WEBVTT 00:00.270 --> 00:06.750 Part three the three most effective interrogation methods to gain a confession interrogation sequence 00:06.750 --> 00:14.790 two unforced explanations in this sequence the person must answer your question with information not 00:14.790 --> 00:21.200 a simple denial but the information they disclose will reveal his guilt or innocence. 00:21.210 --> 00:28.200 For example let's say John's house had been broken into and he was convinced that his ex-girlfriend 00:28.380 --> 00:31.580 whom he had recently broken up with was the culprit here. 00:31.890 --> 00:38.850 But he wasn't exactly sure she had his key and the only thing that was missing was some expensive jewelry 00:38.970 --> 00:41.760 that was well hidden but that she knew about. 00:41.760 --> 00:45.810 Now the housekeeper or the electrician who had recently done some work there could also have taken it 00:46.290 --> 00:53.910 or might just have been a random burglary just calling his ex-girlfriend and accusing her of this crime 00:54.420 --> 00:56.210 would obviously have been futile. 00:56.370 --> 01:03.110 She would deny any and all knowledge of the event and he would be left with no evidence and no confession. 01:03.120 --> 01:06.360 Instead he proceeds as follows. 01:07.210 --> 01:12.370 He phones or it's a later known a very non-accusatory way that there'd been a break in in his house 01:13.270 --> 01:14.940 and some items were missing. 01:15.160 --> 01:23.800 But in an attempt to sound surprised she may ask what happened and the following is a short illustration 01:23.800 --> 01:27.420 of the type of conversation that might very well ensue. 01:27.520 --> 01:32.310 John the police are going to want to talk to everyone who had access to the house. 01:32.500 --> 01:37.390 Since you still have a key they're going to want to speak to you and ask you a couple of questions. 01:37.390 --> 01:43.480 Just routine stuff I'm sure ex-girlfriend but I don't know anything about this John. 01:43.690 --> 01:46.190 Oh I know just policy I guess. 01:46.210 --> 01:51.940 Anyway one of my neighbors said that she got a partial license plate number of a car that was by my 01:51.940 --> 01:54.980 house that day ex-girlfriend after a long pause. 01:55.180 --> 02:00.930 Well I was driving around your neighborhood that day I stopped by just to see if you were home. 02:01.180 --> 02:02.050 But when you weren't. 02:02.050 --> 02:04.350 I just left and that was it. 02:04.380 --> 02:09.290 Now so far she has effectively explained her presence there that day. 02:09.420 --> 02:16.430 But in doing so she has established either an uncanny coincidence or her likely guilt. 02:16.470 --> 02:22.470 Had she been innocent she would have had no reason to pursue this line of questioning or conversation. 02:22.590 --> 02:26.300 Now he continues to introduce more evidence John. 02:26.700 --> 02:27.530 Oh really. 02:27.750 --> 02:33.210 Well they did a fingerprint test too and that should show something. 02:33.330 --> 02:35.790 Ex girlfriend what test John. 02:35.820 --> 02:37.930 Oh they dusted for prints and so on. 02:37.980 --> 02:42.660 At this point she's going to go ahead explain how the police might pick up reprints because she had 02:42.660 --> 02:45.020 been there obviously many times and so on. 02:45.180 --> 02:48.080 But she continues to dig her own grave. 02:48.240 --> 02:54.540 Now to review you casually and for me suspect to the situation and then introduce evidence to be rebutted 02:55.020 --> 02:56.610 as you introduce the evidence. 02:56.640 --> 03:04.740 Look to see if every one of your statements are met by explanations from him as to how the evidence 03:04.740 --> 03:06.950 could be misunderstood or misconstrued. 03:07.170 --> 03:08.630 Let's take another quick example. 03:08.640 --> 03:14.040 Let's say you suspect that your coworker had shredded some of your files in hopes of beating you out 03:14.040 --> 03:15.090 for a promotion. 03:15.390 --> 03:20.670 You would first set the stage by letting him know that you can't find some of your files and then say 03:20.670 --> 03:22.220 something such as. 03:22.620 --> 03:28.080 Well it's a good thing my new secretary noticed someone by the shredder the other day she said that 03:28.080 --> 03:31.560 she recognized his face but didn't really know his name. 03:32.450 --> 03:38.250 At this point see if he offers up a reason as to why he could be mistaken for the real culprit. 03:38.480 --> 03:44.170 Now he might tell you that he was there shredding some of his own documents. 03:44.300 --> 03:51.110 An innocent person would not feel the need to explain this in order to avert the possibility that he 03:51.110 --> 03:52.890 might be wrongly accused. 03:53.240 --> 03:58.880 Now you continue with more and more facts because you do want to rule out an uncanny coincidence but 03:58.880 --> 04:01.650 you make it harder for the person to explain it away. 04:01.700 --> 04:08.570 And in actuality as he talks more about the situation he explains how a quote look this way even though 04:08.570 --> 04:10.460 in fact it's not. 04:10.460 --> 04:12.220 Now if you don't get the answer you're looking for. 04:12.230 --> 04:14.460 Once again continue on to phase two.