his self interest or regarding information related to the case in chief. 

As part of the rapport building phase, like in any interview including a hiring one, there is usually chit-chat to break the ice. The cops and crook are strangers to each other most often, and there is a need to get to know each other. So we talk about what I call "sports and horses."

However, before we ask any questions that could illicit an incriminating response AND we plan on keeping him now in custody, then we will need to advise him of Miranda. If though, we are going to let him go regardless of what he confesses to, then we don't have to do a miranda warning. But see, now we are getting back to our previous Miranda discussion. Like I said, there are a bunch of variables to Miranda situations that takes hours and days to discuss and learn.

Fiona -
What might a sports and horses discussion look like - "Hi, I'm Sgt Pacifco. I'd like to put your butt in jail for the rest of you life - hey, did you catch the Nicks' game?

Sgt. Pacifico - 
Well, cut out the first part, and you got it right. "Hey there, I'm Derek, this funny looking, lanky guy over here is my partner Rick. Don't mind his gawdawful tie, his wife is out of town and didn't lay out his clothes for him this morning. You get something to eat? You gotta piss?" 

And it goes on from there - "You a baseball fan? Me too. Can you believe Jeter is retiring? I'm kinda glad. He should go out on top. Don't want to see him stay past his abilities. I'll bet he'll be on the networks doing commentary before next spring training." And away we go.... maybe for a half-hour, a full hour.

Then using the prep work, we ask some questions we know the answer to in order to establishing his truth telling style, his truth baseline. Even a mass murdered isn't going to come in and lie about their hobbies, the weather and conversational stuff. Knowing what his full legal name is, we will still ask him to tell is his name. We want to see where that takes us. If his legal name is William Mark Smith, and you call him Will, William or Bill only to find out he hates his first name and goes by Mark, then you have started on a hated foot.

Fiona - 
So whether you like it or not - you have to read the sports page.

Sgt. Pacifico - 
No, you don't need to read the sports pages. For many years I didn't know enough about sports and really still don't - only baseball. As my son got more involved in playing, we started watching it more. That's why the sports and horses comment. I once had this 15 year old female murder suspect who was neither sport, music, or artfully aware of the world, but she loved horses. Fortunately, I finally found something to talk to her about. Having some knowledge of horses from a summer I spent with some folks who had a horse ranch, I knew enough to ask my suspect questions and have some conversation about something she liked that broke the ice and allowed us to have a meaningful conversation. All the while, I'm reading her facial expressions and body language as it related to something she was comfortable speaking about.

Fiona - 
This is very helpful information - obviously the interview process is key. I'm looking forward to your next visit so we can continue learning some of the tricks of the trade. In the mean time, can you tell me how things are shaping up for the Writers' Homicide School? I bet your novelists are compiling their lists of questions to bombard you with.

click HERE

Sgt. Pacifico - 
I look forward to it as well! The Writers Homicide School is having its next session on June 9-10 in Las Vegas, Nevada. We have writers coming in from as far away as Australia and Canada. Registrations are on sale now, but we will be closing off ticket sales pretty soon so the crowd isn't too big to handle. So if you want to get a ticket, you'd better get in soon. We have a variety of packages available at THIS LINK


Thank you so much for stopping by. And thank you for your support. When you buy my books, you make it possible for me to continue to bring you helpful articles and keep ThrillWriting free and accessible to all.



P.S. If you found this blog article helpful, you might also want to read these other ThrillWriting articles featuring Sgt. Derek Pacifico:
Enhanced by Zemanta