(e) Appeal to his pride. Point out to the suspect that his actions, such
as in a larceny, were outstanding and the case showed nerve and good prior
planning; it is the best larceny you have ever worked.
(f) Minimize seriousness.
Impress the suspect that other persons have
committed acts far more serious than the one he committed.
Assure him that most
people will commit the same act if the chance presents itself.
(g) Point out the physiological signs of guilt.
Impress upon the suspect
that his physical appearance and outward behavior are giving him away.
Examples
may be dryness of the mouth, sweating, and nervousness.
(2) Suspects readily influenced by logic and reasoning. The habitual criminal
who feels no sense of wrong doing in having committed a crime must normally be
convinced that his guilt can be easily established by testimony or available
evidence. Point out to the suspect the futility of denying his guilt. The suspect
should be confronted at every turn with testimony and evidence to refute his
alibis. When he admits commission of, or complicity in, another crime, or any act
or motive connected with the crime under investigation, the admission can be used
as a wedge to help secure a complete confession.
The following questioning
techniques are available to interrogate a suspect readily influenced by logic and
reasoning:
(a) Confidence in his guilt.
(b) Overwhelming evidence against him.
(c) Futility of
denying
guilt.
The
evidence
already
developed
has
established his guilt.
(d) Evidence available refutes his alibis.
(e) Pointing out physiological signs of guilt.
b. Indirect Approach.
The indirect approach is exploratory in nature.
It is
used usually when interrogating a suspect whose guilt is uncertain or doubtful.
Alibis offered by the suspect should be checked to determine their truthfulness.
Facts that are definitely known to you and suggest the suspect's guilt should be
used in planning questions to test his reactions and to determine whether he is apt
to lie. When evidence is lacking or weak, proceed cautiously. Place the suspect
in a position where he will be forced to distort or alter facts that are definitely
known to you. The suspect should then be requested to explain satisfactorily any
such discrepancy or distortion. At times, imply that much more is actually known.
Do so by making statements or by asking questions that lead the suspect to believe
that the answers are already known. After this situation has developed, revert to
direct questioning to obtain an admission or confession. In the indirect approach,
the questioning is designed to develop a detailed account of the suspect's
activities before, during, and after the time the offense occurred. The following
are examples of questions that can be asked when using the indirect approach:
MP0018
1-22
Previous Page
