Interrogation

[Man]

Let us consider the main methods of investigative tactics when exposing a suspect or accused of giving false testimony.

Conviction.​

This technique consists of the investigator appealing to the common sense of the person being interrogated, encouraging him to repent and make a sincere confession by explaining both the harmful consequences of denial and lies, and the favorable consequences of admitting his guilt and actively assisting in the investigation of the crime committed, as well as crimes of past years that remained unsolved.

Using the positive personality traits of the person being interrogated.​

The investigator's appeal to the positive qualities of the interlocutor is useful in many cases. Each person has a desire for self-respect, and therefore, by appealing to the honesty, integrity of the person being interrogated, to his merits in the past, authority in the team, among comrades, his personal and social status, he can be convinced to be frank and truthful.

Stopping lies.​

This method is used when there is no need to give the suspect or accused the opportunity to "unfold" a lie, when the investigator has reliable information about the circumstances being clarified during the interrogation. In this case, the false testimony of the person being 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 being able to misinform the investigator, exposed by the facts, the person being interrogated often switches from lies to the truth.

Waiting.​

This method is used with individuals who are experiencing a conflict of motives, one of which encourages them to give false testimony or refuse to give testimony, and the other to admit their guilt, repent of what they have done. Such a conflict of motives does not fade away and can manifest itself quite strongly with skillful tactical influence of the investigator and during the interrogation. Taking into account the hesitation of the person being interrogated, the investigator, when reporting certain information, deliberately “plants” in his consciousness such information that should ensure the victory of positive motives, and then takes a break in the interrogation, waiting for the person being interrogated to renounce the motives that encourage him to give false testimony.

Admission of a legend.​

Often, an investigator, knowing or guessing that a suspect or accused is giving false testimony - a legend, gives him the opportunity to present it. Having entered into a kind of game with the person being interrogated, he proceeds from the intention to extract from him as many details, specifics, particulars as possible and to record the story in the interrogation protocol as accurately and thoroughly as possible. Having given the person being interrogated the opportunity to say whatever he wants, the investigator presents weighty evidence that refutes and debunks the legend. Caught off guard and unprepared to create a new lie, the person being interrogated can give truthful testimony.

Surprise.​

This technique consists of an unexpected decision by the investigator to carry out a particular investigative action after the interrogation, while the interrogated person, convinced of the investigator's ignorance of certain circumstances of the case, considers this action impossible. For example, the investigator declares to the accused, who is giving false testimony, his intention to conduct a confrontation with a person who, in the opinion of the interrogated person, is no longer alive.

A variation of the use of the surprise factor during interrogation is such a widespread method of incrimination as the unexpected presentation of evidence.

Sequence.​

This method is opposite in nature to the previous one. It is considered that sometimes it is advisable to present evidence sequentially (as evidence increases) and systematically, dwelling on each of them in detail, in order to allow the accused to "feel" the full force of each piece of evidence and the entire complex of them. In general, there is a whole arsenal of methods for presenting evidence in investigative tactics:

• separate presentation of various pieces of evidence in one sequence or another;
• simultaneous presentation of all available evidence;
• presentation of first indirect and then direct evidence;
• sudden presentation of evidence (as discussed above);
• presentation of evidence in order of increasing weight;
• presentation of a set of evidence after preliminary notification to the accused of the presence of evidence, its listing with an indication of the sources of its origin (or without indication);
• presenting evidence as if by chance, in passing;
• providing the accused with the opportunity to examine the evidence himself and assess the degree of its persuasiveness;
• focusing attention on individual features of evidence;
• accompanying the process of presenting evidence by explaining the mechanism of its formation and the circumstances of its discovery;
• presentation of evidence demonstrating the ability of forensic technology to identify and decipher hidden information contained in this source.

Relieving stress.​

Often, during interrogation, the accused does not refuse to talk, but also cannot, because he feels constrained, overly tense. In this case, the investigator, influencing the person being interrogated in a certain way, sometimes only with intonations of the voice, with separate phrases, tries to relieve this tension. Successful relief of tension quite often entails a frank confession. The relief that comes after the relief of tension causes the person being interrogated to want to "pour out in conversation", "have a heart-to-heart talk".

Exploiting the “weak points” of the accused’s personality.​

A "weak spot" of a person should be understood as such characteristics that can be used to obtain correct, truthful testimony during interrogation. A "weak spot" of the person being interrogated may be a tendency to melancholic experiences, irascibility, vanity, etc. Thus, in a fit of anger and rage, the accused will tell something that he would not say in a normal state (for example, he will give away his accomplices). At the same time, investigative ethics prohibits appealing to the base qualities of the person being interrogated (greed, greed, etc.).

Inertia.​

This is a unique technique, the essence of which is that the investigator, talking to the accused, imperceptibly moves the conversation from the sphere of abstract, extraneous conversation to the sphere of conversation on the subject. At the same time, the accused, speaking about "extraneous", "by inertia" blurts out something he would not like to talk about. To achieve a greater effect, it is necessary to make such transitions from one subject of conversation to another more often.

Distraction.​

The accused always attentively and closely follows the course of the interrogation in order to grasp what is important to the investigator and what seems secondary to him. In this regard, the person being interrogated strives to focus his attention on one thing, in his opinion, the main thing. "Considering this circumstance," note L. B. Filonov and V. I. Davydov, "investigators artificially shift the attention of the person being interrogated to areas that are not of primary importance, and thereby distract his attention from more important areas. All this is undertaken in the expectation that the person being interrogated will treat with less caution, more carelessly those circumstances about which the investigator would like to receive more detailed information."

Creating the impression that the investigator is well informed.​

The essence of this technique is that the investigator, without deceiving the person being 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, by using reliable information, while the accused does not assume what kind of information this is (individual details of the biography, facts from the case, etc.). As a result, the person being interrogated gets the impression that the investigator knows not only individual details of the case, but also everything else. This can ultimately force the accused to stop denying.

Creating "emptiness".​

This method is used in cases where, in the absence of sufficient evidence, the investigator bases his reasoning on a number of reliable facts. He only shows the accused the "blank" places in the case. At the same time, drawing a generally clear and complete picture of the event, he, together with the person being interrogated, traces the logic of individual facts and asks him to fill in the unclear places. These blank places and ambiguities noted by the investigator cause anxiety in the person being interrogated and a natural need to free himself from illogicality, to bring everything said into line with logic.

Forced interrogation pace.​

This technique consists of the investigator, using an active position, taking the initiative into his own hands and forestalling the "opponent's" thought with pre-prepared moves in the form of questions or judgments. With a high rate of questioning, the person being interrogated, having accepted this rate, will be unable to carefully consider and "draw out" the answer.

Let's look at interrogation if you are called as a suspect​

If you are summoned by an investigator from the Ministry of Internal Affairs (or the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation or the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation), it means that in 90% of cases a criminal case has already been opened. If you are summoned by an operative, it means that there is no criminal case yet. A pre-investigation check is underway. But you must go when summoned, regardless of the form in which you are summoned verbally or by subpoena. And in any case, it is better to come with your own criminal defense attorney.

Detention on the street.

If you are suddenly detained on the street or somewhere else outside your home and are taken to the Investigative Committee for questioning, demand the right to notify your attorney, or your parents (if you are a minor), or human rights activists (if you do not have an attorney, they will provide you with one).

So, you are facing an investigator who knows very well what an interrogation is. He has already conducted hundreds of them and has his own trump cards in store. If there are 2 or more investigators during an interrogation, you are a "very interesting person" for them .

An interrogation cannot last more than four hours without a break - this is the law. If the interrogation lasts a long time (more than 4 hours) - you are a very interesting person and they are trying to find something on you during the interrogation (there is no other evidence).

Answer all questions and conversations about life in monosyllables. Preferably even with one word. Do not loosen your tongue once again. The more words the accused says during the interrogation, the easier it is for him to get confused in the end. You should not trust the investigator, and even more so, agree to "cooperate" with him under any circumstances. The investigator will try to catch you on subtleties and details. He may ask the same thing 2-3 times.

If the question has confused you, this can only lead to an increase in the psychological attack. They can simply say: "We know that you are a random person here. Your friend is guilty. He has already confessed to everything. Tell him everything about him and go home." As a result, an organized criminal group appears in the case. The phrase "And you will go home" or "We will let you go" is the main one. No one will let you go, even if you confess. Look at the investigator's behavior, if you see that he is nervous, for example, raising his voice at you, threatening you with a long term and so on, then most likely they have nothing on you.

Fake evidence - the investigator will of course verbally tell you about the evidence against you. If he does not have this evidence at hand - most likely it is just words.

What should you pay attention to?

Of course, the most important thing is the accuracy of the entry in the protocol of your words. Subsequently, it will be virtually impossible to challenge them. DON'T BE AFRAID tell the investigator that he/she has not clearly or correctly formulated any of your thoughts, and ask him/her to correct this in the protocol. If the investigator does not do this, remember that you have a legal right - at the end of the interrogation protocol, where you will be asked to write the phrase "Written down correctly from my words, read by me", before the specified phrase, personally write everything that you consider necessary, or indicate in writing in which part of your testimony was formulated unclearly.

Pay attention to the dates and times - write down the time of the interrogation. If it lasted more than 8 hours, this is a procedural violation. Do not sign the protocol on refusing a defense attorney under any circumstances. According to the new Code of Criminal Procedure, a person can refuse a confession in court if it was given without a lawyer. Do not sign the protocol with empty columns - you can make dashes in them yourself with a pen.

General position: 10 days after you were interrogated, you must be charged; if no charges are brought, the preventive measure chosen against you is automatically cancelled.

In certain cases, it may be that the investigation has nothing on you, so it is worth remembering that silence is golden.