Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Trickle Truth and Subsequent Interviews

There is one topic in which investigators, journalists, ministers and therapists all agree that a follow up interview is necessary:

sex. 

It is called "trickle truth" and under all circumstances in which information is needed regarding sex, whatever information was first received in the interview is not the full story. 

The guilt associated with human sexual inappropriate behavior meets a resistance in the brain that even during a confession or admission, the odds are very much that you have not gotten the whole story.  

Even in romantic scenarios where the injured party heard, "we are just friends!" the word "just", without training, tells them that something 'doesn't feel right.'
It is because the word "just" is used when the subject is comparing what he is saying to something else. 

That something "else" is on his mind need to be disclosed. 

In even rape confessions, the first 'round' of information is going to have details omitted deliberately via resistance. 

Even in rape victims, we find a hesitation to be open about what was done:  in detail.  The shame and humiliation will often only allow some things to come out, and if the sexual assault was within an already "domestically violent" home (where little if any actual violence takes place:  most victims are controlled by the threat of violence making physical violence of little necessity) the disclosure must have a follow up interview.  

For the criminal investigator:  

the greater the gap in the original lie, the greater the necessity becomes for, perhaps, a third interview.  

The third interview by the criminal investigator often means the difference in punishment. 

Busy investigators, once enough information is obtained for an arrest, later learn of a plea struck that deeply frustrates them.  They investigated, interviewed, interviewed again, got the confession or admission, and felt it was enough.

The third interview, after the confession, is often short in duration, but rich in information. 

I urge investigators who feel they know the info and have "enough" for an arrest, to consider this:

1.  Most admissions and confessions are in the subsequent interview.  Psychologically matching statistics, but for another article.  This is a broad statement. 

2.  The confession came in the follow up interview:  consider the following...

what you received even in the admission, has been minimized by the subject, even if it acknowledges criminal activity.  What is going to be pled to will be minimized further. You have the success of gaining the arrest:  The third interview is specifically designed to 'flesh out' all the skeletal details you received.  It is close to a guarantee:  if you got enough to arrest in the 2nd, a short, 3rd interview, will so unnerve the guilty party who has 'already' unburdened himself, yet not fully, will be surprisingly cooperative as he sees you as his 'confessor.'

All that is needed is this:

The guilty should be complimented on their admission and then be told:  

"the facts of the case show that you have told the truth, but there are some things you still need to tell me, to tell the full story..."

and listen.  

The one who has admitted the sexual contact will now, when shown the specific admission, not want to "lie" about it and will fill in the missing details. 

Take what he gave you in the admission, and know that logic says what human nature says:

it went further.  

It is closely related to what an addict owns in how many drinks or pills he had when he confessed.  It is very likely to be...

a few more.  

With human nature's powerful defense mechanism internally running at full power to blunt the guilt, the truth in sex 'trickles out' even when you think it was flowing. 

There is more. 

Going the extra mile might make the difference between jail time and community service as 'the devil is in the details' and the truth will bother, and sometimes even sicken not only judges, juries prosecutors and investigators, 

but defense attorneys, too.  

Even in the confession, when you hear, "we just..." or "I just..." take it as a linguistic signal to dig deeper, or deliberately intend the third short interview.  

It will be short. 

For investigators, therapists, journalists, and other professionals interested in formal training in Statement Analysis and the powerful Analytical Interview, see Hyatt Analysis Services  


6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh my gosh. There's more. This is very enlightening. I wish I had known this earlier. ABB

John mcgowan said...

OT:

Missouri Woman Still Believes Baby Was Stolen Nearly 50 Years Ago, Despite Evidence She Was Abandoned


http://abcnews.go.com/US/missouri-woman-believes-baby-stolen-50-years-ago/story?id=35376173

Anonymous said...

Bringing this over from last post:

I still think its possible DB checked in the gym, went out a back or side door, went home, came back to gym, went back in back or side door and then walked out the front door. That would be an example where someone was seen on video timestamped in and out at fixed times but who was actually not there the whole time,

At any rate, the Dr. Teresa Sievers case in Florida shows how long it may take to implicate the husband: she was murdered in June and the DA just released documents showing his involvement and their intent to arrest him. So that took around 6 months. Mark Sievers was not the one who did the murder; he was up north with HER family at a family gathering while Dr. Sievers left a day early to go home and see patients. MS hired his old friends to kill her. Her head was smashed in with a hammer. The crime scene was staged to look like a break in.

6 months is plenty of time for Davey to leak and leak and leak.

Buddy, go read the Bonita Springs article about how they gathered evidence against Mark Sievers.

buddy said...

Interesting but DB's drive is a good 15 mins to/from the gym. Lots of stoplights on the way. So thatd be a feat.
Also, there's the matter of the neighbors camera catching everything entering/ leaving the culdesac.
Also, where do the thugs in the culdesac fit in to the theory.

Anonymous said...

It really is sad that in death, Amanda's value is linked not to herself, but instead to Davey and Jesus and the church. All of her worth is linked elsewhere.

The Beckster said...

ABB - I'm curious, what do you wish you had known earlier?