Lord777
Professional
- Messages
- 2,578
- Reaction score
- 1,519
- Points
- 113
Investigative tactics have a whole arsenal of methods of psychological influence on the suspect and the accused in order to obtain truthful testimony.
Sometimes in the course of the investigation, the investigator faces the task of exposing a witness or victim, as well as a suspect or an accused, as a lie. The interrogated person can give false testimony both in their own interests and to their detriment (for example, in self-incrimination).
Let us consider the main methods of investigative tactics when exposing the suspect and the accused of giving false testimony.
Belief.
This technique consists in turning the investigator to the common sense of the interrogated, encouraging him to repentance and frank confession by explaining both the harmful consequences of denial and lying, and the beneficial consequences of admitting guilt and actively contributing to the investigation of the crime committed , as well as crimes of past years that remained unsolved.
Using the positive personality traits of the interrogated.
In many cases, the investigator's appeal to the positive qualities of the interlocutor is beneficial. Each person is characterized by the desire for self-respect, and therefore, by appealing to the honesty, decency of the interrogated, to his merits in the past, authority in the team, among his comrades, his personal and social status, he can be persuaded to be frank, truthful.
Suppression of lies.
This technique is used when there is no need to give the suspect or the accused the opportunity to "unfold" the lie, when the investigator has reliable information about the circumstances that are being clarified during the interrogation. In this case, the false testimony of the interrogated is immediately rejected, the lie is nipped in the bud by presenting the available evidence or other means of influence. Having lost hope of the possibility of misinforming the investigator, exposed by the facts, the interrogated often goes from lie to truth.
Expectation.
This technique is applied to persons who have a struggle of motives, one of which encourages to give false testimony or refusal to testify, and the other to confess their guilt, repentance for what they have done. Such a struggle of motives does not fade and can manifest itself quite strongly with the skillful tactical influence of the investigator and in the process of interrogation. Taking into account the hesitations of the interrogated, the investigator, giving certain information, deliberately "puts" in his mind such information that should ensure the victory of positive motives, and then takes a break in the interrogation, waiting for the interrogated to give up the motives prompting him to give false testimony.
Legend admission.
Often, the investigator, knowing or guessing that the suspect or the accused is giving false testimony - a legend, provides him with the opportunity to state it. Having entered into a kind of game with the interrogated, he proceeds from the intention to extract from him as many details, specifics, details as possible and to record the story in the protocol of interrogations as accurately and thoroughly as possible. After giving the interrogated the opportunity to express whatever he wants, the investigator presents weighty evidence that refutes, debunks the legend. Taken by surprise and unprepared to create new lies, the interrogator can give truthful testimony.
Suddenness.
This technique consists in the decision of the investigator, unexpected for the interrogated, to carry out this or that investigative action after the interrogation, while the interrogated, convinced of the investigator's ignorance of certain circumstances of the case, considers this action impossible. For example, an investigator declares to an accused giving false testimony about his intention to conduct a face-to-face confrontation with a person whom, in the opinion of the interrogated, is no longer alive.
A variation of the use of the surprise factor in interrogation is such a common technique of incrimination as the unexpected presentation of evidence.
Subsequence.
This technique is by its nature the opposite of the previous one. It is believed that sometimes it is advisable to present evidence sequentially (following the example of growing probative power) and systematically, dwelling on each of them in detail, in order to give the accused a “feel” of the full power of individual evidence and their entire complex. In general, in investigative tactics, there is a whole arsenal of methods for presenting evidence:
• separate presentation of various evidence in one sequence or another;
• simultaneous presentation of all available evidence;
• presentation of circumstantial evidence first, and then direct evidence;
• sudden presentation of evidence (as discussed above);
• presentation of evidence according to their increasing weight;
• presentation of a set of evidence after a preliminary notification to the accused about the presence of evidence, their listing with an indication of the sources of their origin (or without indication);
• presentation of evidence as if by chance, in between cases;
• giving the accused the opportunity to examine the evidence himself and assess the degree of its credibility;
• fixation of attention on individual signs of evidence;
• accompanying the process of presenting evidence with an explanation of the mechanism of its formation, the circumstances of its detection;
• presentation of evidence to demonstrate the ability of technical and forensic tools to identify and decrypt hidden information contained in this source.
Relief of tension.
Often, during interrogation, the accused does not refuse to talk, but he also cannot conduct it, as he feels constrained, overly tense. In this case, the investigator, influencing the interrogated in a certain way, sometimes only by intonations of his voice, in separate phrases tries to relieve this tension. Successful stress relief quite often entails outright confession. The relief that came after the release of tension causes the interrogated person to strive to “pour out in conversation”, “have a heart-to-heart talk”.
Using the "weak points" of the accused's personality.
The "weak point" of the personality should be understood as such its features, using which it is possible to achieve correct, truthful testimony during interrogation. The "weak point" of the interrogated may be a tendency to melancholic feelings, irascibility, vanity, etc. So, in passion and anger, the accused will tell something that he would not have expressed in the usual state (for example, he will betray his accomplices). At the same time, investigative ethics prohibits appealing to the base qualities of the person being interrogated (greed, acquisitiveness, etc.).
Inertia.
This is a kind of technique, the essence of which boils down to the fact that the investigator, talking with the accused, imperceptibly transfers the conversation from the sphere of an abstract, extraneous conversation to the sphere of conversation in essence. At the same time, the accused, speaking of an "outsider", "by inertia" blurts out about what he would not like to talk about. To obtain a greater effect, it is necessary to carry out such transitions more often from one subject of conversation to another.
Distraction.
The accused always carefully and closely follows the course of the interrogation in order to catch what is important for the investigator and what seems to him secondary. In this regard, the interrogated seeks to focus his attention on one thing, in his opinion, the main thing. “Taking this circumstance into account,” LB Filonov and VI Davydov note, “the investigators artificially shift the attention of the interrogated to areas that are not of primary importance, and thereby divert his attention from more important areas. All this is done with the expectation that the person being interrogated will be less cautious, more careless about the circumstances about which the investigator would like to receive more detailed information. '
Creation of the impression that the investigator is well informed.
The essence of this technique is that the investigator, without deceiving the interrogated, at the same time convinces him of his knowledge. This can be achieved, firstly, by the ability to behave in a certain way, and secondly, with the help of reliable information, while the accused does not assume what kind of information it is (individual details of the biography, facts from the case , etc.). As a result, the person being interrogated has the impression that the investigator knows not only the individual details of the case, but everything else. This could ultimately force the defendant to stop denying.
Creation of "blank".
This technique is used in cases where, in the absence of a sufficient amount of evidence, the investigator conducts his reasoning, relying on a number of reliable facts. He only shows the accused the "blank" passages in the case. At the same time, while drawing a generally fairly clear and complete picture of the event, he, together with the interrogated, traces the logic of individual facts and invites him to fill in the unclear places. These blanks and ambiguities, noted by the investigator, cause anxiety in the interrogated and a natural need to get rid of illogicality, to bring everything said in line with logic.
The forced pace of interrogation.
This technique consists in the fact that the investigator, using an active position, takes the initiative into his own hands and outstrips the “opponent's” thought with pre-prepared moves in the form of questions or judgments. With a high rate of submission of questions, the interrogated, having adopted this rate, will not be able to carefully consider and "stretch" the answer.
Sometimes in the course of the investigation, the investigator faces the task of exposing a witness or victim, as well as a suspect or an accused, as a lie. The interrogated person can give false testimony both in their own interests and to their detriment (for example, in self-incrimination).
Let us consider the main methods of investigative tactics when exposing the suspect and the accused of giving false testimony.
Belief.
This technique consists in turning the investigator to the common sense of the interrogated, encouraging him to repentance and frank confession by explaining both the harmful consequences of denial and lying, and the beneficial consequences of admitting guilt and actively contributing to the investigation of the crime committed , as well as crimes of past years that remained unsolved.
Using the positive personality traits of the interrogated.
In many cases, the investigator's appeal to the positive qualities of the interlocutor is beneficial. Each person is characterized by the desire for self-respect, and therefore, by appealing to the honesty, decency of the interrogated, to his merits in the past, authority in the team, among his comrades, his personal and social status, he can be persuaded to be frank, truthful.
Suppression of lies.
This technique is used when there is no need to give the suspect or the accused the opportunity to "unfold" the lie, when the investigator has reliable information about the circumstances that are being clarified during the interrogation. In this case, the false testimony of the interrogated is immediately rejected, the lie is nipped in the bud by presenting the available evidence or other means of influence. Having lost hope of the possibility of misinforming the investigator, exposed by the facts, the interrogated often goes from lie to truth.
Expectation.
This technique is applied to persons who have a struggle of motives, one of which encourages to give false testimony or refusal to testify, and the other to confess their guilt, repentance for what they have done. Such a struggle of motives does not fade and can manifest itself quite strongly with the skillful tactical influence of the investigator and in the process of interrogation. Taking into account the hesitations of the interrogated, the investigator, giving certain information, deliberately "puts" in his mind such information that should ensure the victory of positive motives, and then takes a break in the interrogation, waiting for the interrogated to give up the motives prompting him to give false testimony.
Legend admission.
Often, the investigator, knowing or guessing that the suspect or the accused is giving false testimony - a legend, provides him with the opportunity to state it. Having entered into a kind of game with the interrogated, he proceeds from the intention to extract from him as many details, specifics, details as possible and to record the story in the protocol of interrogations as accurately and thoroughly as possible. After giving the interrogated the opportunity to express whatever he wants, the investigator presents weighty evidence that refutes, debunks the legend. Taken by surprise and unprepared to create new lies, the interrogator can give truthful testimony.
Suddenness.
This technique consists in the decision of the investigator, unexpected for the interrogated, to carry out this or that investigative action after the interrogation, while the interrogated, convinced of the investigator's ignorance of certain circumstances of the case, considers this action impossible. For example, an investigator declares to an accused giving false testimony about his intention to conduct a face-to-face confrontation with a person whom, in the opinion of the interrogated, is no longer alive.
A variation of the use of the surprise factor in interrogation is such a common technique of incrimination as the unexpected presentation of evidence.
Subsequence.
This technique is by its nature the opposite of the previous one. It is believed that sometimes it is advisable to present evidence sequentially (following the example of growing probative power) and systematically, dwelling on each of them in detail, in order to give the accused a “feel” of the full power of individual evidence and their entire complex. In general, in investigative tactics, there is a whole arsenal of methods for presenting evidence:
• separate presentation of various evidence in one sequence or another;
• simultaneous presentation of all available evidence;
• presentation of circumstantial evidence first, and then direct evidence;
• sudden presentation of evidence (as discussed above);
• presentation of evidence according to their increasing weight;
• presentation of a set of evidence after a preliminary notification to the accused about the presence of evidence, their listing with an indication of the sources of their origin (or without indication);
• presentation of evidence as if by chance, in between cases;
• giving the accused the opportunity to examine the evidence himself and assess the degree of its credibility;
• fixation of attention on individual signs of evidence;
• accompanying the process of presenting evidence with an explanation of the mechanism of its formation, the circumstances of its detection;
• presentation of evidence to demonstrate the ability of technical and forensic tools to identify and decrypt hidden information contained in this source.
Relief of tension.
Often, during interrogation, the accused does not refuse to talk, but he also cannot conduct it, as he feels constrained, overly tense. In this case, the investigator, influencing the interrogated in a certain way, sometimes only by intonations of his voice, in separate phrases tries to relieve this tension. Successful stress relief quite often entails outright confession. The relief that came after the release of tension causes the interrogated person to strive to “pour out in conversation”, “have a heart-to-heart talk”.
Using the "weak points" of the accused's personality.
The "weak point" of the personality should be understood as such its features, using which it is possible to achieve correct, truthful testimony during interrogation. The "weak point" of the interrogated may be a tendency to melancholic feelings, irascibility, vanity, etc. So, in passion and anger, the accused will tell something that he would not have expressed in the usual state (for example, he will betray his accomplices). At the same time, investigative ethics prohibits appealing to the base qualities of the person being interrogated (greed, acquisitiveness, etc.).
Inertia.
This is a kind of technique, the essence of which boils down to the fact that the investigator, talking with the accused, imperceptibly transfers the conversation from the sphere of an abstract, extraneous conversation to the sphere of conversation in essence. At the same time, the accused, speaking of an "outsider", "by inertia" blurts out about what he would not like to talk about. To obtain a greater effect, it is necessary to carry out such transitions more often from one subject of conversation to another.
Distraction.
The accused always carefully and closely follows the course of the interrogation in order to catch what is important for the investigator and what seems to him secondary. In this regard, the interrogated seeks to focus his attention on one thing, in his opinion, the main thing. “Taking this circumstance into account,” LB Filonov and VI Davydov note, “the investigators artificially shift the attention of the interrogated to areas that are not of primary importance, and thereby divert his attention from more important areas. All this is done with the expectation that the person being interrogated will be less cautious, more careless about the circumstances about which the investigator would like to receive more detailed information. '
Creation of the impression that the investigator is well informed.
The essence of this technique is that the investigator, without deceiving the interrogated, at the same time convinces him of his knowledge. This can be achieved, firstly, by the ability to behave in a certain way, and secondly, with the help of reliable information, while the accused does not assume what kind of information it is (individual details of the biography, facts from the case , etc.). As a result, the person being interrogated has the impression that the investigator knows not only the individual details of the case, but everything else. This could ultimately force the defendant to stop denying.
Creation of "blank".
This technique is used in cases where, in the absence of a sufficient amount of evidence, the investigator conducts his reasoning, relying on a number of reliable facts. He only shows the accused the "blank" passages in the case. At the same time, while drawing a generally fairly clear and complete picture of the event, he, together with the interrogated, traces the logic of individual facts and invites him to fill in the unclear places. These blanks and ambiguities, noted by the investigator, cause anxiety in the interrogated and a natural need to get rid of illogicality, to bring everything said in line with logic.
The forced pace of interrogation.
This technique consists in the fact that the investigator, using an active position, takes the initiative into his own hands and outstrips the “opponent's” thought with pre-prepared moves in the form of questions or judgments. With a high rate of submission of questions, the interrogated, having adopted this rate, will not be able to carefully consider and "stretch" the answer.
