In many contexts on this WEB site we have written
about the phenomenon of false confessions. A false confession
can occur in a variety of contexts. For example, in high profile
murders, it is not uncommon for more than one person to walk
into police precincts and voluntarily confess to the crime. Clearly
not all can be guilty, and in most cases none are guilty.
The more difficult problem for our work
is the false confession that often occurs as a consequence of
repeated interrogations. The belief is that no one would ever
admit to a crime not committed. Investigators will then conceive
of the problem as follows: to interject psychological techniques
that will "allow" or the person to tell the truth.
In some cases the techniques involve expressions of empathy,
others might involve the "drama" of "good cop,
bad cop." Others might involve the creation of extraordinary
emotional discomfort. In the end the confession might result
from what amounts to coercion. And the investigator's assessment
is generally as follows:
- If the accused admits to the crime, he
is telling the truth;
- If the accused does not admit to the crime,
he continues to lie.
Stephen Talmadge, a member of the Medical
Services Corps of the United States Navy, provides us with a
case study of what he believes is a "possible" false
confession. The case involves a member of the military who was
accused of "acquaintance rape." He initially asserted
that he did not commit the rape. Subsequent interviews included
the use of the a polygraph examination and extended questioning
by the interrogator. In each case he was told that he had not
passed the lie detector examination. (The author did not write
"did not pass," but instead wrote, "was told"
he had not passed the exams. It would be interesting to know
whether those assertions by the interrogator were true.) In the
end the accused signed a written confession to the alleged sexual
attack. He subsequently was acquitted.
In the course of his review, Dr. Talmadge
asked the accused to take a battery of psychological tests, some
measuring the degree to which he was both suggestible and compliant.
Based on these results the author determined that he was compliant,
but not necessarily suggestible. He also exhibited a high degree
of "self-monitoring." According to the author:
...The defendant's score suggests that,
out of a concern for social appropriateness, he is particularly
sensitive to the expression and self-presentation of others in
social situations and uses these cues as guidelines for monitoring
and managing his own self-presentation and expressive behavior.
The author at various points in the article
addresses the issue: was the confession true, or was it the result
of the defendant's psychologically succumbing to the various
ploys presented by the interrogator? For example, in relation
to the "self-monitoring" issue noted above, the interrogator
on at least two occasions, "...reminded him again of the
impact that his forgetfulness might have on his commanding officer."
Regardless, the author emphasizes that he cannot say for certain
that the confession was false, however given the acquittal and
the psychological evidence available, it certainly would be possible
that the confession was simply not a correct rendition of the
facts.
Perhaps the most interesting point Dr.
Talmadge makes is the first sentence of his last paragraph: "In
this case, the defendant was acquitted because the prosecution
did not have a strong case other than the defendant's confession."
Perhaps this is one of limits of many "he said/she said"
cases involving alleged sexual misconduct. But it reminds us
that focusing on the target of the investigation too soon can
be self-defeating. The investigator's job is to collect all the
relevant facts and collect them correctly before drawing
an investigatory conclusion.