10 ms·
David Simon's book, Homicide, has an apropos section: """Terry McLarney once mused that the best way to unsettle a suspect would be to post in all three interr
by foobiekr 6y ago
David Simon's book, Homicide, has an apropos section:
"""Terry McLarney once mused that the best way to unsettle a suspect would be to post in all three interrogation rooms a written list of those behavior patterns that indicate deception: Uncooperative. Too cooperative. Talks too much. Talks too little. Gets his story perfectly straight. Fucks his story up. Blinks too much, avoids eye contact. Doesn’t blink. Stares."""
... which (although in a slightly different context) captures the problem of detecting lies in interrogation very well.
- raducu 6y agoI'd like to see some hot-shot detective try to get a random number from 1-1000 out of my head by using those techniques. Yeah, he couldn't.
- sillysaurusx 6y agoYou might want to watch this in full before gambling on that: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE In summary, you lose the moment you agree to talk.
- kilroy123 6y agoI knew it was going to be that video before I even clicked the link. I agree completely.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- MrDrDr 6y agoThank you for posting - I found this video fascinating. Made me think about the law in the UK. Interestingly when arrested here we are told : “You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.” I’d be interested if anyone has experience of the UK system and if the same strategy of staying silent would be advised in the uk.
- laurieg 6y agoI'm definitely not a lawyer, but I believe that the court may draw an inference from your silence. You are innocent and decided to remain silent only to have a perfect explanation that fits will all evidence known to the police weeks later. Why didn't you offer this earlier? There is an interesting TV show called 24 Hours in Police Custody[1] that follows people in the 24 hours after they are arrested. Naturally, there are many scenes of police questioning. Plenty of people do just answer "No comment" to every question, even after consulting a solicitor. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_Hours_in_Police_Custody https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_Hours_in_Police_Custody
- mewpmewp2 6y agoIf they ask you why you didn't offer this earlier, you send them a link to this video. But in all honesty, I think it's of course very different when it's a PR situation vs a court situation. If you are asked about what just happened by press, "no comment" or "wanting to plead the fifth" might instantly make you enemy of the public even if you are innocent and want to be strategic about it.
- mlrtime 6y ago"Under advisement of my lawyer I respectfully decline to comment"
- leetcrew 6y ago> I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I believe that the court may draw an inference from your silence. You are innocent and decided to remain silent only to have a perfect explanation that fits will all evidence known to the police weeks later. Why didn't you offer this earlier? this is my understanding of the UK system too (note: I am an american). it's quite different in the US because, among other things, the jury is explicitly instructed not infer anything from the defendant's use of their 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination. even if you have a perfect explanation for what happened, it's often best to just be quiet and let the prosecution fall apart.
- 6y ago
- mewpmewp2 6y agoI had few issues with that video while it was extremely entertaining and captivating. Yes, there are innocent people getting a guilty verdict. But the actual question is, statistically how often? It's easy to cherrypick few examples, because law of large numbers means that if there's 0.0001% chance of getting wrongfully prosecuted if you talk as an innocent person, there's bound to be some famous examples. But maybe in 99.99% cases speaking the truth and co-operating quickly will spare you many months of stress and time. All I'm saying is, that from the video alone it is not clear to me what the risk/reward here is and of course it is situation dependant.
- Sebb767 6y agoHe talks about this at ~9 minutes. Even if you said something good for your case, it won't be heard in court because its hearsay. And if you're in a spot when the police wants to interview you, the decision for your arrest was already made; you can only make the situation worse.
- treis 6y ago>when the police wants to interview you, the decision for your arrest was already made; That's not true. The police will interview everyone connected to a crime. Like if your SO turns up dead you're going to be one of the first people the police talk to. Depending on what else they've found they will have varying levels of suspicion. That level will absolutely change on how you do in that interview or if you refuse to talk.
- tehwebguy 6y agoFine, but the police level of suspicion is not relevant. Never, ever agree to be interviewed by police without your attorney. There is no reason not to have someone who knows the game play for you. You have no clue what the police know or think they know already and your innocuous answer about something that seems unrelated may seem to confirm some wrong information they already have. Again, your word cannot exonerate you but it can absolutely get you charged or even convicted.
- zakember 6y agoThat is because the stakes are too low to make you feel unsettled (in getting a random number). But if you knew you did something that could land you in prison and you were supposed to hide it, that would be a completely different scenario.
- raducu 6y agoI bet even if the stakes were "if I find out the number, you go to prison for one year" he wouldn't be able to. My point was not that detectives are useless, interrogation does work wonders -- in some cases making the criminal confess, in others making the innocent confess to something he did not do. My point was getting convicted based on some lie detection bullshit or just some confession alone is evil.
- rhizome 6y agoPeople go to jail for things they didn't do all the time, by the time you see those signs on the wall you better be nervous. Unless you like jail.
- Nitramp 6y agoThe article linked explicitly cites a study that disproves that assumption. People cannot tell liars apart better than chance even when watching videos of murderers' interrogations.
- mewpmewp2 6y agoScenarios in the article may be cherry picked and videos are not the same as being in the same situation in real life. Also in article they didn't have a chance to provoke subject into verbal contradictions as they were only looking at visual cues. Even in the article they mentioned 85% success rate after some training.
- cycomanic 6y agoI don't quite understand what point you're making. The article explicitly says that "spotting" a liar, that is detecting lies based on non-verbal clues does not work. However, other interrogation techniques, such as getting the subject to talk more freely to give them chance to make contradictive statements does work. That's what the 85% rate is about, don't use nonverbal cues, use verbal techniques.
- andi999 6y agoThat's actually easy:the number is 50. Answer:no it isn't. Reply: he lied, get him boys we have the number.
- zakember 6y agoI wonder if this would unsettle innocent people as well. Sounds like this would unsettle some non-suspects too
- jacquesm 6y agoYou are operating on the principle that finding the truth is the purpose of an interrogation. This belief may be false.
- Sebb767 6y agoI'd also recommend watching this quite famous talk about the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE Well worth the time. EDIT: Seems I wasn't the first to make that recommendation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26608636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26608636 ;)
- Spivak 6y agoIt’s not. The purpose of interrogation is for the officer to gather evidence pointing to your guilt which will be presented at trial. The trial is about figuring out the truth.
- jacquesm 6y ago> The trial is about figuring out the truth. Even that is an assumption.
- cutemonster 6y agoI'm thinking about trials more as tools for the people in the legal system to advance their careers (unfortunately. I don't work there)
- Spivak 6y agoFair, but as a defendant the trial is pretty much your only chance to tell your side of the story to the people whose decision actually matters. Police officers and prosecutors don't decide whether you go to jail so there's never a point to trying to prove your innocence to them.
- tarsinge 6y agoCountless times when I was a kid (and sometimes now) people thought I lied when I was innocent because of timidity (and not diagnosed but maybe on the spectrum), so yeah I was unsettled. Uncontrollable smiles were the worst ("that makes you laugh!"). I can’t blame neurotypical people for having heuristics, but I’m still afraid to be interrogated in something serious with my reactions analyzed.
- Veen 6y agoThe article shows neurotypical people should have the same concerns. Interogators who think they know how to spot lying are usually wrong, regardless of whether they are interviewing neurotypical people or people on the spectrum. I'm not on the spectrum, but I was a rebellious kid who didn't like to take shit from teachers. My defiant and sarcastic reactions to accusations were often considered evidence that I'd done wrong when I was innocent. It's not that lie-spotting heuristics work better for neurotypical people or worse for people on the spectrum. They don't work at all for anyone. We're all in the same boat.
- intricatedetail 6y agoIt's more like people wanting to be done with it using any excuse. I don't think jobsworths would particularly care who did what, they wanted things to go away. They were probably paid so little it made no sense to play a detective.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ImprovedSilence 6y agoWell to be fair, even if you weren’t in the wrong at first, a sarcastic response to a teacher does put you in the wrong...
- rovr138 6y agoFor being sarcastic. You shouldn’t be punished for everything at that point.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jonathanstrange 6y agoLuckily, there is this one reliable method for detecting a lie, checking whether what the suspect says is true.
- hellbannedguy 6y agoI think that might be the only way.
- cutemonster 6y agoUnless the suspect was misinformed or misunderstood some questions / interpreted differently
- WarOnPrivacy 6y agoNone of those things are lying, tho.
- mitchdoogle 6y agoThere's no difference to an observer. If you tell me you saw a white car in a parking lot and video footage shows a blue car, there's no way to know if you were lying or mistaken/misremembering.
- swayvil 6y agoThat means making personal observations and/or consulting various witnesses and authorities. Now convenience and reliability are issues. Also maybe intelligibility.
- silexia 6y agoHow to tell if someone is lying: do they have something to gain by lying? Are they a politician? Are they a celebrity? Do they have a history of lying? The more yes answers to the above, the more likely the person is lying to you.
- 6y ago
- threatofrain 6y agoSo how does one take this over to metaphorical poker? Because if the situation calls for having physical control over someone with the threat that they're about to go to jail, then okay, sure.
- kaminar 6y ago17 pantomimes...nuff said.
- moron4hire 6y agoIs it? Is it really "nuff said"? Cuz I have no clue what you're talking about. From my perspective, a lot more needs to be said.
- exo-pla-net 6y agoIt was a joke, a reference to a Quentin Tarrantino movie where a character says there are 17 pantomimes that give a male liar away, but the character doesn't list them.