14 Common Interrogation Techniques Used by Investigators
Hello everyone, this is Pavluu. Previously, we wrote about how to behave during an interrogation. Today, let’s discuss the methods investigators use when they want to obtain information.
During an investigation, an investigator may need to expose lies told by a witness, victim, suspect, or defendant. The person being questioned might give false testimony either to protect themselves or, in some cases, to their own detriment (such as in a false confession).
Investigative tactics include a wide range of techniques for exposing suspects and defendants who give false statements, as well as for applying lawful psychological pressure to obtain truthful testimony. Here are the main ones:
1. Persuasion
This technique involves the investigator appealing to the common sense of the person being questioned, encouraging them to repent and confess honestly by explaining the negative consequences of denial and lying, as well as the positive outcomes of admitting guilt and actively assisting the investigation, including in unsolved crimes from previous years.
2. Using the Positive Traits of the Person Being Questioned
Appealing to the positive qualities of the interviewee often proves effective. Everyone strives for self-respect, so by appealing to the person’s honesty, integrity, past achievements, authority among colleagues, and social status, the investigator can encourage them to be open and truthful.
3. Cutting Off Lies
This technique is used when there is no need to let the suspect or defendant “develop” their lie, especially if the investigator already has reliable information about the circumstances being clarified. In this case, false statements are immediately rejected, and the lie is stopped at the outset by presenting existing evidence or other means. Realizing they can’t mislead the investigator, the person often switches from lying to telling the truth.
4. Waiting
This method is used with individuals who are torn between motives—one pushing them to lie or refuse to testify, and the other urging them to confess and repent. This internal struggle can be intensified by the investigator’s skillful tactics during the interrogation. By providing certain information, the investigator intentionally plants ideas that should help positive motives win out, then pauses the interrogation, waiting for the person to abandon the motives that lead to lying.
5. Allowing the “Legend”
Often, when the investigator knows or suspects that the person is giving a false story (a “legend”), they allow them to tell it in full. By engaging in this “game,” the investigator aims to extract as many details as possible and record the story thoroughly. After the person has said everything they want, the investigator presents strong evidence that disproves the legend. Caught off guard and unprepared to invent new lies, the person may then give truthful testimony.
6. Surprise
This technique involves the investigator unexpectedly deciding to conduct a certain investigative action after the interrogation, while the person being questioned believes the investigator is unaware of certain facts and thinks such an action is impossible. For example, the investigator might announce a face-to-face confrontation with someone the suspect believes is no longer alive. Another common use of surprise is the sudden presentation of evidence.
7. Sequence
This method is the opposite of the previous one. Sometimes, it’s more effective to present evidence gradually, in order of increasing strength, and to discuss each piece in detail so the accused can “feel” the weight of each one and the entire body of evidence. There are many ways to present evidence, including:
- Presenting different pieces of evidence separately and in a specific order
- Presenting all available evidence at once
- Presenting indirect evidence first, then direct evidence
- Sudden presentation of evidence (as described above)
- Presenting evidence in order of increasing significance
- Listing all evidence and its sources before presenting it
- Presenting evidence casually, in passing
- Allowing the accused to examine the evidence and assess its persuasiveness
- Focusing attention on specific features of the evidence
- Explaining how the evidence was obtained and discovered
- Demonstrating technical or forensic methods used to uncover hidden information in the evidence
8. Relieving Tension
Sometimes, the accused does not refuse to talk but is too tense or constrained to communicate effectively. In such cases, the investigator may use certain tones of voice or phrases to help the person relax. Successfully relieving tension often leads to a candid confession, as the sense of relief makes the person want to “open up” and “have a heart-to-heart talk.”
9. Using the “Weak Spots” of the Accused’s Personality
A “weak spot” refers to personality traits that can be used to obtain truthful testimony. This could be a tendency toward melancholy, quick temper, vanity, etc. For example, in anger, the accused might reveal things they wouldn’t otherwise say (such as naming accomplices). However, investigative ethics prohibit appealing to base qualities like greed or avarice.
10. Inertia
This unique technique involves the investigator gradually steering the conversation from unrelated topics to the main subject. The accused, while talking about something else, may “inertia” slip and reveal information they didn’t intend to share. For greater effect, these transitions between topics should be made frequently.
11. Distraction
The accused always pays close attention to the course of the interrogation, trying to determine what the investigator considers important and what seems secondary. As a result, the person focuses on what they think is the main issue. Investigators, aware of this, may deliberately shift the person’s attention to less important areas, distracting them from more significant topics. This is done in hopes that the person will be less cautious and more careless about details the investigator actually wants to learn more about.
12. Creating the Impression of Investigator’s Awareness
This technique involves convincing the person being questioned that the investigator is well-informed, without actually deceiving them. This can be achieved through the investigator’s behavior or by sharing accurate information that the accused didn’t expect the investigator to know (such as personal details or case facts). As a result, the person may believe the investigator knows everything, which can lead them to stop denying the truth.
13. Creating “Gaps”
This method is used when there isn’t enough evidence. The investigator builds their reasoning on a series of reliable facts but points out the “gaps” in the case to the accused. While painting a generally clear and complete picture, the investigator traces the logic of certain facts with the accused and invites them to fill in the unclear parts. These gaps and uncertainties cause the person to feel uneasy and naturally want to resolve the inconsistencies by providing more information.
14. Accelerated Pace of Interrogation
This technique involves the investigator taking an active role, seizing the initiative, and staying ahead of the “opponent” with pre-prepared questions or statements. At a high pace, the person being questioned may not have time to carefully consider or delay their answers, leading to more spontaneous and potentially revealing responses.