Speaker 1: Hi, I'm doctor Shiloh and I'm doctor Scott. And this
Speaker 1: is LA Not So Confidential, the Forensic Psychology and True
Speaker 1: Crime podcast.
Speaker 2: Each episode we explore the intersection of psychology, the criminal
Speaker 2: justice system, and entertainment.
Speaker 1: Today our episode is on the forensic psychtopic of false
Speaker 1: confessions versus True Confessions. Welcome back, hope you are enjoying
Speaker 1: this official beginning of summer. Who we are recording this
Speaker 1: on Memorial Day. I was the same Memorial Day weekend
Speaker 1: that like, the weekend's almost over, so we are cruising
Speaker 1: right in to summer. That means stay tuned for information
Speaker 1: on our walking tours with c LA. In a day,
Speaker 1: we are going to be announcing those dates that are
Speaker 1: going to be available pretty soon. As always, Patreon members
Speaker 1: will get first DIBs. We keep these at small groups
Speaker 1: on purpose, maybe a dozen maybe to fifteen people per tour.
Speaker 1: So if you're local or if you're going to be
Speaker 1: coming in from out of town, your best bet is
Speaker 1: even if you just join Patreon for a month to
Speaker 1: be able to snag some spots. That's a tactic when
Speaker 1: we're not against it, those will be coming up. It's
Speaker 1: going to be true Crime Walking tours through Los Angeles.
Speaker 1: We're probably going to do two different locations, one more
Speaker 1: in the Hollywood area and maybe we'll go back downtown
Speaker 1: for the others. We'll just have to see what our
Speaker 1: tour guide Chris can come up with for us. Very
Speaker 1: exciting as we move into summertime. So what's been going on?
Speaker 1: What are we doing lately?
Speaker 3: Both of us have been pretty busy.
Speaker 2: Right, I've been on Bob rough shows giving commentary on
Speaker 2: several different things going on, and then you're doing Bob.
Speaker 2: We're both we're covering the Bobs, right.
Speaker 1: That covers the Bobs we got. We got Bob's here
Speaker 1: and there, So yours is like professional have a forensic
Speaker 1: psychologist on to talk about some things that are psychology.
Speaker 1: Like I have just been popping on to defense diaries
Speaker 1: live streams during the Karen Reid trial because I'm basically
Speaker 1: like the thirteenth juror. No. Yeah, he's been live streaming
Speaker 1: the trial and he and Ali have been offering some commentary.
Speaker 1: So my days off on Mondays, I've been trying to
Speaker 1: pop on for like an hour or so and watch
Speaker 1: along and then you know, we do a little bit
Speaker 1: of chatting. If there's something that comes up that is
Speaker 1: relevant to you know, any of our experience in the room.
Speaker 1: So right, that's been fun on it.
Speaker 2: You were the gateway drug for me and the Karen
Speaker 2: Reid thing because it was sort of not on my radar.
Speaker 2: And now I don't know if i'd say obsessed. I'm
Speaker 2: sort of flabbergasted by the whole thing. There's just so
Speaker 2: much going on there. I mean, and I'm not even
Speaker 2: saying that like the waters are muddied. I just think
Speaker 2: that there's a lot of obfuscation going on there by
Speaker 2: law enforcement. It seems like ye seems like they're throwing
Speaker 2: a lot of things.
Speaker 3: In the air.
Speaker 1: It's very interesting. I mean, if we were still doing
Speaker 1: documentary reviews, I hadn't watched the Karen Reid one on
Speaker 1: purpose until this weekend I started it. But I think
Speaker 1: it's just such an interesting tactic that her legal team
Speaker 1: kind of invited in a camera crew. She has said
Speaker 1: like this has been her way to sort of testify
Speaker 1: without testifying, which I mean just kind of speaks to
Speaker 1: like the day and age of how trials are tried,
Speaker 1: you know, sort of in the courtroom and sort of
Speaker 1: by public opinion, and the content that is created around
Speaker 1: all that. I mean, we've talked about that before. Sometimes
Speaker 1: things are way too soon, and I don't know if
Speaker 1: that's a good choice or a bad choice on their part,
Speaker 1: but it was obviously strategic. So yeah, yeah, anyway, that's
Speaker 1: anything else, like anything good that you've been watching lately.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean I've been pretty open about this with
Speaker 2: our Behind the Couch and discord. But I had about
Speaker 2: ten days off for a heart surgery, so I was
Speaker 2: watching I took a break.
Speaker 3: They're listening icals of Modern Science.
Speaker 2: I had like this amazing, very quick surgery where you
Speaker 2: know they go in through your frimeral arteries to kind
Speaker 2: of fry a couple of cells, and I do.
Speaker 3: Feel a lot better.
Speaker 2: But I was watching a lot of classic horror movies
Speaker 2: because those are so relaxing, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, those keep your heart nice and calm.
Speaker 2: Although what I did pick up last weekend and I
Speaker 2: hope to finish it this week is a really great
Speaker 2: book on the Hunt for Brianna Maitland that was given
Speaker 2: to me when we were in London last year and
Speaker 2: I'm just now finally getting around to reading it, and
Speaker 2: I feel so badly because the author and I had
Speaker 2: a great great conversation. He came over to our table
Speaker 2: and talk to us at length, and he gave us
Speaker 2: signed copies of the book. And I'm just now getting
Speaker 2: it and like, oh wow, I need to give him
Speaker 2: a call. Really well written because he's coming at it
Speaker 2: from a private detective standpoint, which is really great. So
Speaker 2: that's what I've been doing.
Speaker 1: So we will move on after this. But I forgot
Speaker 1: to tell you there's so many rumors that the OA
Speaker 1: might be coming back for another season.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, you texted me that.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, we.
Speaker 1: Have to, like, I want to go back and rewatch
Speaker 1: the first two seasons.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I got to go.
Speaker 2: I don't know if I got through the entire second
Speaker 2: season because I was just afraid, like, well, if they're
Speaker 2: not going to continue this, then I'm not because now
Speaker 2: they canceled The Wheel of Time on Amazon. Oh oh, way,
Speaker 2: as you get sucked into the show and kisses me
Speaker 2: off shoot, All.
Speaker 1: Right, enough of that, let's do a recap of our
Speaker 1: last episode. Then we'll get into it.
Speaker 2: On our last episode, we spoke with Michael Bayer, founder
Speaker 2: of True Case Films, and he's also the director behind
Speaker 2: the new three part true crime docuseries Vanished to have
Speaker 2: their Elvis case. Michael has a background in video production
Speaker 2: spanning over a decade, but what sets him apart is
Speaker 2: time time spent working inside a criminal defense law firm,
Speaker 2: where he gained a deep understanding of the legal strategies
Speaker 2: and the psychological dynamics of the justice system, and in Vanished,
Speaker 2: he brings both of those worlds together. He uses his
Speaker 2: storytelling skills and legal insight to not only explore the
Speaker 2: haunting disappearance of Heather Elvis, but to also shed light
Speaker 2: on the powerful influence of social media in shaping public
Speaker 2: opinion as well as impacting real life investigations. It's a
Speaker 2: gripping series that also raises important questions about online behavior, misinformation,
Speaker 2: and the long road to justice.
Speaker 3: It also has some just.
Speaker 2: Absolutely startling twists in it, and really, from a clinical
Speaker 2: psychologist forensic psychologists perspective, there are some bizarre behavior in
Speaker 2: this documentary and I highly recommend that you watch those
Speaker 2: three episodes. But if you haven't had a chance to
Speaker 2: listen to our interview with him, please check out episode
Speaker 2: two seven for more details.
Speaker 1: Yes, so that brings us to episode two oh eight.
Speaker 1: Today Big Topic, a topic that has been covered a
Speaker 1: lot on other shows, especially just in terms of false confessions,
Speaker 1: wrongful convictions, you know something, In a sense, we haven't
Speaker 1: really dipped our toe into a whole lot. But today
Speaker 1: we want to keep this one pretty research focused as
Speaker 1: to stay away. I don't know, I guess from a
Speaker 1: lot of the lore and emotionality about false confessions that
Speaker 1: really has like swept the true crime world in recent years.
Speaker 1: So we are going to stick to what we know
Speaker 1: and more importantly, what we don't know about this topic.
Speaker 2: Right, We've got a lot of science that we'll be covering,
Speaker 2: which I think is fascinating. But this is an interesting
Speaker 2: field and area of study within our line of work,
Speaker 2: and I hope that there'll be even more studies that
Speaker 2: come along. But trigger warnings. For today's episode, we're going
Speaker 2: to be talking about episodes of violence, cases regarding murder
Speaker 2: and assault, interrogation, intimidation, and emotional manipulation.
Speaker 1: So in the United States, overturning a wrongful conviction, especially
Speaker 1: for high level in serious crimes such as murder, while
Speaker 1: it's a very long and complex and uphill process, and
Speaker 1: it's rarely a successful battle for people already behind bars,
Speaker 1: the justice system is designed not to make reversals like
Speaker 1: this easy, especially when there's a recorded confession. From the
Speaker 1: West Memphis three to the Central Park five to endless
Speaker 1: cases around the world, false confessions have played a disturbing
Speaker 1: role in some of the most infamous and unjust wrongful convictions.
Speaker 1: We have Jesse miss Kelly, a teenager with a low
Speaker 1: IQ who was pressured into confessing to a triple homicide
Speaker 1: in West Memphis, Arkansas. His story was riddled with inconsistencies
Speaker 1: and was unsupported by any physical evidence. His statement then implicated,
Speaker 1: of course, Jason Baldwin and Damian eccles, all all of
Speaker 1: whom spent eighteen years in prison before DNA evidence and
Speaker 1: public pressure led to their release.
Speaker 2: In New York City, the Central Park five five teen
Speaker 2: Natures of Color, were coerced into confessing to a brutal
Speaker 2: attack on a jogger in nineteen eighty nine. They later recanted,
Speaker 2: and DNA even later identified the actual perpetrator. Their convictions
Speaker 2: were only vacated after they had already served time. John Purvis,
Speaker 2: a man with schizophrenia, was intimidated into confessing to a
Speaker 2: murder he didn't commit, and was largely convicted on a
Speaker 2: statement made to his psychiatrist, leading him to spend nine
Speaker 2: years in prison before the real killers were discovered. Also,
Speaker 2: Juan rivera under house arrest at the time of the
Speaker 2: crime he was accused of, was manipulated into giving a
Speaker 2: false confection to the murder of an eleven year old victim,
Speaker 2: leading to three wrongful convictions despite exonerating DNA evidence.
Speaker 1: And in Iceland's most notorious criminal case, six individuals we're
Speaker 1: driven to confess to two murders that likely never occurred
Speaker 1: following intense psychological coercion and abuse. Diagnosed with memory distrust syndrome,
Speaker 1: they were ultimately acquitted after decades of injustice. These cases
Speaker 1: reveal how easily the criminal justice system can be led
Speaker 1: astray when confessions true or not, become the foundation of prosecution,
Speaker 1: and that memory distrust syndrome I just mentioned, we will
Speaker 1: definitely come back to that.
Speaker 2: It seems like just synchronicity. There's a lot of talking
Speaker 2: about that right now in the air with several cases.
Speaker 2: The sad thing about this subject today is the reality
Speaker 2: is this happens way more often than people think. And
Speaker 2: according to the Innocence Project, which if you're not familiar
Speaker 2: with the Innocence project. Please go to their website. They
Speaker 2: are an amazing organization that does amazing work and they
Speaker 2: have incredible databases and really really solid statistical research. Nearly
Speaker 2: one in three DNA based exonerations involved a false confession.
Speaker 2: That's over twenty eight percent of cases where somebody admitted
Speaker 2: to a crime they never committed.
Speaker 3: I think it.
Speaker 2: Boggles the mind for most people, even if you are
Speaker 2: a fan of this genre. Why would anyone admit guilt
Speaker 2: if they're innocent? And the reason is because the psychological, emotional,
Speaker 2: and situational pressures in police interrogations can absolutely lead to
Speaker 2: that outcome. To look at this from a larger perspective
Speaker 2: or a more holistic, well rounded view, let's start with
Speaker 2: this sort of cosmic view. What urges us to tell
Speaker 2: the truth? You know, we tell the truth for a
Speaker 2: variety of reasons, primarily to build trust, to foster strong relationships,
Speaker 2: and to maintain societal order. And that's not necessarily a
Speaker 2: conscious thing. It's built into us if we're raised pretty
Speaker 2: normally and we've got great people to look up to
Speaker 2: as we are going through our de middle stages as children.
Speaker 2: Because when people trust us, they're more likely to believe
Speaker 2: what we say and rely on us. Honesty nourishes all
Speaker 2: types of relationships, whether they are with family, friends, or
Speaker 2: romantic partners.
Speaker 1: Right and truth telling is also seen as a moral imperative.
Speaker 1: It's something you feel like you have to do because
Speaker 1: it's the right thing to do, like your conscience won't
Speaker 1: let you walk away from it. For example, if you
Speaker 1: see someone being bullied and you feel like you just
Speaker 1: can't stay silent, that urge to speak up or step in.
Speaker 1: That is a moral imperative in action. It's also a
Speaker 1: reflection of respect for others, and it treats them with
Speaker 1: dignity and shows that you value their perspective. Many believe
Speaker 1: that honesty is a moral principle that should be followed,
Speaker 1: as it reflects a commitment to integrity. Truth telling is
Speaker 1: essential for maintaining a functioning society as it allows people
Speaker 1: to navigate interaction and build trust in a system.
Speaker 3: So in his.
Speaker 2: Article entitled The Frightful Prospect of truth Telling, writer Seth
Speaker 2: Slater responds to a previous article he had written on
Speaker 2: the subject of why people lie, and he explores why
Speaker 2: lying is such a common human behavior and why reactions
Speaker 2: to his first article were so significant. So even when
Speaker 2: we say we value honesty, why is lying so common?
Speaker 2: He points out that lying isn't just human. He notes
Speaker 2: that animals like gorillas, dolphins, and even birds can show
Speaker 2: deceptive behaviors, suggesting that lying may have evolutionary roots and
Speaker 2: how social creatures are able to navigate their environments. The
Speaker 2: point being is that to some extent, deception itself is
Speaker 2: a survival tool, not just a moral failing. Children begin
Speaker 2: experimenting with deception as early as six months old, with
Speaker 2: skills becoming more complex by age four, So this developmental
Speaker 2: process suggests that lying is not learned from culture alone.
Speaker 2: It's something that we refine with practice, like any form
Speaker 2: of communication, again, likely an adaptive survival value that works
Speaker 2: for us. In communication with readers about his previous article online,
Speaker 2: Slayer notes that people share they are grappling with the
Speaker 2: emotional and ethical tension between being truthful and lying for convenience,
Speaker 2: for self protection, or even for kindness.
Speaker 1: It's so funny that you used birds as an example
Speaker 1: of lying, because my husband just showed me this video
Speaker 1: the other day where this magpie was injured, and it's
Speaker 1: like on a sidewalk next to a store somewhere.
Speaker 3: I saw this, see it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And so this injured bird gets fed by someone
Speaker 1: and then the other birds come and they start sprawling.
Speaker 2: Out and with the wide open.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they're like stumbling.
Speaker 1: Around, I'm dying and like food, lumping down, give me food.
Speaker 1: I was like, oh my god, this is so smart
Speaker 1: but so manipulated.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I remember there was a wonderful nature documentary that was
Speaker 2: showing an animal rescue that had a lot of orangutangs
Speaker 2: and they were getting their favorite treat of the day,
Speaker 2: which was oranges, and they would get in line and
Speaker 2: come in front, and then they would show, here's the
Speaker 2: best liar in the group is that one would break
Speaker 2: out of line and get in line again and hide
Speaker 2: his two oranges behind his back in order to get
Speaker 2: another one. It's fascinating because it's just again another example
Speaker 2: of how little we actually know about brain functioning animals,
Speaker 2: and it sort of it really is the final frontier
Speaker 2: for human consciousness as well as far as us studying ourselves. So,
Speaker 2: going back to Slater's article, while the saying that we
Speaker 2: all use honesty is the best policy holds a lot
Speaker 2: of cultural weight, honesty is definitely not always the best
Speaker 2: choice in every situation, and I think all of us can.
Speaker 3: Relate to that.
Speaker 2: Look, we weigh decisions based on context, on risk, and
Speaker 2: on personal stakes, and a lot of times we decide
Speaker 2: in the moment whether or not to lie or tell
Speaker 2: the truth. And there's discomfort around truth telling, especially when
Speaker 2: the truth is difficult, and sometimes it just leads people
Speaker 2: to lie is the easier route, even if they feel
Speaker 2: guilty afterwards. In essence, Slater is saying that truth and
Speaker 2: lies are often weighed, sort of like a cost benefit analysis,
Speaker 2: and even white lies can have significant unintended consequences. So,
Speaker 2: big picture, why take the risk of lying? Because people
Speaker 2: lie for two main reason. There's the thrill of seeing
Speaker 2: that they can get away with it, which feels very childlike.
Speaker 2: It also feels a little antisocial, right, But it also
Speaker 2: depends on the age and the overall functioning of an individual,
Speaker 2: and that could mean a lot of things, because a
Speaker 2: child's willful lie can be very different from the motivation
Speaker 2: of an adult's willful lie. Most likely, though, are what
Speaker 2: we call perceived benefits that can come as a result
Speaker 2: of the line, like protecting themselves, looking good, avoiding conflict,
Speaker 2: or even sometimes helping someone else, And sometimes the potential
Speaker 2: payoff like saving face or maintaining privacy for that individual,
Speaker 2: it outweighs the potential damage that could be coming as
Speaker 2: a consequence. Additionally, if a lie, if it's believable and
Speaker 2: it goes undetective, that lie may actually elevate someone in
Speaker 2: the eyes of others, and in some cultures or contexts
Speaker 2: that perceive effectiveness or confidence may actually matter more than truthfulness.
Speaker 2: I'll never forget in talking with my nephew who is
Speaker 2: former Secret Service and much like you and me, like
Speaker 2: a research or like just loves you know, going to
Speaker 2: trainings and getting on this information, and we were talking about.
Speaker 3: Our episode so a couple of years ago about.
Speaker 2: Con artists, and he was sharing with me. One of
Speaker 2: their trainings was talking about why all of these overseas
Speaker 2: scam calls are so successful, because people will say, well,
Speaker 2: how could these individuals in these other countries be so evil?
Speaker 2: They're stealing from old people, and the way my nephew
Speaker 2: was Toddy said. Their experts came in and said their
Speaker 2: cultural view is very, very different. It's not my fault
Speaker 2: that you were falling for this, it's your fault for
Speaker 2: being stupid, which is very different from our Western mindset
Speaker 2: right or the what we say, which is why if
Speaker 2: you do have that mindset of like, well, people should
Speaker 2: be good, then that can even set you up for
Speaker 2: being more of a victim.
Speaker 1: Wow, that's really interesting and thank you for all of
Speaker 1: that foundation. For folks listening. That sounded a bit familiar.
Speaker 1: We pulled some of that from our episode on Pathological Line,
Speaker 1: which was episode one twenty two seems like forever ago.
Speaker 1: So if you guys want more on that topic specifically,
Speaker 1: feel free to go back and listen. But getting back
Speaker 1: to today's like looking at these differences between true and false
Speaker 1: confessions and the research behind it. Really, I mean, with
Speaker 1: conversations with some other creators, we have been pretty inspired
Speaker 1: while guesting on those shows and kind of listening to
Speaker 1: other podcasts that we're covering some really intense cases about
Speaker 1: false confessions being at the heart of that case. We've
Speaker 1: all listened to like amazing shows that have really really
Speaker 1: dove deep into those. But for Scott and I, the
Speaker 1: way we work, we just simply wanted to see with
Speaker 1: the literature about the hallmarks of and the factors in
Speaker 1: true confessions and false confessions has to say, like what
Speaker 1: is out there In reviewing the available research, we decided
Speaker 1: to break this up into a differences. Just looking at it,
Speaker 1: it made sense to look at circumstantial differences, linguistic differences,
Speaker 1: and behavioral differences. So this really is kind of the
Speaker 1: meat and potatoes of the episode that we're getting into already.
Speaker 1: So we're going to do that, and then we're going
Speaker 1: to move into false confession specific research and then look
Speaker 1: at evidence based interrogations. To kick us off here, we
Speaker 1: were able to find a paper from March of twenty
Speaker 1: nineteen in the Frontiers of Psychiatry journal titled Confessions and
Speaker 1: Denials when Guilty and Innocent forensic patients self reported behavior
Speaker 1: during police interviews. Yes, titles are always very worthy, but
Speaker 1: we got to get it across an title so someone
Speaker 1: can search it. Was your dissertation a mile long title
Speaker 1: like mine was no, no good, I love it nice
Speaker 1: and concise.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So this study used a forensic population out of Germany
Speaker 1: and explored their behaviors and circumstances during police interviews. And
Speaker 1: they were able to get these individuals to talk about
Speaker 1: experiences of being interviewed by the police when they were
Speaker 1: actually guilty of a crime and then times when they
Speaker 1: had been questioned when they were actually innocent, like maybe
Speaker 1: they were a person of interest because of their criminal
Speaker 1: backgrounds or kind of being in the area when the
Speaker 1: crime occurred, that sort of thing. Actually, of the entire
Speaker 1: population of the people that they interviewed, two thirds of
Speaker 1: the sample actually had this exact experience, so they were
Speaker 1: able to garner a lot. So in terms of their
Speaker 1: findings with regard to circumstantial factors, they found that quote
Speaker 1: with respect to true confessions, so that's meaning someone who
Speaker 1: was actually guilty and confessing to it. The most commonly
Speaker 1: reported reason was that the evidence was strong. This suggests
Speaker 1: that strength of evidence is crucial for the decision to
Speaker 1: make a true confession, and this is once more in
Speaker 1: line with already existing empirical evidence end quote.
Speaker 2: So another paper that looks at some of the particular
Speaker 2: factors and true versus false confessions is an older one
Speaker 2: from twenty eleven. Okay, I must be wearing pantaloons to
Speaker 2: think that twenty eleven is old.
Speaker 3: But it is, oh my.
Speaker 1: God, I mean in the research world.
Speaker 2: In the research world, right, But it is from a
Speaker 2: leading arm of the American Psychological Association, the Journal of
Speaker 2: Psychology Public Policy, and law. So the paper is titled
Speaker 2: Comparing true and false Confessions among Persons with Serious Mental Illness.
Speaker 2: This is really important, folks, because we're going to be
Speaker 2: coming back to factors involved in false confessions and individuals
Speaker 2: with factors that impact their mental health is a very
Speaker 2: big part of this discussion. But the research starts right
Speaker 2: off essentially saying that what we found there is way
Speaker 2: more research out there on false confessions than there is
Speaker 2: true confessions. And before we look at their main finding,
Speaker 2: I'm sure you're wondering what serious mental illnesses, which we'll
Speaker 2: be calling SMI, means, so that you can conceptualize this information.
Speaker 2: So serious mental illness or SMI is going to refer
Speaker 2: to one or more mental, behavioral, or emotional disorders that
Speaker 2: result in serious functional impairment, something that interferes with a
Speaker 2: major life activity, like being able to hold down a job.
Speaker 2: So this could be a disorder like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder OCD, PTSD,
Speaker 2: even some personality disorders. When we say that about the
Speaker 2: ability to hold down a job, there's also a term
Speaker 2: called ADLs activities of daily living. So activities of daily
Speaker 2: living would be can someone consistently care about their environment?
Speaker 3: Around them, like.
Speaker 2: Take care of their apartment, Can they bathe? Can they
Speaker 2: feed themselves to the point that they're needed. So one
Speaker 2: step up from ADL's would be being able to hold
Speaker 2: down any kind of job. And we want to be
Speaker 2: really careful here because I want you to understand that
Speaker 2: with the improvements in treatment and the improvements of medication,
Speaker 2: bipolar disorder does not always have to be a completely
Speaker 2: debilitating disorder. Neither does schizophrenia, neither does OCD, neither does
Speaker 2: PTSD or any of the personality disorders. There's a lot
Speaker 2: more options out there, even with medication, even with treatment,
Speaker 2: there are some individuals that are likely going to be
Speaker 2: way more affected by adverse conditions when in the context
Speaker 2: of an interrogation, so okay. In regards to the circumstances
Speaker 2: of the interrogation, researchers found in comparison to true confessors
Speaker 2: there were four main differences with false confessors. False confessors
Speaker 2: were questioned more times, they took longer to confess, they
Speaker 2: perceived the evidence against them to be weaker, and they
Speaker 2: reported significantly more external pressure and less internal pressure. In
Speaker 2: other words, true confessors, the people who were actually guilty,
Speaker 2: confessed earlier on in the questioning, and they were responding
Speaker 2: to internal pressures sort of what we were talking about earlier.
Speaker 2: Maybe it was that moral imperative perhaps, or maybe it
Speaker 2: was an understanding of I'm screwed. They've got all this
Speaker 2: evidence against me, so I'm just going to get this
Speaker 2: over with. That's very different from those that were false confessions.
Speaker 1: Yes, we're starting to see a picture of what that
Speaker 1: was like for them, all right, So turning two linguistic
Speaker 1: differences in the research. We focused on a twenty twenty
Speaker 1: one study out of the Wrongful Conviction Law Review, and
Speaker 1: that study was titled the Language of Criminal Confessions, a
Speaker 1: corpus analysis of confessions presumed true versus proven false. So
Speaker 1: a corpus based approach to a study means that essentially
Speaker 1: they just analyzed a large collection of language data to
Speaker 1: determine patterns and usage in that language. The authors are,
Speaker 1: you know, from little known places like Oxford and John
Speaker 1: Jay and Hofstra University. Actually the author from Hofstra is
Speaker 1: a professor of forensic linguistics. So you know, just some
Speaker 1: so and sos.
Speaker 3: Doing these are the real deals.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're absolutely the highest level of researchers and academic institutions.
Speaker 1: So they looked at two sets of samples for comparison.
Speaker 1: The first were confessions that were presumed true, and then
Speaker 1: the second sample were those that were proved false. With
Speaker 1: the data they gathered, they found that focusing on personal pronouns,
Speaker 1: impersonal pronouns and conjunctions used in these confessions were the
Speaker 1: most relevant. So here's what that means, and here's what
Speaker 1: they determined. For false confessions, there was a high frequency
Speaker 1: of usage of impersonal pronouns like one you or they,
Speaker 1: for instance, one should always be respectful. You can learn
Speaker 1: a lot from watching the news. They say you shouldn't
Speaker 1: eat red meat. Kind of that collective you or the
Speaker 1: collective they, that's the pronouns that they were using, while
Speaker 1: true confessors contained a significant high frequency of personal pronouns
Speaker 1: and conjunctions. So definitely more I, me, myself, or even you,
Speaker 1: they him her, but in regards to an actual specific
Speaker 1: person rather than the collective they are you, and then
Speaker 1: conjunctions being words that connect a couple of thoughts, like
Speaker 1: and but because although, So we're starting to see a
Speaker 1: difference here when they start running these like literally through
Speaker 1: a database, just kind of seeing what these patterns are. Lastly,
Speaker 1: another difference they found was that in true confessions, I
Speaker 1: was often followed by a lexical verb, which was less
Speaker 1: frequent in false confessions. So lexical verbs are just very
Speaker 1: like true kind of main verbs like run, eat, see,
Speaker 1: So a lot of very to the point statements without
Speaker 1: trying to distance themselves from the action when the confession
Speaker 1: was true. And I feel like I'm helping my seventh
Speaker 1: grader with her grammar homework right now, but I just
Speaker 1: want to make sure we're like all thinking about the
Speaker 1: same thing here. So after they analyzed this collection of
Speaker 1: confessions and identified these nuances, they were able to go
Speaker 1: back and take this data and see if the findings
Speaker 1: could accurately predict which statement was false and which statement
Speaker 1: was true. So they ran a couple of different studies
Speaker 1: doing this. The first study they conducted correctly predicted if
Speaker 1: it was a true or false statement with seventy four
Speaker 1: percent accuracy, and then their second study correctly predicted it
Speaker 1: eighty three percent of the time. So very interesting. But
Speaker 1: they noted this is just the beginning. This is not
Speaker 1: a call to start like running confessions through their model
Speaker 1: for diagnostic purposes, and that certainly more research is needed
Speaker 1: in this area. There were also a couple of earlier
Speaker 1: studies that yielded very small to bits of information as
Speaker 1: it comes down to linguistics. In nineteen ninety eight, which
Speaker 1: also was a million moons ago, shoul we looked at
Speaker 1: the false and true confession statements from eighty five participants
Speaker 1: and he found that false confessions possessed fewer adjectives than
Speaker 1: the true confessions. And then back in twenty thirteen, vr
Speaker 1: at All found no differences for verbs as indicators of deception.
Speaker 1: So just you know, no findings or findings. Still that
Speaker 1: might sound silly to kind of report that, but again,
Speaker 1: very limited data in this area.
Speaker 2: That's fascinating though, and I disagree. I think that we
Speaker 2: actually should be running all of it through the database.
Speaker 2: You don't take any action on it, but like the
Speaker 2: more you run it through, the more data you have.
Speaker 2: But the next part that we want to talk about
Speaker 2: is something that we can both doctor Shiloh and I
Speaker 2: can get very passionate about, which is the idea of
Speaker 2: body language analysis. And folks, most of you who've listened
Speaker 2: to the show, you know where we stand in terms
Speaker 2: of this. The idea of body language analysis. Body language
Speaker 2: experts for detecting deception. If you haven't had a chance
Speaker 2: to listen to episode one eight eight on this topic,
Speaker 2: feel free to go back and listen. We hash it
Speaker 2: out in great detail, but just to be thorough, we
Speaker 2: looked again for this specific angle, and there is no
Speaker 2: available data that has yet been identified about the behavioral
Speaker 2: characteristics of true confessors. A guilty person who told the
Speaker 2: truth about the crime in a confession. Now, that would
Speaker 2: be a cool dissertation project if anybody's out there, grab
Speaker 2: that sucker up. So we thought we would take the
Speaker 2: opportunity to quickly highlight a hallmark study in this area
Speaker 2: to show how bad we humans are at observing someone's
Speaker 2: behavior during a confession and then making a determination about
Speaker 2: innocence or guilt. Back in two thousand and five, casin
Speaker 2: Meister and Norwit conducted a two part study where they
Speaker 2: recruited male prison in May for a pair of videotaped interviews.
Speaker 2: Each inmate was instructed to go ahead and give a
Speaker 2: full confession to the crime for which he was incarcerated.
Speaker 2: Then they were asked to come up with a false
Speaker 2: confession for a specific crime they did not actually commit.
Speaker 2: So very interesting concept and a way to set up
Speaker 2: this study right. The real study began when the researchers
Speaker 2: had observers watch ten of these confessions, a mix of
Speaker 2: both the true and the false confessions, and they found
Speaker 2: that neither college students nor police investigators had any statistically
Speaker 2: significant levels of accuracy.
Speaker 3: But what was a parent The.
Speaker 2: Investigators were more confident in their judgments. Bottom line, people
Speaker 2: are unable to distinguish between true and false confessions. I
Speaker 2: think that's the bottom line that the article is pointing out.
Speaker 2: The bottom line for me is that there is a
Speaker 2: wild gap between college students and actual police investigators because
Speaker 2: police investigators are actually doing the work.
Speaker 3: And hold the power, and that is.
Speaker 2: A problem if there's assumptions made about accuracy, definitely.
Speaker 1: And then from the German study that I mentioned at
Speaker 1: the top under circumstantial differences, they had some other things
Speaker 1: that they found that I just wanted to put in
Speaker 1: here under behavioral So they found that the right to
Speaker 1: remain silent is waived more often by innocent people than
Speaker 1: by guilty suspects, which has definitely been coroborated previously in
Speaker 1: other studies as well as tons of lab research findings
Speaker 1: in the literature over the years, and then, out of
Speaker 1: all of their participants who were ever questioned when innocent,
Speaker 1: a quarter of them reported having made false confessions on
Speaker 1: at least one occasion. So they noted that this result
Speaker 1: was also in line with previous international research showing a
Speaker 1: high percentage of false confessions among suspects with a quote
Speaker 1: mental disorder. Now I don't know what percentage of their
Speaker 1: population had any sort of mental disorder or how they
Speaker 1: were defining that, but I mean just notable. Nonetheless.
Speaker 2: Yeah, again, it's one of those areas where I which
Speaker 2: they had just gone the extra step and given us
Speaker 2: that or written down, notated that information if.
Speaker 3: It was available. But it is what it is.
Speaker 2: This is what we have to work with right now.
Speaker 2: So let's turn to focusing primarily on the false confessions.
Speaker 2: In this article, False Confession is an integrative review of
Speaker 2: the phenomenon by Michael Welner, Matt Delaci, and Teresa Jeniskowski.
Speaker 2: They provide a well rounded analysis of false confessions and
Speaker 2: the criminal justice system, and they examined the psychological, legal,
Speaker 2: and procedural factors that contribute to individuals admitting to crimes
Speaker 2: that they did not commit. Guess what, there's not just
Speaker 2: one type of false confession. Again, this is what I
Speaker 2: love about research, is that they just break these things
Speaker 2: down into even more fascinating and complex ideas. So, first
Speaker 2: of all, we have coerced compliant false confessions, and these
Speaker 2: are confessions that result from intense interrogation tactics where the
Speaker 2: individual confesses in order to escape the situation. Number two
Speaker 2: is voluntary false confessions, and that's given without external pressure,
Speaker 2: often due to a desire for notoriety.
Speaker 3: Or for a psychological issue.
Speaker 2: An example, in two thousand and six, John Mark Carr,
Speaker 2: a former school teacher, claimed responsibility for the nineteen ninety
Speaker 2: six murder of six year old john Vana Ramsey, asserting
Speaker 2: that her death was accidental during a sexual encounter. Wild
Speaker 2: contradictions in his account and DNA evidence that didn't match
Speaker 2: at all the samples that were found at the crime
Speaker 2: scene eventually led authorities to dismiss his confession as false.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is totally the one that comes to mind
Speaker 1: for me. I mean, obviously with my intense interest in
Speaker 1: this case, but kind of a hot take after hearing
Speaker 1: the taped phone calls he made confessing to a journalist,
Speaker 1: I get it like it falls under this, but I
Speaker 1: also think they kind of need to take a look
Speaker 1: at him. Again, he had a lot of.
Speaker 2: Detail, right, I don't disagree with you at all. The
Speaker 2: intersection here the then diagram is that.
Speaker 3: And again I do not know mister Carr.
Speaker 2: I have not formally evaluated him, but I will say
Speaker 2: from the information that has been out there for years,
Speaker 2: for twenty years now, shows that he is an individual
Speaker 2: with clear mental health challenges. His behaviors are odd. I
Speaker 2: mean just there's a whole list that we could spend
Speaker 2: a whole episode just breaking down. You know, his behaviors
Speaker 2: looked at through a mental health lens. And that's not
Speaker 2: going back to behavioral analysis and body language like we
Speaker 2: talk about not approving of. I'm talking about from a
Speaker 2: clinical perspective.
Speaker 1: I just want to say, like, if someone was very
Speaker 1: intense about fantasizing about this crime, they could definitely come
Speaker 1: up with a lot of detail. So it doesn't make
Speaker 1: it true, no, but it is fascinating.
Speaker 2: But that's also what cold reading is about.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: If you understand what the old time sort of carnival
Speaker 2: attraction of the mentalist who's able to read minds in
Speaker 2: an audience that comes from a technique that has been
Speaker 2: developed for hundreds of years called cold reading an audience,
Speaker 2: and if you don't know what that concept is, it's fascinating.
Speaker 2: There's some really great movies about it. Definitely look it out.
Speaker 2: I think Damnationality is one of the most recent ones
Speaker 2: about it.
Speaker 3: That was a remake.
Speaker 2: But the other one that has been fascinating for me
Speaker 2: is another example of voluntary false confessions is Madeline mccannon's
Speaker 2: disappearance in two thousand and seven. I mean, there's a
Speaker 2: great documentary on it that we both talked about back
Speaker 2: in the day, but also just how ugly the entire
Speaker 2: situation was and how you know, the parents are all
Speaker 2: everybody was vilified in this, and there have been a
Speaker 2: lot of claims and confessions, but none of them have
Speaker 2: been substantiated. We started off with coerced compliant false confessions
Speaker 2: than we had voluntary false confessions. Now we have internalized
Speaker 2: false confessions complex title, but what it means is that
Speaker 2: the individual being interrogated actually comes to believe that they
Speaker 2: committed the crime because of suggestive interrogation techniques. Paul Ingram,
Speaker 2: a former deputy sheriff in Thurston County, Washington, was accused
Speaker 2: in nineteen ninety eight by his daughters of sexual abuse
Speaker 2: and satanic rituals. Initially, he had no recollection of these events,
Speaker 2: but under intense interrogation and suggestive questioning, he began to
Speaker 2: believe he was guilty. Ingram's confessions became increasingly elaborate, incorporating
Speaker 2: details suggested by interrogators, despite a lack of physical evidence.
Speaker 2: And this is what's really concerning to me, because if
Speaker 2: an adult can fall prey to this, can you imagine
Speaker 2: how easily a child can fall prey to this as well?
Speaker 1: Well? And it's so interesting, you know, just hearing first
Speaker 1: of all, there's been no satanic ritual abuse that have
Speaker 1: been proven. You guys, I cannot highly recommend enough the
Speaker 1: podcast Double in the Deep Blue Seat. You go listen
Speaker 1: to it. It's fantastic.
Speaker 2: It covers all of this full disclosure. We have to
Speaker 2: talk about this too because we've been called to task
Speaker 2: by some of our favorite listeners as well, and thank you.
Speaker 3: I mean, this is one of the things we.
Speaker 2: Love about our listeners is how fascinated and educated and
Speaker 2: interested they are. We found out that some of our colleagues,
Speaker 2: maybe not colleagues that we've directly worked with, but they
Speaker 2: are part of a clinical belief system that this type
Speaker 2: of abuse does exist despite the fact that there is
Speaker 2: no evidence, there's no physical evidence whatsoever supporting it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'll put a link in the show off to
Speaker 1: that show. And it's produced by our dear friend Rebecca Sebastian,
Speaker 1: so you know her quality of work. It's fantastic. But
Speaker 1: you know, thinking in some of the satanic ritual abuse
Speaker 1: that it's not just kids that start filling in the
Speaker 1: information and coming up with false memories. But now here's
Speaker 1: an example of a suspect, right, an innocent suspect. So
Speaker 1: this is probably a good time to come back to
Speaker 1: this term that we mentioned before, memory distrust syndrome. I
Speaker 1: wanted to parse it out obviously, because it's called something
Speaker 1: different from what you just covered, coerced internalized false confessions.
Speaker 1: I think they can be one and the same, perhaps,
Speaker 1: but I just want to kind of, I don't know,
Speaker 1: split a couple of hairs here. I also heard this
Speaker 1: talked about on another podcast very recently as just internalized
Speaker 1: false confessions, and I feel like if that's more of
Speaker 1: the umbrella term, then maybe it can be coerced or not.
Speaker 1: But good Johnson and Matt Keith coined the term in
Speaker 1: the nineteen eighties to describe a phenomenon where people developed
Speaker 1: a profound distrust of their own memory, and then they
Speaker 1: are in a place where they become susceptible to relying
Speaker 1: on external cues and information from others, basically putting them
Speaker 1: in a very highly suggestible place. So the literature indicates
Speaker 1: that this distrust of memory can, under certain circumstances, lead
Speaker 1: to a false confession, particularly when there is intense external
Speaker 1: pressure they come to believe that they are guilty of
Speaker 1: the crime. Is essentially what that means. And in the
Speaker 1: psychology world, I mean, we know this already. We know
Speaker 1: it is confabulation, which is when a person creates false
Speaker 1: memories without the intention to deceive. So it is just
Speaker 1: that phenomenon happening, but specifically to false confessions. And if
Speaker 1: we were to look at it just let's say, outside
Speaker 1: of the false confession world clinically seeing confabulation, we would
Speaker 1: view it as a distortion of the memory. And that's
Speaker 1: what we're talking about.
Speaker 2: And I would be really interested in seeing as this
Speaker 2: research continues to develop, the idea of looking at the
Speaker 2: intersection between those that all prey to memory distress syndrome
Speaker 2: and have them examined for their lifelong experience of anxiety,
Speaker 2: as I would not be surprised if high levels of
Speaker 2: chronic anxiety are involved in falling prey to this.
Speaker 1: So in a really interesting article by good Johnson in
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, he presents a case study of a thirty
Speaker 1: two year old man who falsely confessed to murder while
Speaker 1: in police custody awaiting trial. The key elements of the
Speaker 1: case study examine the impact of essentially his contextual risk
Speaker 1: factors for confessing falsely. Things like isolation where a factor,
Speaker 1: long and persistent guilt, presumptive interrogation styles, and then high
Speaker 1: emotional intensity. Those things were all present for this person.
Speaker 1: So while in solitary confinement, the man kept a detailed
Speaker 1: diary that provided unique insight into this gradual development of
Speaker 1: memory distrust syndrome, as well as kind of his overall
Speaker 1: mental state and overall thinking process. So it's fascinating that
Speaker 1: good Johnson was able to find this case. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm sure he probably worked on it, or was retained
Speaker 1: on this case or what have you, as an expert.
Speaker 1: But here we have someone writing about it and seeing
Speaker 1: this evolution or this decompensation, whatever you want to call it.
Speaker 1: So good. Johnson notes that a false confession as a
Speaker 1: result of memory distrust syndrome is quite rare, but it
Speaker 1: can occur in totally intellectually able and educated individuals, like
Speaker 1: this is not just us talking about a serious mentally
Speaker 1: ill population. He also highlights that when it does occur,
Speaker 1: it involves delayed rather than immediate suggestibility, which also I
Speaker 1: couldn't find how he exactly defined that, so I'm not
Speaker 1: quite sure how to interpret that.
Speaker 3: I think it has to do with anxiety. Tell me more.
Speaker 1: About that, Like, what do you mean, what are you think?
Speaker 2: You know what, people with very high levels of anxiety
Speaker 2: tend to ruminate and perseverate. So what if we're talking
Speaker 2: about in the immediacy of the interrogation, they're very clear, no,
Speaker 2: I did not do this.
Speaker 3: But then in.
Speaker 2: The isolation of their cell or the isolation of their life,
Speaker 2: if they have been brought in multiple times, maybe they
Speaker 2: don't have a support system, and they sit there and
Speaker 2: they're just marinating an anxiety and they're ruminating, ruminating, ruminate,
Speaker 2: and there's so many neurochemicals that are shooting through your
Speaker 2: brain when you're having a panic attack or a series
Speaker 2: of anxiety attacks. I'm wondering if you're reprogramming your own
Speaker 2: memories by marinating in this false information you've been given.
Speaker 2: And I just feel like you're marinating in the anxiety
Speaker 2: and you're trying to make sense of it, and the
Speaker 2: easiest way to make sense of it is maybe to
Speaker 2: accept what's being said to you.
Speaker 1: That's an incredibly interesting hypothesis. I think maybe we need
Speaker 1: to dig a little deeper just to see.
Speaker 2: Yeah, again, folks, don't this is just me off the
Speaker 2: top of my head based on what the research we've
Speaker 2: done for this, But as somebody who's lived with anxiety,
Speaker 2: like we choke about it. Like I'm one of those
Speaker 2: people that when I'm walking out of Costco, is like,
Speaker 2: did I just steal a fifty two inch television set?
Speaker 3: And I've got it in my backpack and I wasn't
Speaker 3: thinking about it. I don't want to get in trouble.
Speaker 3: Oh I know.
Speaker 1: Well, but not just like your experiences, but because of
Speaker 1: your experiences and wanting to help others in these same situations,
Speaker 1: you've done a great deal of research. So overall though,
Speaker 1: I just want to let people know that, yes, this
Speaker 1: is a phenomenon accepted by the wider psychological community, meaning
Speaker 1: memory distrust syndrome. We're also like very suspect of syndromes
Speaker 1: around here, is you guys know, we question a lot
Speaker 1: of things that get slapped with that label. So I
Speaker 1: thought it was really worth the effort just to say, like, yes,
Speaker 1: this is a real thing, and here's what it means.
Speaker 1: And I think it's going to click for a lot
Speaker 1: of folks of like, oh my gosh, yeah, that case
Speaker 1: really could have been this. And it also leads nicely
Speaker 1: into looking at some of the personal individual factors that
Speaker 1: might make someone susceptible to falsely confessing.
Speaker 2: So there are a lot of factors that end up
Speaker 2: being components that would make an individual more vulnerable to
Speaker 2: this if we acknowledge that there are circumstances where investigators
Speaker 2: seek evidence that supports guilt and thereby will ignore contradictory
Speaker 2: evidence of non guilt, that, in combination with individual vulnerabilities,
Speaker 2: can lead to huge problems. And when we talk about
Speaker 2: false confessions, it's so important to understand that not everybody
Speaker 2: enters the interrogation room on equal footing, much like life right,
Speaker 2: even more so in the interrogation room, Some individuals are
Speaker 2: far more vulnerable to pressure, suggestion, and manipulation, just like
Speaker 2: we've discussed in previous episodes as well as our interviews
Speaker 2: with other true crime content generators. First and foremost young
Speaker 2: people are especially at risk. Adolescents and children may not
Speaker 2: fully grasp the gravity of waiving their miranda rights or
Speaker 2: the long term consequences of what they say to law enforcement.
Speaker 2: And you know, law enforcement has the legal right to
Speaker 2: present falsehoods in order to get what they need to do.
Speaker 3: So while a.
Speaker 2: Child, definitely, certainly a child that is a minor, all
Speaker 2: of that should be shut down. I mean, they can interview,
Speaker 2: but they should be really shutting that down unless they
Speaker 2: have permission from parents, and parents should actually be calling
Speaker 2: attorneys immediately. But you know, law enforcement's going to do
Speaker 2: what they got to do from their perspective in order
Speaker 2: to get the information that they get. But children's developmental
Speaker 2: stage makes them more likely to comply with authority figures,
Speaker 2: even if that means saying something that is just not true,
Speaker 2: because they want to end the discomfort or maybe even
Speaker 2: please the interrogator. Right, many kids don't yet have the
Speaker 2: emotional or cognitive maturity to understand just how high the
Speaker 2: stakes are, let alone be able to endure intense psychological
Speaker 2: tactics that are often used in modern interrogations, so being
Speaker 2: open to suggestibility, the length of the interview, the belief
Speaker 2: in well, if you work with us, you can just
Speaker 2: walk out of here, which is an example of the
Speaker 2: deceptive high pressure technique.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: So there's also another factor which is a little bit
Speaker 2: more conceptual, but it's this idea of this naive belief
Speaker 2: in innocence. So innocent individuals, people who are actually innocent,
Speaker 2: may waive their rights because they believe I've got nothing
Speaker 2: to hide, which unfortunately paradoxically increases the risk of false confessions.
Speaker 2: And this applies to those with cognitive impairments as well.
Speaker 2: So then back to what we were referring to earlier,
Speaker 2: there is the issue of mental help individuals struggling with
Speaker 2: disorders like schizophrenia, major depression, bipolar disorder. They often enter
Speaker 2: the legal system already at a disadvantage. They're symptoms which
Speaker 2: can include a wide spectrum of presentations that would include
Speaker 2: things like delusions, which is incorrect beliefs or perceptions about
Speaker 2: the world around them, disorganized thinking, severe anxiety, suicidal ideation,
Speaker 2: all of those factors can distort reality and impair judgment,
Speaker 2: making those individuals much more susceptible to coercion, and in
Speaker 2: some cases, they may even confess to something that they
Speaker 2: didn't do simply to escape the moment, or because they
Speaker 2: believe that they deserve punishment. After having this belief system,
Speaker 2: these false facts sort of pounded into their heads. It
Speaker 2: is important to differentiate those with cognitive impairments or developmental
Speaker 2: disabilities away from or differentiate them from people with mental
Speaker 2: health diagnosis, because cognitive impairments are not mental health diagnoses.
Speaker 2: People with lower IQs, limited executive functioning, or challenges in
Speaker 2: processing information can fail to understand their rights or the
Speaker 2: implications of their statements. They may not realize that they
Speaker 2: can remain silent or ask for a lawyer, and in
Speaker 2: high pressure situations, they might give in just to escape
Speaker 2: the confusion, the pressure, the perceived threat, and these individuals'
Speaker 2: ability to distinguish truth from suggestion or resist leading questions
Speaker 2: is significantly compromised.
Speaker 1: Yes, all right, so let's move into talking about the
Speaker 1: interrogation process, how that has certainly evolved over time, and
Speaker 1: where is it going in the future, Because obviously this
Speaker 1: is still a problem. False confessions often stem not from
Speaker 1: threats or force, not anymore anyway, but from psychologically coercive
Speaker 1: interrogation tactics that continue to be used in various investigation
Speaker 1: entities around the world. One major factor, as we talked
Speaker 1: about already, is isolation. When suspects are left alone for
Speaker 1: long periods of time, their stress increases and they become
Speaker 1: more likely to comply just to escape the discomfort, or
Speaker 1: maybe even with your hypothesis, s gott the discomfort in
Speaker 1: their head due to anxiety. Add to that the use
Speaker 1: of deceptive practices like falsely claiming there's evidence or promising leniency,
Speaker 1: and you have a recipe for guilty and innocent people
Speaker 1: like confessing again just to kind of end the pressure.
Speaker 1: We also have lengthy interrogation, often lasting hours without proper breaks.
Speaker 1: This can also wear people down mentally and physically. Fatigue
Speaker 1: and pair's judgment. You guys like you wouldn't believe I
Speaker 1: mean insomnia. Lack of sleep is just so critical in
Speaker 1: terms of your cognitive functioning. This makes individuals way more
Speaker 1: suggestible and more likely to say what they think interrogators
Speaker 1: want to hear. Estimating the true number of false confessions
Speaker 1: really remains difficult due to underreporting and limited access to
Speaker 1: comprehensive data. And while not every false confession is identified
Speaker 1: or overturned, research consistently shows that they play a significant
Speaker 1: role in wrongful convictions at large. As we talked about
Speaker 1: those numbers earlier. Although the exact figures vary by study,
Speaker 1: the consensus is clear false confessions are not rare, and
Speaker 1: their impact on the justice system is significant and does
Speaker 1: not obtain the attention that it needs.
Speaker 2: So this phenomenon of confessions, both true and false, and
Speaker 2: the interrogations that generate them, really present a very complex
Speaker 2: interplay of psychological, legal, and neuro scientific factors. Thankfully, their
Speaker 2: recent emphasis on legitimate, statistically viable research has illuminated and
Speaker 2: just really brought to the surface how certain interrogation techniques
Speaker 2: can lead to false confessions by way of cognitive and
Speaker 2: neural mechanisms that underlie these confessions, and that is a
Speaker 2: lot of implication that pans out for the justice system.
Speaker 2: Let's begin by looking at the evolution of interrogation techniques. Historically,
Speaker 2: police have used coercive tactics what was once called the
Speaker 2: third degree right. These tactics included physical violence, and psychological manipulation,
Speaker 2: and that was all designed to illicit confessions. It wasn't
Speaker 2: designed to get the truth. It was designed to elicit confession.
Speaker 2: But by the nineteen sixties most of these techniques were
Speaker 2: largely replaced by accusatorial methods that focused on psychological manipulation
Speaker 2: in order to obtain confessions. So, yes, it was a
Speaker 2: change of direction, but it wasn't enough and it certainly
Speaker 2: wasn't wildly different what was being done before.
Speaker 3: Right, the same goal.
Speaker 1: Basically, they just did it different way.
Speaker 2: Exactly, it was the same goal with very little understanding
Speaker 2: of everything that we've laid out in our foundation so far.
Speaker 2: And these accusatorial approaches became standard not just in the US,
Speaker 2: but also in countries like Canada and the UK. So
Speaker 2: what does accusatorial interrogation look like. Well, again, it assumes
Speaker 2: guilt and it is confession driven, and it involves six
Speaker 2: key points interrogator dominance and control, stress inducing isolation of
Speaker 2: the suspect, use of themes to rationalize guilt, like telling
Speaker 2: the individual, well, you had no choice. It involves deceptive
Speaker 2: tactics such as false evidence, which is allowed because police
Speaker 2: can lie to you. Basically during interrogation and techniques like maximization,
Speaker 2: which is exaggerating the consequences and then minimizing as well,
Speaker 2: downplaying the seriousness. So accusatorial techniques also rely heavily on
Speaker 2: detecting anxiety based nonverbal cues to determine deception. And what
Speaker 2: does that sound like, doctor Shiloh?
Speaker 1: Bullshit?
Speaker 3: Bullshit?
Speaker 2: It sounds like body analysis, right, or heerial analysis.
Speaker 3: But better language, that's right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And despite the best training, Look, not all interrogators
Speaker 2: are capable of detecting, discerning, and processing this type of information.
Speaker 2: That's my personal and my clinical perspective. You can learn
Speaker 2: a technique, and we're going to talk about the actual
Speaker 2: names of the techniques that exist. But just because you
Speaker 2: learn a technique does not mean that you are utilizing
Speaker 2: it correctly, and it doesn't that you are interpreting the
Speaker 2: results correctly.
Speaker 3: So all of.
Speaker 2: These tactics up to this point really increased both true
Speaker 2: and false confessions.
Speaker 1: Right, So these methods like the famous or infamous retechnique
Speaker 1: still rely heavily on psychological pressure, deception, and confirmation bias,
Speaker 1: or what they literally call psychological warfare in their manual.
Speaker 1: The retechnique assumes guilt from the outset tactics include prolonged isolation,
Speaker 1: false evidence ploys like you mentioned, and minimization and maximization strategies.
Speaker 1: The research by Cassin, Meisner, and good Johnson have shown
Speaker 1: that while these methods do result in true confessions, they
Speaker 1: also greatly increase the risk of false ones, especially among
Speaker 1: the young, cognitively impaired, and emotionally vulnerable. Other factors that
Speaker 1: can come into play with some of these cases are,
Speaker 1: as we mentioned, sleep deprivation. Huge sleep deprived individuals are
Speaker 1: more susceptible to suggest and may falsely confess to actions
Speaker 1: that they didn't commit. High cognitive load. We haven't talked
Speaker 1: about this concept yet necessarily today, but under significant mental strain,
Speaker 1: individuals may experience impaired memory and decision making, increasing that
Speaker 1: risk of falsely confessing. Now, contrast this with the Mendez Principles,
Speaker 1: a new gold standard grounded in empirical research. These principles
Speaker 1: advocate for rapport based interviewing, active listening, transparency, and the
Speaker 1: ethical collection of information. Instead of trying to break down
Speaker 1: a suspect, interviewers are trained to build trust and then
Speaker 1: obtain reliable facts. Such approaches aim to gather accurate and
Speaker 1: reliable information while also respecting human rights.
Speaker 2: What a concept. So let's turn to real world applications
Speaker 2: of this. Authors Usha Sutliffe and Mark Severino from Auburn
Speaker 2: University in Alabama. They tell the story of how the
Speaker 2: LA Police Department started using science backed interviewing techniques and
Speaker 2: these methods that changed the way they solve cases in
Speaker 2: the way that they talked to suspects. The shift started
Speaker 2: with a high profile murder mystery that really feels straight
Speaker 2: out of a Hollywood thriller. So in twenty twelve, the
Speaker 2: dismembered body of Hervey Mediine, a flight attendant, was found
Speaker 2: near the Hollywood Sign. The LAPD suggested Mediine's partner, Gabrielle
Speaker 2: Compost Martinez, but they had no solid evidence. The case
Speaker 2: went cold until two LAPD detectives, Greg Stearns and Tim
Speaker 2: Marcia tried something new. They used the techniques that were
Speaker 2: developed by the FBI's High Value Detaining Interrogation Group or
Speaker 2: known as HIG, which were originally designed to ethically question
Speaker 2: terrorism suspects without using coercion. So in science based interviewing,
Speaker 2: like the HAGUE technique, they focused on careful operation before
Speaker 2: the interview, create a calm, respectful atmosphere, ask opened into
Speaker 2: questions to encourage detailed memories, listening more than talking, right,
Speaker 2: and then focusing on what people say, not just their
Speaker 2: body language. You know, if you just listen to people,
Speaker 2: they'll tell you everything.
Speaker 1: It's amazing.
Speaker 3: Trust us, it's real.
Speaker 2: I'm telling you as a clinician and as somebody that
Speaker 2: in my former role with law enforcement, I watched so
Speaker 2: many interrogation tapes like just hours and hours and hours,
Speaker 2: and the most successful ones were not being coercive, they
Speaker 2: were just letting them talk and gently guiding the conversation.
Speaker 2: This technique is really in high contrast with some of
Speaker 2: the cases that we mentioned earlier, like the Central Park
Speaker 2: five or the case of Brendan Dacy from Making a
Speaker 2: Murderer where miners were subjected to hours long interrogations without
Speaker 2: counsel and then they confessed falsely under enormous psychological stress.
Speaker 2: So these are examples that demonstrate the danger of using
Speaker 2: outdated techniques versus the promise of reform.
Speaker 1: Then we have a very infamous case, the Guildford four case,
Speaker 1: which is an example of the most significant errors of
Speaker 1: justice in British legal history. In nineteen seventy five, Jerry Conlin,
Speaker 1: Paul Hill, Patty Armstrong and Carol Richardson were wrongfully convicted
Speaker 1: for the nineteen seventy four IRA bombings of two pubs
Speaker 1: in Guildford, Surrey, which resulted in five deaths and numerous injuries.
Speaker 1: The convictions were primarily based on confessions obtained under highly
Speaker 1: stressful interviews, with the accused subjected to intense interrogation tactics
Speaker 1: including physical abuse and threats against family members. In spite
Speaker 1: of the Belcom Street IRA unit confessing to the bombings
Speaker 1: in nineteen seventy five, the Guildford four remained incarcerated for
Speaker 1: fifteen years. Convictions were finally quashed in nineteen eighty nine
Speaker 1: after it was revealed that the police have manipulated interview
Speaker 1: notes and suppressed exculpatory evidence. The case continues to be
Speaker 1: extensively analyzed in academic and media circles over the past decades.
Speaker 1: The article The Trial of the guild for Four Government
Speaker 1: Error or Government Persecution, published in the Journal of Law
Speaker 1: and Society, lays out the political and legal failures that
Speaker 1: led to this specific wrongful conviction. Additionally, the BBC has
Speaker 1: reported on the continued scrutiny of the case, including the
Speaker 1: sealing of the related documents by the Home Office. This
Speaker 1: case prompted movement in Europe to explore and implement significant changes.
Speaker 1: Most significantly, it led to the development of the Peace model.
Speaker 1: PEACE which is used in the UK, Wales, Australia and
Speaker 1: now prioritizes information gathering over confession and employees tasks such
Speaker 1: as again, rapport building, evidence presentation, strategic questioning, all of
Speaker 1: this while emphasizing ethical and effective investigative interviewing.
Speaker 2: Detectives who used the new techniques like HIG in the
Speaker 2: LAPD case found overall.
Speaker 3: They got better results.
Speaker 2: Studies have shown that the victims and the suspects gave
Speaker 2: more detailed information, They were able to clear more cases
Speaker 2: and even in some cases exonerate innocent suspects, which we
Speaker 2: really like. And they built stronger rapport which then helped
Speaker 2: break down resistance. Detective and instructor Nannette Tewsbury, a leader
Speaker 2: in the LAPD's training efforts before retiring, said that she
Speaker 2: saw clear improvements. By using techniques like tell, Explain and
Speaker 2: describe or TED for short, officers got richer and more
Speaker 2: profound stories and then they could cross check details way
Speaker 2: more effectively. She also emphasized the importance of listening, showing interest,
Speaker 2: and being respectful, even to difficult suspects. This is so
Speaker 2: important to emphasize listen, be open, get information, take it
Speaker 2: all down, rather than creating this level of conflict and
Speaker 2: level of anxiety which is not going to contribute to
Speaker 2: your intended goal.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: So, Tuesbury revised the laped's curriculum to move away from
Speaker 2: relying on gut feelings or interpreting body language and instead
Speaker 2: to focus on what people actually say. She argued that
Speaker 2: showing empathy and respect often leads suspects to open up
Speaker 2: more than intimidation ever could. So.
Speaker 1: According to Setliff and Severino in the article that we
Speaker 1: were referencing earlier, the biggest benefits of science based techniques
Speaker 1: include looking for signs of truth, not just signs of lying,
Speaker 1: building rapport to reduce resistance, learning about future threats or intentions,
Speaker 1: so not just being in the here and now, but
Speaker 1: kind of exploring some of this conversation as to future intentions.
Speaker 1: Tapping into academic research and real time feedback from experts,
Speaker 1: and then improving memory recall and the accuracy of the
Speaker 1: information through a number of different techniques that can be
Speaker 1: done as well.
Speaker 2: So retired military interrogator Steve Kleinman. He is a critic
Speaker 2: of the older harsher techniques, and he emphasizes that using
Speaker 2: the newer techniques is not about a one size fits
Speaker 2: all checklist. It's about using data to understand what works
Speaker 2: and what doesn't work in interviews, and that each interaction
Speaker 2: should be grounded in science, not guesswork. Already a fan
Speaker 2: of mister Kleinman, clearly, he goes on to warn that
Speaker 2: false confessions damage not just the individuals that are in
Speaker 2: the room, but really entire communities, and which makes so
Speaker 2: much sense because when you do that, the word is
Speaker 2: going to get out just that there's going to be distrust,
Speaker 2: and that is what causes riffs between people whose duty
Speaker 2: is to protect the community. Therein right, so sign space
Speaker 2: methods protects civil rights and they build trust in law enforcement. Now,
Speaker 2: the truth is, despite success stories, changing police culture is challenging.
Speaker 3: At best.
Speaker 2: Officers often believe that they already know how to talk
Speaker 2: to people, not because they haven't been trained or encouraged
Speaker 2: to try different techniques, but because they are out in
Speaker 2: the street and they may be partnered with someone who
Speaker 2: is not getting some of the more advanced new or
Speaker 2: they're like somebody that's kind of grizzled older, they're used
Speaker 2: to doing it their way, and then the person who's
Speaker 2: with them is heavily influenced by that. And that's only
Speaker 2: one factor. There can be tons of other factors as well.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: Others see that rapport building is sometimes too soft or
Speaker 2: time consuming, like this just takes too long. We need
Speaker 2: to like get in there and yell at them and
Speaker 2: wave our fingers.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: And then, of course, especially in today's discourse, some fear
Speaker 2: that this is just political correctness and disguise. And look,
Speaker 2: I get it, I get that. You can have that perspective.
Speaker 2: That's why we fall back on data, seeing that this
Speaker 2: it actually is what's working, and it's what's working better
Speaker 2: than what we were doing before.
Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely, And I you know, I will say being
Speaker 1: a cop, being a street cop, a patrol cop, you
Speaker 1: get so much FaceTime with just people from all walks
Speaker 1: of life and in so many different situations in their
Speaker 1: life that you know, the average person doesn't come into
Speaker 1: contact with people in these horrible moments of tragedy, right,
Speaker 1: or even like wonderful beautiful moments that it does give
Speaker 1: you a ton of experience unlike any other of being
Speaker 1: able to talk to people. I mean, I know, I
Speaker 1: definitely learned my gift of gab there. And I probably
Speaker 1: have said this before, you know, being a five foot
Speaker 1: five female, I had to use my words a lot,
Speaker 1: especially to de escalate situations because I knew I wasn't
Speaker 1: going to be able to necessarily like fight it out.
Speaker 1: Not that I wanted any situation to get to that,
Speaker 1: but I was hyper hyper aware of it. And I
Speaker 1: think that also sort of spilled over into my clinical work.
Speaker 1: And initially, you know, for all those years working with
Speaker 1: paroleis and probationers in a clinical setting that you know,
Speaker 1: as we're going through all this, I'm like, gosh, yeah,
Speaker 1: cops can kind of talk to anyone. I will give
Speaker 1: them that. When you're interviewing and interrogating. It's different, right
Speaker 1: in this setting in which you are trying to come
Speaker 1: to a determination of prosecution, because if you're a cop
Speaker 1: on the street, you're just trying to grab enough evidence
Speaker 1: probable cause to maybe take somebody to jail. Being a
Speaker 1: detective and kind of going down the road as an
Speaker 1: investigating officer, is much more serious and different. And these
Speaker 1: are the times that you know, if I had just
Speaker 1: unlimited amount of years in my life, that I wish
Speaker 1: I had stayed in law enforcement longer, because as I
Speaker 1: kind of looked at like what's next in my career,
Speaker 1: I was starting to say, you know what, I really
Speaker 1: want to study interview and interrogation because I want to
Speaker 1: be really badass at this. That was just sort of
Speaker 1: a thought, like a goal in the next few years
Speaker 1: for me. But of course, you know, I ended up
Speaker 1: taking the psychological route instead, But it would have been interesting.
Speaker 1: I think back on that Shiloh and what would she
Speaker 1: have learned, Like what was out there in two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight, two thousand and nine, and how has that changed.
Speaker 1: So just this is a very reflective episode for a
Speaker 1: lot of ways for me. But you know, just talking
Speaker 1: about letting people talk and sitting there and being empathetic,
Speaker 1: I mean, you and I worked with some very difficult clients.
Speaker 1: I know, we were clinicians, not cops interrogating them, but
Speaker 1: we're still trying to get them to tell us the
Speaker 1: truth about some really awful, shameful things that they had done.
Speaker 2: Well, and look, there's also the sort of the parallel
Speaker 2: process between what we're talking about in these interview techniques
Speaker 2: and clinical work is that there are some clinicians that
Speaker 2: follow an orientation of unconditional positive regard and there is
Speaker 2: a place for that. You know, if someone comes from
Speaker 2: a completely invalidating household and you know, to find a
Speaker 2: therapist that just does nothing but build them up and
Speaker 2: help them rebuild a foundation of self esteem. That is
Speaker 2: I get that. I'm all for that in certain situations,
Speaker 2: at certain times, with certain individuals. There are so many
Speaker 2: circumstances that play a part in that. The work that
Speaker 2: I do clinically, you know, many times I'm working with
Speaker 2: like and this is I know this is a broad
Speaker 2: like reach, but I work with people that are in entertainment,
Speaker 2: which is where I used to work, and I have.
Speaker 3: To be very very forward.
Speaker 2: With some people about Look, this is the reality of
Speaker 2: the business. So you know, the reality is, this is
Speaker 2: what the economy is, this is.
Speaker 3: What the business is.
Speaker 2: And you are an artist, but the reality is, like
Speaker 2: you've been telling me this what I've been listening to
Speaker 2: you for a long time now, and you've told me this,
Speaker 2: this and this, but you are acting in ways that
Speaker 2: are contradictory to what you have told me. But I
Speaker 2: wouldn't have been able to gently pull apart that statement
Speaker 2: unless I had been listening really thoroughly for the last
Speaker 2: six months right to go. I hear you saying this,
Speaker 2: but I also see you doing this. And there's a
Speaker 2: parallel to what is happening in these interrogation techniques is
Speaker 2: if you listen long enough, you will be able to say, well,
Speaker 2: you know, I thank you for this information. What you
Speaker 2: said before was this, so help me understand what your
Speaker 2: perspective was then versus right now, and just being non
Speaker 2: confrontational and being curious is going to show a lot
Speaker 2: of deception more than yelling at somebody right when somebody
Speaker 2: can't keep their story straight. Just think of all that
Speaker 2: information you've collected about it. I just I do think
Speaker 2: it's fascinating. I love your idea, that sort of sliding
Speaker 2: doors perspective of what.
Speaker 3: If you know.
Speaker 2: I don't want I don't want anybody to ever go
Speaker 2: back and like be regretful of decisions that you made
Speaker 2: or did not make, because ultimately we are where we
Speaker 2: are I have I'm not regretting anything I know, and
Speaker 2: knowing what we know now like, oh wow, to use
Speaker 2: this all of the stuff that we've learned over the
Speaker 2: past two decades, Yeah, that would be fascinating.
Speaker 1: Yeah for sure. But when we talk about changing police culture,
Speaker 1: the key really is in showing results, not just kind
Speaker 1: of explaining the science. Yes, case by case, the evidence
Speaker 1: you know, shows these methods work, and then letting that
Speaker 1: be involved in trainings and then like having these detectives
Speaker 1: like the ones that are talking about a LAPD show, like,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, look at what we got in this
Speaker 1: case that was essentially cold for so long. So Sutliff
Speaker 1: and Sevarino recommend a few things. They say, expand access
Speaker 1: to training in science based methods, so I know this
Speaker 1: is definitely happening. There's a whole society now or an
Speaker 1: association for Evidence based Research in Policing and evidence based
Speaker 1: training and policing, So this movement is definitely happening. And
Speaker 1: then framing these new techniques as additions, maybe not replacements
Speaker 1: just yet, but adding the good stuff to your plate,
Speaker 1: like the broccoli, instead of taking away all the bad
Speaker 1: for you stuff that tastes really good. So far, I'm
Speaker 1: sure that Yeah, that old like Dietitian trick, like just
Speaker 1: add the good stuff and then we'll take that away
Speaker 1: from you. Also, they suggest creating opportunities for cops nationwide
Speaker 1: to learn from each other. Right, So, if you have
Speaker 1: people that have done this successfully, then they go out
Speaker 1: and do the training. That makes for way more buy
Speaker 1: in than some researcher or doctor getting up there and
Speaker 1: saying like, hey, you should try this. Lastly, they suggest
Speaker 1: making sure science based techniques are explained in operational terms
Speaker 1: that cops can use.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: You, just like any training or course, you have to
Speaker 1: learn the language of your audience and use that so
Speaker 1: it will be received well. Other experts have also chimed in,
Speaker 1: like doctor Joanna Author and doctor Debbie Frankfurt, who have
Speaker 1: led Higgs research efforts. They say the LAP partnership to
Speaker 1: help create a feedback loop between cops and scientists, which
Speaker 1: is also awesome. They see it as a model for
Speaker 1: how research and practice can work together. When science backed
Speaker 1: interviews start solving cases and protecting rights, that's when the
Speaker 1: rest of the country will take notice.
Speaker 2: So how do we create this sustainable change? First of all,
Speaker 2: it's got to be through comprehensive science based training and
Speaker 2: these Mendesk principles that we've discussed over the.
Speaker 3: Last few minutes.
Speaker 2: Propose institutional training that emphasizes rapport building, active listening, and
Speaker 2: legal rights education what a concept right, role playing, realistic scenarios,
Speaker 2: and video feedback are all essential. I think that's so important.
Speaker 2: Like watch yourself. Understand what you as the interrogator are
Speaker 2: doing with your body language, Like are you being intimidating
Speaker 2: when you should be just kind of creating this calm
Speaker 2: environment for the person that you're having this talk with.
Speaker 2: And secondly, and maybe just as importantly, we need cultural
Speaker 2: change Steve Kleinman that we noted earlier. He says that
Speaker 2: law enforcement has traditionally prized confession driven methods, but modern
Speaker 2: policing just has to shift towards truth seeking rather than
Speaker 2: confession seeking. Those two things can work together, but they're
Speaker 2: also problematic if the confession driven part takes.
Speaker 3: Too much emphasis.
Speaker 2: Right, So this cultural shift only happens when officers see
Speaker 2: that these new techniques will work in practice. And he says,
Speaker 2: you got to show it, don't just say it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I think you know with all of this,
Speaker 1: Scott and I at a bare minimum feel that this
Speaker 1: comes down to three major implementations. This is not like
Speaker 1: our original thoughts, this is just what we kind of
Speaker 1: hone in on. Adopt the ethical interviewing techniques, which is
Speaker 1: going to reduce the incidents of false confessions via some
Speaker 1: sort of policy reform. Right Like, it just has to
Speaker 1: be implemented. It can't be let's talk about it. Just
Speaker 1: the research is there, start using it, make policy for it. Second,
Speaker 1: a legal standard that makes mandatory recording of interrogations and
Speaker 1: ensuring legal access to council can protect individual's rights. That's
Speaker 1: going to be vital. So again, there is no mandatory
Speaker 1: recording of interrogations. I'll leave it there. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think there's some pros and cons to how that plays
Speaker 1: out in court and to jurors. But what it does
Speaker 1: is just in this sort of like little box that
Speaker 1: we're talking about here, it makes interviewers accountable. Lastly, training
Speaker 1: and education for law enforcement personnel on these tactics as
Speaker 1: well as the psychological and maybe even the neuroscientific aspects
Speaker 1: to interrogations we think will go a long way in
Speaker 1: preventing coercive practices if they know that those techniques can
Speaker 1: cause these outcomes just because of that's the way the
Speaker 1: brain works, or that's because a thing like memory distrust
Speaker 1: syndrome actually exists. It's going to give them some pause
Speaker 1: of like, oh my gosh, okay, I didn't you know.
Speaker 1: This wasn't my intention, and now the science is saying
Speaker 1: here's what it could lead to. We think that would
Speaker 1: be really instrumental. So normally at this point we kind
Speaker 1: of transition into a criminal case or two that has
Speaker 1: the phenomenon we've talked about. We've covered a few in
Speaker 1: passing through this episode today already and then in other episodes.
Speaker 1: I mean, Amanda Knox just came to my mind over
Speaker 1: and over again as we were formulating this episode and
Speaker 1: writing it out. So instead of covering another one, we
Speaker 1: just leave this question to you guys, what false confession
Speaker 1: case has made the biggest impact on you? Let us
Speaker 1: know through social media posting on this episode, email us,
Speaker 1: tag us, pop it in the comments on Patreon, whatever wherever.
Speaker 1: I feel like we all kind of have that one
Speaker 1: that is stuck out to us for various reasons. And
Speaker 1: you know, the reason for doing this episode and episodes
Speaker 1: like this is to encourage the research field, hopefully to
Speaker 1: keep doing good work to then inform policy and procedure
Speaker 1: so that this stops happening. I mean, we're not too
Speaker 1: big for our bridges. We know our part is really
Speaker 1: small here, but please support content creators who are bringing
Speaker 1: attention to these devastating impacts of false confessions and wrongful
Speaker 1: convictions that are really amazing people out there doing great work.
Speaker 1: The more you give that attention, even if it's just
Speaker 1: in one case that gets more attention on it, or
Speaker 1: if it's something like this like talking about the science
Speaker 1: and police training. That's if you feel like you can't
Speaker 1: do anything, sometimes that's the little part that you can
Speaker 1: play as well.
Speaker 2: There are some really great entertainment examples. There's a scripted
Speaker 2: depiction of a real life event that we touched on
Speaker 2: in the Name of the Father from nineteen ninety three,
Speaker 2: a really well constructed, powerful drama that is based on
Speaker 2: that story of the Guildford Four, which was a group
Speaker 2: of irishmen wrongly convicted of an IRA bombing in England
Speaker 2: in the nineteen seventies, and of course Daniel day Lewis
Speaker 2: plays the lead Jerry Conlin. The show follows his being
Speaker 2: coerced into confessing into the crime and then being sentenced
Speaker 2: to life in prison. Not only that, but his father
Speaker 2: Giuseppe Conlin is also imprisoned as part of the alleged conspiracy,
Speaker 2: and then while in prison, he begins to fight for
Speaker 2: justice and to clear their names, aided by a determin
Speaker 2: lawyer played by Emma Thompson, who is never bad, she's
Speaker 2: always great. And this film very, very succinctly explores themes
Speaker 2: of injustice, family and perseverance, and it was nominated for
Speaker 2: seven Academy Awards. Daniel day Lewis is an intense actor,
Speaker 2: and of course this is one of his intense roles.
Speaker 2: It's really really good.
Speaker 1: Yes, then if you want more of a Docuseeries to
Speaker 1: focus on this topic. Netflix. Of course Netflix always coming through.
Speaker 1: They have the confession tapes. So this series investigates cases
Speaker 1: where people convicted of murder claimed that their confessions were
Speaker 1: either coerced, false, or involuntary. So you get to watch
Speaker 1: the record of these as they explore those cases. Also,
Speaker 1: I just want to put in here recommended listening. So
Speaker 1: Truth and Justice with Bob Ruff we already mentioned he
Speaker 1: just put out an episode called The Science of False Confessions.
Speaker 1: Very sarenedipitous. Again, like you said, Scott, this was all
Speaker 1: kind of weaving together. But he speaks with a false
Speaker 1: confessions expert Alan Hirsch, who has his own podcast called
Speaker 1: The Truth about False Confessions that he has done a
Speaker 1: number of episodes on looking at Cases. He's not currently
Speaker 1: doing any more episodes, but it sounds really interesting if
Speaker 1: you want more content, So we'll put links to all
Speaker 1: of that, as well as all the commentary that we've
Speaker 1: done pretty recently in the show notes. We'll put them
Speaker 1: in the show notes, and then of course on our website,
Speaker 1: you guys can always always go to our Spotlight tab
Speaker 1: and that has every single guest YouTube, podcast, written article,
Speaker 1: all the above. We have cataloged those for you if
Speaker 1: you just want to see where else we have kind
Speaker 1: of been yup in our mouths.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Our next Behind the Couch is going to be scheduled
Speaker 2: for Saturday, June twenty. First, we're going to be talking
Speaker 2: with retired FBI agent Kate Schwit about her new book,
Speaker 2: Women Who Talk to the Dead. We love Kate, We've
Speaker 2: talked to her before, Please please please tune in. She's
Speaker 2: always an absolutely fascinating guest. Again, we want to thank
Speaker 2: all of our Patreon members for their support their patronage.
Speaker 2: We've been having a blast doing our sort of off
Speaker 2: the cuff shrink wraps that are available to our Patreon members.
Speaker 2: We have not released those to the general public. We
Speaker 2: kind of like to keep it as a special little bonus,
Speaker 2: so you know, if you're up for some extra listening,
Speaker 2: you can always join for a month and just knock
Speaker 2: yourself out on all the additional content we've created and
Speaker 2: then take a break.
Speaker 3: You know, it's not a long commitment, but check us out.
Speaker 2: We have a lot of fun with those and we
Speaker 2: will see you next time on La Not So Confidential.
Speaker 1: Bye folks, Bye guys, take care. We sincerely thank you
Speaker 1: for spending some time with us today. La Not So
Speaker 1: Confidential is part of Alienist Entertainment and the crawl Space
Speaker 1: Media Network. Each episode is hosted, produced, and written by
Speaker 1: Doctor Scott and Doctor Shiloh. Our post production, editing and
Speaker 1: sweetening magic is handled by the multi talented Jason Usrie
Speaker 1: of ear Cult Productions.
Speaker 3: Our theme music entitled Cool What About? Our theme music
Speaker 3: entitled cool Vibes.
Speaker 2: Film Noir is composed and performed by the talented Kevin McLeod.
Speaker 2: He graciously allows us to use his music via a
Speaker 2: Creative Comments attribution license. Please check out all of Kevin's
Speaker 2: amazing work on YouTube.
Speaker 1: All of the resources for each episode can be found
Speaker 1: on our website at www dot la Dash not dashsow
Speaker 1: dash confidential dot com. You can find us on blue
Speaker 1: Sky and Instagram at La Not So Podcast, on TikTok, Facebook,
Speaker 1: and YouTube. We are at La Not So Confidential. Media
Speaker 1: inquiries and bookings are scheduled at Alienist Entertainment at gmail
Speaker 1: dot com.
Speaker 2: Once a month, we go live on YouTube on a
Speaker 2: Saturday afternoon, so stay tuned to our social media announcements
Speaker 2: to join our interactive broadcast entitled Behind the Couch, where
Speaker 2: we interview guests on a number of psych criminal, justice
Speaker 2: and true crime topics.
Speaker 1: And lastly, we'd be honored if you joined our Patreon
Speaker 1: at Patreon dot com slash La Not So Podcast. With
Speaker 1: a subscription, you get an ad free listening experience, additional content,
Speaker 1: host interaction, and you'll be the first to know about
Speaker 1: upcoming live events, social gatherings, and super cool merch.
Speaker 2: So thanks for listening and join us next time on
Speaker 2: La Not So Confidential.