Interrogation, the formal interview of a subject, is one of the most important skills of an investigator. It is a skill learned through the conduct of a great many interviews and the patient and continuing observation of human nature. The wise investigator knows that the development of interview skills is a life-long process. Every interview conducted, every book read on the subject, and every conversation with another investigator is an opportunity to learn these skills. The purpose of this article is simply to furnish a few strategies and techniques for your consideration.

"Hey Joe, got your yearly letter from that creep I see," growled Al as he sorted through the stack of incoming papers in their mutual mailbox. Joe and Al had been assigned to the homicide squad for over twelve years, and although their methods differed, each had put his share of killers in jail during that time.

Joe glanced at the letter Al had tossed to him, opened it and began reading:

October 14

Dear Joe,
It's been just over five years now, and I just wanted to let you know I still haven't forgotten what you did for me. If it hadn't been for you...

"You know, Joe," interrupted Al, "I'll never figure that one out. We had nothing on that guy. There wasn't a shred of evidence that he had killed that girl. God knows I tried to find some; I beat the bushes for months for nothing--no witnesses, no forensics, nothing. He knew it too because when I realized we had nothing to lose, I took a shot. I tried to convince him that we had enough to hang him. He just laughed and told me to go ahead and try it."

"Then you come along and shoot the breeze with him--and he spills his guts even though you didn't have a damn thing to offer him. If I live to be a hundred, I'll never understand."

Joe resumed his reading:

...I would have remained a prisoner, just like you said. Not behind a wall, but in my own mind, and that would have been far worse. Deep down, I knew it all the time, but you were the one who helped me admit it. Nobody else understood or cared. Thanks for setting me free. Come see me sometime if you get a chance. I'll be here.

Billy G., State Prison

This letter--although apocryphal--illustrates an often disregarded point--that without using illegal or unethical practices, some investigators can and often do solve cases even when no witnesses or evidence exists. The following excerpt touches on just a few of the principles and techniques that unlike the bewildered detective above, successful interrogators understand and apply.

Many interrogation instructors receive inquiries regarding the latest developments and most innovative techniques in their field. They often respond by suggesting that nothing has yet replaced persuasion as the most effective method for obtaining confessions. By persuasion they mean establishing credibility and then providing logical and/or emotional reasons for the person to behave in a certain way. The originator of this idea, Aristotle, died in 322 BC. Although it sounds simple, applying it involves an infinite number of variables that interrogators must consider. They must have an understanding of human nature and use it to:

• Select the optimum time and location;
• set the scene appropriately;
• choose the proper approach; and
• maintain enough flexibility to adapt and change when it becomes apparent that their original ideas are not working.

The ability to consistently meet these challenges defines the true professional who understands all of the following topics and many others.

Whether trying to convince a customer to buy a product or a suspect to tell the truth, the chance of success increases with the appropriateness of the sales pitch. Many lost sales result from trying to use the same pitch with every customer--and interrogators lose many confessions using the same approach with every suspect. The following is a sample of a vastly overused, generic sales pitch:

You know, what you are doing here is really stupid. If you think sitting here telling me you didn't do it is going to make it so, you're just being foolish. We've already got enough to arrest you, and it's only a matter of time until we'll have enough evidence to put you away for years.

Right now you got a chance to help yourself. Once we have all the pieces put together--and that won't be long--it will be too late for you. As the guy who sells oil filters says, "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later." The difference will be in how much it costs. I suggest you tell us now while you can still do yourself some good. Pay us now before the cost goes up.

This "oil filter" sales pitch, "You can pay me now or pay me later," although it has nearly universal application no matter what the crime, often does not produce an admission of guilt. Unfortunately, many interrogations begin and end with this theme. If it does not succeed, the interrogators fail because they know no other approach. Good interrogators usually will begin with an argument more tailored to the specific suspect and crime. Doing so increases the chance of success.

The ability to select the proper argument often distinguishes successful interrogators from the rest. Usually, they attribute this ability to intuition--the old "gut reaction." They therefore cannot help others who try to emulate them. What they regard as intuition is often the subconscious processing of information received from various sources such as records, case files and interviews.

Most suspects who refuse to confess do so because they fear that something bad will happen. Recognizing the specific fear often enables an interrogator to present a theme aimed at reducing this inhibition. The variety of fears defies description. Suspects may fear such things as: losing their jobs, going to jail, embarrassing themselves or their families, losing their loot, looking like a rat, or receiving a death penalty. Interrogators should identify the suspect's fears--successful interrogators do.

Many investigators have experienced frustration when they try to reduce what their common sense tells them should be the suspect's main fear. Unfortunately, logic often has little to do with the suspect's thought process. Interrogators often fail to listen to the suspect and thus fail to discover his/her real concerns. Although they may hear the suspect's words, they cannot or will not accept them. This often results in an exchange similar to the following:

Inter: I need to get your side of the story. I think you acted on the spur of the moment. If you planned this, you could be facing a death sentence. I don't think you deserve that, but I need your help to establish that.

Suspect: I don't want to go to jail tonight for something I didn't do.

Inter: I don't want to put you in the gas chamber for something you didn't plan.

Suspect: If I say I did it, are you going to put me in jail tonight?

Inter: I can't say; that's beyond my control, but I do know that manslaughter or even second degree murder beats the hell out of walking that last mile.

Suspect: I know I waived my right to an attorney, and I meant it. However, if I say I want an attorney, can I stay here till he comes rather than being put in a cell?

Inter: No, you cannot, and I can't promise what an attorney will do. However, I do know there is nobody on death row who got there without an attorney.

The investigator here has allowed logic, reason, and a normal sense of priorities to get in the way of hearing what the suspect regards as important. With many criminals, only the short term or the immediate future matters. Fear of going to jail that night looms foremost in this suspect's mind. To most people, a night in jail pales when compared to the death penalty, but this does not matter because only the suspect counts. Good investigators know this and try to allay the suspects' fears rather than addressing those that logic would suggest:

Inter: I'm not interested in causing you any extra problems. In fact, I'm willing to work with you as long as it takes to get this resolved. It's getting late, but I'm willing to spend all night here if that's what it takes. There is no way we can finish this up before morning gets here. I can certainly say that getting the whole truth regarding this matter will keep you from being put in a cell tonight. It is very important that we get the whole truth, don't you think?

Suspect: You're right, and I didn't plan it, and I didn't mean to kill him. He made me so damn mad that without thinking, I grabbed the poker from the fireplace and hit him with it.

The suspect has now begun to focus on the initial appeal and to see the logic of accepting it. However, this occurred only after the interrogator put the fear of immediate lockup to rest. Interrogators must not allow their own value systems to cloud their understanding of a suspect. If they do, they will usually fail.

A bank teller suspected of significant embezzlements confessed to an interrogator who offered to take care of her cat. An arsonist confessed when assured that his crime would not be a front page story. A burglar confessed when assured he would not have to wear prison clothes before being sentenced. A juvenile admitted to murder when told that the investigator would explain things to his parents. None of these would have occurred if the interrogators had insisted on using the generic sales pitch, "Pay me now or pay me later."

Parents stress the need to live by the golden rule, "Do unto others...," and in theory, it has merit. However, when it comes to motivating others, the golden rule succeeds only when the "doer" and the "doee" want the same treatment. Usually the value systems of law enforcement officers vary significantly from that of the average suspect. Appealing to values that are important to themselves rather than to the suspect prevents many interrogators from obtaining confessions.

To illustrate why this happens, you only need look at how law enforcement personnel's perceptions differ from those of the criminal element. Many instruments developed to measure personality traits, value systems, communication styles and other facets of human nature illustrate these differences. Although each instrument has its own nuances, most have many aspects in common.

One such instrument developed by psychologists, David Keirsey and Marilyn Bates, categorizes people into four temperaments, two of which equally divide 76 percent of the population. Amazingly however, based on results provided by many groups of police officers and FBI agents, more than 80 percent of them fall into one category. Keirsey and Bates have termed those of this temperament, "guardians," people who value stability and tradition. A sense of duty and a need to serve motivate this group. These characteristics seem to cause many of them to select and remain in law enforcement. These "guardians" also rely on this set of values when attempting to influence the behavior of others:

Joe, there's no doubt that you were involved in ripping off the insurance company, and you're going to have to face the consequences for your actions. However, you didn't do it by yourself, and we need to know who the others were.

I've checked your background and I know you were raised in an environment that taught you right from wrong. I also know that you spent a couple of years in the military and got an honorable discharge. Based on this, it should be easy for you to see why we need to get the truth. Unless rules are followed, our society would break down and things would be in chaos. Each of us has a duty to see that this does not happen.

Right now you're thinking in terms of not being a rat regarding your friends. Let me tell you a few things: first, they are not your friends to get you in a fix like this. You don't owe them a thing. Second, you have a duty to do your part to keep this society together. You need to face this like a man and do the right thing as you were raised and trained to do.

To most law enforcement personnel, this argument makes complete sense. Everybody has a duty to do whatever possible to make the world a better place. They learned this at home and had it re-enforced by various social institutions such as the church, school, scouts, and the military. Thus, an interrogator might think: "How can anybody not see this? Everybody knows this. I'm merely verbalizing the obvious so the suspect will find it easy to agree."

Unfortunately, the above assumptions do not have universal application. Although everybody may understand the words being spoken, to much of the population, this appeal to duty falls on unreceptive--if not deaf--ears. It often produces a response such as:

I don't have any idea what you're talking about. Besides, I don't owe anybody a damn thing. What has society ever done for me?

When this happens and no confession results, the typical officer reverts to the oil filter theme, pay me now or pay me later. If this fails, the interrogator often quits.

The urge to persuade or motivate others by using our own value systems has great appeal. We have difficulty grasping the idea that something so important to us would have so little effect on somebody else. Instead, if unsuccessful, we often assume that they must not have heard or understood us. We therefore repeat ourselves, usually at a higher volume. Not recognizing that other value systems dominate the world in general and the criminal world in particular has caused many interrogators to fail.

Just as guardians make up 38 percent of the general population but dominate law enforcement, another group, known to Keirsey and Bates as Artisans, also make up 38 percent of the general population and seem to dominate the criminal element. They do so because their temperament inclines them to do things just for the joy of doing them. Although any profession may attract someone of this temperament, most of these people gravitate to professions that provide opportunity for freedom and spontaneity. What profession can offer more freedom than one that requires no adherence to any rules? Most criminals choose their way of life because of the freedom and thrills that such a life provides. The interrogator must use something besides duty and honor to appeal to these people:

Sure you were involved in ripping off the insurance company; that's not the question. You're going to be convicted and sentenced, and you're going to do your time. The question is, how are you going to do that time? I'm not offering you any deal such as a shorter sentence or better conditions, but I will give you a chance to do more than just sit on your behind for your entire jail term.

As you probably know, the prison where you would go if you plead has lots of problems, both with the inmates and the staff. I could use a source inside to give me some information, and you would be good at it if you wanted to be. It wouldn't be easy however. You would have to sell yourself to a bunch of dangerous men who wouldn't hesitate to kill you. It sure would be a kick in the ass, though.

I could provide you with a code name, and we can work out how we can pull this off. We'll have to develop a system so we can communicate. However, I can't do a damn thing until your current charges are resolved. Why don't you just tell me the whole story, and we can go from there?

Upon hearing the above, many law enforcement officers would scoff with disbelief. This pitch falls so far outside their value system that not only would they not accept such an appeal, they cannot fathom anybody doing so. As a result, given the temperament of most criminals, these officers will never become effective interrogators. Instead, they will continue to stress the qualities of common sense, duty and honor. These qualities really do not make much of an impression on the typical criminal. Offering them something that appeals to their desire for excitement and adventure has a better chance of success.

In his book, Influence, John Cialdini discusses various techniques used by merchants to trigger acceptance of their products. He tries to alert his readers to these tactics so they can avoid buying things they really don't want. Although interrogators sell the idea of confession rather than a product, they can often use many of the same ploys. These techniques essentially fit Aristotle's directive that after establishing credibility, one must provide logical and/or emotional reasons to get people to act as desired.

Humans have a very strong tendency to attribute acceptability to anything done by enough people. After all, how could that many people be wrong? This results in advertisements such as:

Of all of the cigarettes on the market today, Ole' Lung Busters is the number one selling brand. Don't stay on the outside looking in, join the crowd that's in the know.

The above statement will sell the product because it enables people to rationalize their behavior. Never mind that irrefutable evidence shows that cigarettes will kill you. Interrogators too can appeal to this tendency to join the crowd by suggesting:

Don't sit there thinking you're the only one who's done this sort of thing. I've been in this business a long time, and let me tell you, I see this sort of thing every day. I'm not saying you're right, but most people in your position would have done the same thing.

Just as with the cigarettes, it must be all right, everybody is doing it. This approach can sell cigarettes, confessions, and many other improbable things. People "go along to get along," from something as silly as having their ears pierced so they can dangle trinkets from them, to something as tragic as the Jonestown mass suicide, where over 900 people got in line so they and their children could drink a cyanide-laced drink. Good interrogators recognize the power of social acceptance and use it where they can.

A real estate dealer trying to close a deal might use the following:

I know you're torn between buying this house and looking at some more. I can understand that the perfect house might be out there somewhere, and I'm willing to keep going as long as you wish. On the other hand, I know for a fact that another couple will be making an offer on this one this afternoon, an offer just a few thousand dollars below the asking price. I believe the owner will accept it. If you want this one, you'd better grab it now because it's not likely to be here tomorrow.

How many of us have made purchases based on the premise that if we did not act at once, we would lose the opportunity? By creating an artificial deadline, often with no factual basis, merchants speed up and even cause many transactions. Phrases such as, "limited offer," "while supplies last," and, "sale ends tomorrow," all serve to push potential customers into a decision. Investigators can convey this sense of urgency to a vacillating suspect who continues to weigh the pros and cons of cooperating:

As we speak, investigation of this case is going on two fronts. Technicians from the lab are sifting through piles of evidence that may give us all the answers we need. At the same time, detectives are out beating the bushes talking to everyone who might be able to resolve this case. Once either of these groups hits paydirt, and they will, your usefulness to us is over, and the prosecutor certainly won't take your cooperation into account. I'm not making you any promises, but if you have any hope of being cut a little slack, you better act now.

"Rome wasn't built in a day." Many merchants know how to apply this old saying. They recognize that by getting a potential customer to first agree with them on some point, they can ultimately use this agreement to make a sale. They proceed one step at a time:

You are interested in your daughter's future aren't you sir? I thought you were, how could you not be? It's because of that interest that I'm here to talk to you today. In today's high-tech world, old-fashioned values often get pushed aside. These values make the difference between a totally materialistic adult and one who has her priorities in order. As you said, you are interested in her future and that's why I want to show you our collection of classic literature, literature that can help promote the values you say you want for your child.

Believe it or not, this seemingly blatant sales ploy succeeds with some regularity. It does so because the vendor manipulates the customer into proclaiming an interest in the child's future. Once proclaimed, the customer feels obligated to concur with everything said by the seller that appears to support this interest. The seller need not get total compliance at once: "Do, you want to buy some classic literature?" would not sell many books. Instead, a minor non threatening commitment regarding a child's value system serves as the starting point for a final agreement to purchase the product.

Interrogators too can sometimes use this principle. By obtaining a minor admission and using that as a starting point, they can ultimately arrive at the truth. They might proceed as follows:

Your story just doesn't make sense. For you to sit there and deny that you were at the scene where this woman says you raped her will never hold up; it's stupid. It can be verified that you were there and not at home watching TV as you claim.

There are always two sides to every story, mitigating circumstances that make a difference regarding who is at fault. However, as long as you deny being present, none of these can be discovered. Unless shown otherwise, human nature has a tendency to think the worst of each other. Don't let them think the worst of you; quit being stupid; take this opportunity to give your side of the story. You were there weren't you?

The interrogator does not try to achieve a confession at this point but merely wants the suspect to concede some point that he would not admit before. He wants the suspect to admit only that he was at the scene of the crime, something he initially denied.

Once obtained, the interrogator can use this concession to continue in a step-by-step process to get additional admissions. At best it may result in a complete confession. At least, it has put the suspect in the vicinity of the crime. This may suffice to convict the culprit when viewed with the other case facts. The interrogator's initial willingness to accept less than a total confession can often achieve the ultimate goal, the truth.

Most people who receive favors feel indebted to those who grant them, and feel compelled to respond in kind. Typically this response will far exceed the magnitude of the original favor. This may hold true even when the recipient neither requested nor wanted the initial favor. A few years ago a religious cult assigned its members to airport duty. They would accost people with the statement, "This is my gift to you," while presenting the traveler with a wilted, often mutilated flower. The recipients in turn would often donate money to them.

Observation showed what the recipients thought of these flowers. Once out of sight of the cult member, they would throw them in the nearest trash can. An accomplice of the cult member would also observe this and would retrieve the flowers for reuse as gifts to future victims.

Even gracious acceptance of a refusal can fit the category of a favor. Not making people feel guilty about declining to do something requested of them makes them feel grateful. They are more apt to grant the next request made of them. A phone call to me from a solicitor for a worthy charity will illustrate this ploy:

Sir, as you know, our organization is dedicated to wiping out a dreaded disease, one that often attacks adult males. The secret to defeating this disease is research. That costs money--money that must come from donations.

We have determined that the best way to secure these donations is to have esteemed members of the community like yourself solicit funds from the neighborhood where they reside. If you would agree to do this for us, you would be doing a real service for us, for the community and ultimately, for yourself.

The solicitor, in building a seemingly valid case for his cause, used several ploys, each designed to make it difficult to decline his request. First, he explained the worthiness of his cause. Second, he personalized the project by portraying me as a prime benefactor, and third, he appealed to my ego by describing me as an esteemed member of the community. However, I dread soliciting from door to door, so I offered some lame excuse and declined, fully expecting the solicitor to make me feel guilty for my refusal and then to apply pressure to get me to change my mind. Nothing could have been further from the truth:

Don't give it a second thought sir. I understand completely. Some of us have commitments that preclude us getting involved in such time-consuming activities. Others have personalities that make door to door soliciting an ordeal, and I certainly wouldn't want to impose that burden on anybody.

I'm very appreciative that you took the time to listen to what I had to say. Perhaps you might give some thought to doing it sometime in the future. By the way, while I have you on the phone, I'm also soliciting pledges from those people who are interested in helping. How much of a pledge can I put you down for this year?"

The solicitor had me. Because he so graciously let me off the hook without evoking guilt, I felt extremely obligated to him. I eagerly leaped at the opportunity to repay him. I offered a pledge significantly higher than any I normally would have made.

In fact, I owed him nothing. He was a professional solicitor getting paid to raise money. He had bothered me at home to ask me to do his work for him--work that I would truly dread. Yet, I felt guilty about declining and wanted to make it up to him.

The interrogator too can use this concept of indebtedness. A state trooper who worked juvenile matters attributed most of his confessions to the soft drink industry. After an initial unsuccessful attempt at obtaining a confession, he would pause and get the suspect a soda. He insisted that more often than not, this seemingly insignificant gift resulted in a complete change in attitude and demeanor that ultimately led to a confession.

Interrogators can use less blatant but similar approaches with more sophisticated suspects. This can include the ploy of graciously relenting from the demand for a confession to an exaggerated crime:

Over the past few months approximately $40,000 worth of merchandise has been taken from this warehouse, and you're telling me you didn't do it. You know what? I believe you. There is no way you would have done that. You're not like that.

There are those who want to blame you for it though, and they have sent me in here to try to get you to admit that you did. Well, I asked you, and you said you didn't do it. I'm not going to ask you again because as I said, I believe you.

However, I am stuck with resolving this matter, and I'm pretty sure you can help some. The $7,000 shipment of tools that got misdirected; that's the only part of this you had anything to do with wasn't it? Other than that, you didn't have any involvement with any missing goods did you?

This approach does not form the entire argument as the interrogator would have presented it. The argument may have had many aspects to it, but with this one appeal, the interrogator earned the gratitude of the suspect. The interrogator did not berate, contradict, or even express a doubt about the truthfulness of the suspect's denial. Furthermore, the interrogator implied a willingness to dispute the allegation with those in authority. How can the suspect not feel grateful, and how can he repay the obligation? He could do this by admitting to the lesser and more accurate accusation.

All investigators should know that interviewing subjects requires a great number of skills. These skills are not learned by simply reading a book or listening to a lecture. They are acquired over a long period of time by individuals who conduct a large number of interviews and while doing so continue to study human nature, criminal personalities, interviewing techniques, and the art of listening. It is a career long learning process.

The preceding information was extracted from Interviewing and Interrogation for Law Enforcement, a book written by John E. Hess and published by Anderson Publishing of Cincinnati, Ohio. It can be ordered through the publisher or various Internet vendors. Anderson's toll free number is 1-800-582-7295 and its Internet address is www.andersonpublishing.com.

Mr. Hess retired from the FBI in 1996 after twenty-seven years of service, the last twelve of which he spent at the FBI Academy where he developed and taught courses in interviewing, interrogation, and statement analysis. He currently teaches these courses as an independent consultant. He can be reached at (540) 371-5126 or e-mailed at jedgarh@erols.com.

The National Executive Institute Associates Leadership Bulletin editor is Edward J. Tully. He served with the FBI as a Special Agent from 1962 to 1993. He is presently the Executive Director of the National Executive Institute Associates and the Major City Chiefs. You can reach him via e-mail at tullye@aol.com or by writing to 308 Altoona Drive, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401