6 - Midterm Exam 1 (1)

psychologists who are broadly concerned with the study of human behaviour as it relates to the law or legal system psychology and the law the use of psychology to examine the operation of the legal system psychology in the law the use of psychology in the legal system as that system operates psychology of the law the use of psychology to examine the law itself Lecture 2: ● An Introduction to Forensic Psychology (Chapter 1) https://youtu.be/oUM8Z60oVJ0 History & Challenges ● Forensic psychology shows how psychological science can enhance the gathering and presentation of evidence, improve legal decision-making, prevent crime, rehabilitate criminals, and promote justice Early research in forensic psych ● Cattell – 1895 ○ Studied the accuracy of everyday observations bringing some of them to question ○ Was thought as long as you see something, you would be accurate in remembering it ● Binet – 1900 ○ Looked at intelligence and suggestibility in children ○ Studied how susceptible children who are witness to something are to suggestibility ● Stern – 1910 ○ Would stage an argument in lecture hall and test eyewitnesses after ○ The eyewitness “Reality experiments” Early court cases in Europe ● Von Schrenck-Notzing – 1896 ○ Determining that pre-trial press can result in retroactive memory falsification ○ What was observed may get mixed up with what was heard ● Varendonck – 1911

■ Resulted in general acceptance test: ● in order for novel scientific evidence to be admissible, it must be established that the procedures used to arrive at the testimony are generally accepted in the scientific community ● Major criticism for vagueness of terms of general acceptance and particular field in which it belongs ○ Daubert v. Merrell Dow, Inc. – 1993 ■ Testimony is admissible if it is: ● 1 - provided by an expert ● 2 - relevant ● 3 - valid (where valid is determined by Daubert criteria ■ Criteria requires research: ● to be peer reviewed ● to be testable (falsifiable through experimentation) ● adhere to professional standards ■ This got rid of vague general acceptance ○ R v. Mohan – 1994 ■ In addition to requiring that testimony to be reliable, Mohan criteria in Canada states that the testimony must be: ● relevant ● assist the trier of fact* ● provided by a qualified expert ■ *A trier of fact = a person or group of people who determine facts in legal proceedings (usually a trial) ■ To determine a fact is to decide from evidence whether something existed, or some event occurred In the case of the People vs. Hawthorn ● Case of a man who had killed his wife & was pleading not guilty by reason of insanity ● Trial court refused to allow a psychologist with a PhD to be an expert witness in case ● Issue ended up in Supreme Court of Michigan where it was determined that the trial court should have accepted the psychologist as an expert witness ● Ultimately ruled that criteria for being an expert witness should not be based on whether the person had a medical degree ● Bases for qualifying an expert witness should be their depth of knowledge in a particular area ● Ruling created some controversy, however, in that many people believe that in order to testify about something like insanity, which they considered to be a disease, a person needed a medical degree Definition of “Insanity” ● This is incorrect definition: “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result” (what people think)

○ Wayne Williams ○ Smiling old lady - Giggling granny - giggled her way to jail ■ Not necessarily the notorious profile we imagine Key Moments in Forensic Psychology History ● https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=UiI4xaUTcO0&list=PLbag81Gljy94cdRNQyT3_LXOCeA8sWtnA - (12) Serial Killers - Profiling the Criminal Mind ○ FBI needed for its forensic unit a high profile case that would allow them the right opportunity to gain respect, by solving this case ■ Young children going missing in the nieghbourhood ■ Police were stuck and no arrests ■ Community was devastated and scared in Atlanta ■ Police were desperate in nature, and allowed them to have FBI unit to provide some profiling to catch this person ● There was push back especially once their profile is released - to gain credibility ● Everyone (including police) was expecting a white serial killer, preying on young black children ● Eventually the profile put out that it was an African American male was thought to be crazy at the time ■ Wayne Wiliams case they started to gain and incorporate the forensics unit to try to solve these types of cases by providing profiles right to the investigators to help them solve these problems ● Some success, but some pitfalls of profiling and mistakes that are made Wayne Williams ● Believed to have perpetrated Atlanta murders of 1979-1981 ● After being convicted of 2 murders and sentenced to life imprisonment, authorities closed 22 other unsolved murders, declaring Williams to have been perpetrator ● Williams maintained his innocence and case was reopened in 2005 Additional Slides: Chapter 1 - An Introduction to Forensic Psychology Learning Objectives ● LO1 - Identify major milestones in the history of forensic psychology ● LO2 - Explain the roles and activities performed by forensic psychologists ● LO3 - Describe the function of expert testimony and how it is assessed LO1: History of Forensic Psychology ● Early research in forensic psychology

Forensic Psychologist as Clinician ● Concerned with mental health issues in the legal system ● Tasks can include ○ Assessment and treatment of offenders ○ Custody mediations ○ Providing expert testimony ○ Personnel selection ○ Critical incident debriefings ● Must be licensed clinical psychologist with forensic specialization Forensic Psychologist as Researcher ● Conduct research on any issue related to the legal system ● Research interests can include: ○ Examining effectiveness of risk assessment strategies ○ Developing and testing ways eyewitness lineup procedures ○ Evaluating offender treatment programs ○ Factors that influence juror decision-making ● PhD-level training in a forensic program or forensic specialization Forensic Psychologist as Legal Scholar ● The least common role for forensic psychologists ● Interests can include ○ Scholarly analysis of mental health law and legal movements ○ Policy analysis and legislative consultation ● Programs at Simon Fraser University Relationships Between Psychology and Law ● Psychology and the law ○ Using psychology to study the operation of the legal system ○ Testing assumptions: E.g., “Are eyewitnesses accurate” ● Psychology in the law ○ Using psychology within the legal system as it currently operates ○ e.g., Providing expert testimony in court ● Psychology of the law ○ The use of psychology to study the law itself ○ e.g., “Does a law reduce the occurrence of a crime?” LO3: Psychological Experts in Court ● Functions of an expert witness ● Challenges of providing expert testimony ● Admissibility Criteria: Frye ● Admissibility Criteria: Daubert ● Admissibility Criteria: Mohan

c. Brown v. Board of Education d. R. v. Hubbert e. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 6. Which task is likely to be performed by an experimental forensic psychologist? a. Examining the effects of judges' instructions on jury verdicts. b. Providing expert testimony. c. Examining the effects of correctional programs on reoffending rates. d. Studying the effects of police stress on job satisfaction. e. All of the above Lecture 3: ● Criminal Profiling (Chapter 3) https://youtu.be/UQkrcqg2W10 Key Cases in Forensic Psych History ● High-profile, difficult cases ○ That allowed psychology to chip away at the boundary that the police forces and the criminal system to prevent the influence of psychology from being included ○ Eventually, psychologists were slowly allowed to become expert witnesses ○ Cases of psychology: Clarke and Clarke doll study was used successfully in a supreme court case and acknowledged as a scientific report ■ Given in the eyes of the court legitimacy for psychology research findings ● Serial killer? ○ Profiling and task of engaging in profile and having psychologists with background to help create a profile ● Police and the public are desperate for answers ○ A behavioural analysis group could help provide a profile for police officers Wayne Williams ● Believed to have perpetrated the Atlanta murders of 1979–1981 ● After being convicted of two murders and sentenced to life imprisonment, authorities closed 22 other unsolved murders , declaring Williams to have been the perpetrator ● Williams has maintained his innocence and the case was reopened as recently as 2005 ● A successful case for John Douglas and his unit Criminal Profiling: Definition ● Difficult to define Criminal Profiling precisely ● FBI definition: Technique for identifying the personality and behavioural features of an individual by analyzing the crimes they have committed.

○ Key Detail: Observed that all victims were found dressed, indicating control if dressed by themselves or disorganized if dressed by the killer. ○ Influence from Childhood: Early interest in crime-solving, forming a detective agency during the Chicago Lipstick Murders. ■ Ressler's interest in profiling stems from his early exposure to a Chicago serial killer case during his childhood, sparking his lifelong pursuit of understanding the minds of murderers. ○ Investigation: Profiled serial killer in Alexandria, Virginia, based on crime scene details. ○ Collaboration: Aligned with academics as per FBI director's guidance. ○ Case Insight: Applied insights gained from the Herons case in understanding the mind of a killer. ○ Progress: Tracking and profiling the serial killer, making strides in the investigation. ● https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=IgqMaIuw6EA&list=PL246FA2BE44A6D73B&index=2 ○ Robert Ressler's fascination: with the "Lipstick Brothers" and William Ayers inspired his career in understanding criminals, particularly serial killers. ■ Ressler decided to become a detective after being influenced by his encounters with crime. ■ Case of William Ayers Heron, a killer who committed murders almost as an afterthought during burglaries. ○ John Wayne Gacy: Ressler, a young boy at the time, decided to become a detective after encountering the notorious serial killer John Wayne Gacy, who had delivered groceries to Ressler's home. ○ Gacy’s Crimes: Discusses Gacy's double life as a respected citizen and a serial killer who preyed on young men, leading to his eventual capture and conviction. ■ Joe Colson sack hunted down Gacy after a young man went missing following a job interview at Gacy's construction company. ■ Bodies were found in a crawlspace at Gacy's house, revealing a gruesome scene of multiple victims. ○ Ressler's involvement in the Gacy case and subsequent interviews with serial killers like Gacy contributed to the development of the FBI's profiling program, shedding light on the minds of organized killers. ● https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=2VAKXMgPql0&list=PL246FA2BE44A6D73B&index=4 ○ Serial Killer Statistics: Ressler mentions that at any given time, there are between 35 and 50 serial killers on the loose in America alone. ○ Personal Involvement in a Case: Ressler recounts a case from September 1983 in Omaha, Nebraska, involving a missing newsboy whose body was found. He was ordered to assist in constructing a criminal profile and crime analysis. ○ Profile Development: Ressler notes that the killer was likely young and inexperienced in committing such crimes. He deduces this from the location of the body and the absence of certain elements, indicating a novice.

● More realistic research needed to make firm conclusions Modern day examples… ● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHqbfJ3tq4Y - Former FBI Agent Explains Criminal Profiling ○ How it compares to a disorganized-organized approach ○ Become more varied and less reliable upon personality traits ○ Modern approach to profiling ■ Comprehensive Analysis: ● Profilers conduct a thorough examination of the crime scene, victimology, and offender behavior. The goal is to gather a comprehensive understanding of the circumstances surrounding the crime. ■ Reverse Engineering: ● Criminal profiling involves reverse engineering the crime. By examining victimology, crime scenes, and pre- and post-offense behaviors, profilers attempt to deduce the type of person who committed the crime. ■ Behavioural Analysis: ● Profilers employ behavioral analysis techniques, considering factors such as the time spent at the crime scene, interaction with victims, and criminal sophistication. This analysis helps in constructing a behavioral profile of the offender. ■ Victimology: ● Profilers study the victims extensively, including their life, desires, education, and daily routine. The choices made by the offender regarding victims provide crucial information about the offender's motives and characteristics. ■ Crime Location and Method: ● The location of the crime and the methods used by the offender reveal important details. For instance, whether the crime occurred in a secluded area or a crowded urban space can indicate the offender's level of sophistication. ■ Organization Level: ● Profilers categorize offenders on a spectrum between organized and disorganized. An organized offender plans the crime meticulously, while a disorganized offender is impulsive. This classification helps in understanding the offender's level of sophistication. ■ Pre and Post-Offense Behavior: ● Profilers analyze the offender's behavior before and after the crime. This includes pre-offense surveillance, changes in behavior post-offense, and potential efforts to distance themselves from the crime scene.

■ Development of a Profile: ● Profilers synthesize information from victimology, crime scene analysis, and behavioral patterns to develop a preliminary profile. This profile includes insights into the offender's characteristics, motives, and potential personality traits. ■ Consideration of External Factors: ● Profilers consider external factors such as drug or alcohol use, which may impact the offender's inhibitions and decision-making. Additionally, they explore potential motives, like jealousy in cases involving relationships. ■ Continuous Refinement: ● Profilers understand the importance of continuous learning and refinement. While a preliminary profile is developed based on available information, the process may involve ongoing data gathering and adjustment as new details emerge. ○ Nature vs. Nurture in Criminal Behavior: ■ Criminal behavior is influenced by both genetics and environmental factors. Genetics provide the potential for violence, while personality and experiences shape an individual's response to events. ○ FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU) and Profiling Evolution: ■ Jim Clemente, a retired FBI agent, explains the evolution of criminal profiling. Early profilers gained knowledge by interviewing convicted serial killers. The modern approach involves studying victimology, crime scenes, organizational levels, and pre/post-offense behavior to create profiles. ○ Case Analysis - Double Homicide: ■ Clemente analyzes a double homicide case, noting victimology, crime scene details, and the offender's characteristics. The crime appears related to drug trafficking and a possible love triangle, with a lower level of criminal sophistication. ○ D.C. Sniper Case: ■ Clemente discusses the D.C. Sniper case, highlighting the profiling of two snipers, breaking the traditional profile of lone white male offenders. This case demonstrated the evolving nature of criminal behavioral analysis. ○ Role of Criminal Behavioral Analysis: ■ Criminal behavioral analysis helps generate leads in cases where local law enforcement lacks information. It focuses on understanding how and why crimes are committed, leading to the identification, arrest, and conviction of offenders. 5 Main Concepts Used in Profiling ● Victimology ○ Analyzing factors like age, gender, socioeconomic background ● Location

○ Idea that criminals are more likely to operate in areas they are familiar with location can be valuable insight into their behavior and movements ● Crime Scene ○ Suggest parti ular criminal’s dinstinctive modus operandi ○ Criminal’s signature refers to specific and distinct behaviour or aspects that they deliberately incorporate into their crimes as a form of graification, personal satisfaction, or personal expression ○ Identifying recurring patterns or elements in the beahviour that indicate partiuluar offender’s involvement ● Organizational Level ○ Evolved from disorganized-organized model ● Pre & Post-behavior ○ Behavior leading up to the crime and after Investigative Psychology Approaches ● Use rigorous analysis of proposed categories and their validity ● Use complex statistical analyses to examine offender behaviours ○ View how different offender types group together ● Use for future predictions Potential Problems with Profiling ● Criminal profiling is often criticized on the following grounds: ○ It lack a strong theoretical base ○ Profiles are too ambiguous to be useful ○ Professional profilers are not accurate Snook et. al ● Evaluate the accuracy of Criminal Profiling ○ Is it as accurate as professional profilers claim? ○ Are the theories and typologies utilized by profilers accurate? ● To study this: analyzed 100 murders committed by serial killers in the United States. ○ To see if they could be categorized as organized vs. disorganized. ○ Did not reveal any distinct subset of organized vs. disorganized behaviours. ○ Did a meta-analysis of all information known for those 100 murders ○ Wanted to see if they could be categorized as organized vs. disorganized ● Are professional profilers more accurate in predictions? ○ Tested by comparing the performance of profilers vs. nonprofilers in mock profiling scenarios. ■ Made up scenarios to see who would be more accurate ○ Asked to review details of a solved crime and make predictions about the offender. ● Predictions on 4 categories (cognitive processes; physical attributes; offense behaviours; social history/habits) ○ Profilers were slightly better at physical attributes.

○ But the same or worse in the other categories. ● “Investigators traditionally learn profiling through brainstorming, intuition, and educated guesswork.” ● One key issue is the inappropriate reliance on correct predictions. ● Douglas et al presented a profile that predicted 29 criminal characteristics. ○ When discussing the accuracy of the profile, they focused only on the 11 correct predictions ○ Gave 29, but once solved, only talked about the 11 they got right ○ Ignored the 18 incorrect ones Geographic Profiling ● Geographic profiling involves an analysis of crime scene locations in order to determine the most probable area of offender residence ● Assumes that offenders do not travel long distances from home to commit the majority of their crimes Geographic Profiling Systems ● Geographic profiling systems rely on mathematical models of spatial behavior ● Assign probability values to locations surrounding linked crimes ● Probabilities correspond to the likelihood that the offender resides in those areas ● Geographic profiling systems can be quite accurate Lecture 4: ● Deceptions ● Interrogations (Chapter 3 and 4) https://youtu.be/goxvSvk-vqY https://youtu.be/GR6lBFJwdjk Last Class - Wayne Williams ● Believed to have perpetrated the Atlanta murders of 1979–1981. After being convicted of two murders and sentenced to life imprisonment, authorities closed 22 other unsolved murders, declaring Williams to have been the perpetrator. Williams has maintained his innocence and the case was reopened as recently as 2005. Criminal Profiling ● Robert Ressler – one of the original profilers. Started the Behavioural Science Unit at the FBI. ● Many credit him with the term “profiling”.

Assumptions of Organized-Disorganized Model ● Crime scenes can be categorized as organized (methodical) or disorganized (chaotic) ● Background characteristics can be categorized as organized (high functioning) or disorganized (low functioning) ● Organized crimes are committed by organized offenders and disorganized crimes by disorganized offenders Accuracy of Profilers ● Despite their claims, professional profilers do not always produce profiles (under laboratory conditions) that are more accurate than profiles produced by non- professionals Today’s class ● Know when to hold ‘em & know when to fold ‘em: Interrogations, Confessions & Deception Detection Chapter 3 - The Psychology of Police Investigations Police Investigations ● Police rely on witnesses, victims, and suspects to fill in details about crimes: ○ Who was involved ○ What happened ○ Where and when did it happen ○ How did it happen, why did it happen ● Evidence is often collected through interrogations Police Interrogations ● In North America, there are generally two goals of a police interrogation: ○ Obtain a confession ○ Gain information that will further the investigation (e.g., the location of evidence) The Coercive Nature of Interrogations ● History of coercive measures: ○ Mid-1900s: ■ Whipping suspects to get a confession ○ 1980s: ■ Stun guns used by the NYPD to extract confessions ○ More recently: ■ Psychological methods such as trickery and deceit (e.g., lying about evidence) The Reid Model of Interrogation ● The Reid model is a common interrogation method ● Involves 3 general stages:

○ Gather evidence ○ Conduct a non-accusatorial interview to assess deception (guilt) ■ Don’t act as if they are guilty, but if interrogator determines there is deception ■ going on, they can conclude person is guilty and they move on to stage 3 ○ Conduct an accusatorial interrogation to obtain a confession ■ Broken into the 9 steps of Reid The Nine Steps of the 3rd stage of Reid ● The third stage involves 9 steps to break down the suspect’s resistance to confessing ● Designed to make the anxiety associated with deception (i.e., by maintaining one’s innocence) greater than the anxiety associated with confessing The Nine Steps of Reid 1. Confrontation ● The interrogator presents the facts of the case and informs the suspect of the evidence against (implying in a confident manner that the suspect is involved in the crime) ○ “Can you explain why the evidence points to you?” ● The suspect’s stress level increases ● Interrogator may move around the room, invading the suspect’s personal space to increase the discomfort ● If the suspect starts fidgeting, licking lips, and/or grooming them self (running his hand through their hair, for instance), the interrogator notes these as deception indicators confirming they’re on the right track 2. Theme Development ● Interrogator creates a story about why suspect committed crime ● Looking through the eyes of suspect to figure out why they did it ● Interrogator lays out a theme/story that suspect can latch on to either as an excuse of to justify their part in crime and interrogator observes if suspect is buying the theme ○ Are they paying closer attention than before? Nodding their head? ○ If yes, continue developing theme ○ If no, pick new theme and start over ● In background throughout interrogation ● When developing themes, interrogator speaks in soft, soothing voice to appear non- threatening and to lull suspect in false sense of security ● Mayr run through many themes before getting to theme they think is right/accurate to see difference in reaction 3. Stopping Denials ● Letting suspect deny guilt increases their confidence, so interrogator tries to interrupt all denials ○ Telling suspect it’ll be their turn to talk in a moment, but right now, they need to listen

● From start of interrogation, interrogator watches for denials and stops suspect before they can voice them ● Want to keep suspects confidence low, and keep they quiet so they don’t have a change to ask for a lawyer ● If there are no denials during theme development, interrogator takes this as a positive indicator of guilt ● If attempts of denial slow down/stop during theme development, interrogator knows they found good theme & suspect is getting closer to confessing 4. Overcoming Objections ● Once interrogator has fully developed a theme that suspect relates to, suspect may offer logical-based objections as opposed to simple denials ○ E.g., “I could never rape somebody – my sister was raped, and I saw how much pain it caused. I would never do that to someone.” ● Interrogator handles these different from denials as these objections can give ● information to turn around and use against suspect (twist objection) ○ E.g., “See, that’s good, you’re telling me you would never plan this, that it was out of your control. You care about women like your sister – it was just a one- time mistake, not a recurring thing.” ● If interrogator does this right, an objection ends up looking more like an admission of guilt 5. Getting Suspect’s Attention ● Suspect should be frustrated and unsure of themselves ● They might be looking for someone to help him escape the situation ● Interrogator tries to capitalize on insecurity by pretending to be ally ○ Appear sincere in their continued theme development and may get physically closer to the suspect, making it harder for a suspect to detach from the situation ○ May offer physical gestures of camaraderie and concern (touching shoulder or patting back) ○ “I’m trying to help you out here, so maybe you can help me too” ● Don’t want suspect to ask for lawyer and stop interrogation 6. Suspect Loses Resolve ● If suspect’s body language indicates surrender (head in hands, elbows on knees, shoulders hunched) interrogator takes opportunity to start leading suspect into confession ● Instead of focusing on theme development and focus on why they committed the crime ● Interrogator makes every effort to establish eye contact with suspect to increase suspect’s stress level and desire to escape ○ Want to show that only way to escape is by confessing ● If suspect cries, interrogator knows it’s a positive indicator of guilt 7. Alternatives

● Interrogator offers 2 contrasting motives for some aspect of the crime, sometimes beginning with a minor aspect so it’s less threatening to the suspect ○ One alternative is socially acceptable (crime of passion) and the other is morally repugnant (you killed her for the money) ○ Then give suspect choice of what they want to be portrayed as ● Interrogator builds up the contrast between the 2 alternatives until suspect given an indicator of choosing one (a nod or increased signs of surrender) ○ Then interrogator speeds things up 8. Bringing Suspect Into Conversation ● Once suspect chooses an alternative, confession has begun ● Interrogator encourages suspect to talk about the crime and might arrange for a second interrogator in room to increase suspect’s stress level and desire to give up and tell the truth ● New person in room also forces the suspect to reassert his socially acceptable reason for the crime, reinforcing idea that confession is a done deal 9. The Confession ● Final stage is about getting truthful confession that will be admitted as evidence at trial ● Virtually all interrogations today are recorded on audio/visual, and transcripts are developed ● Further evidentiary tools used during confession besides words are necessary ● Having suspect draw maps or sketches of scene, confess to secondary parties, write letters of apology, and returning the suspect back to scene and re-enacting crime are commonly used ● Very important to back-up truthfulness of the confession with independent, corroborating evidence such as disclosing ‘key facts’ of the crime which would only be known by perpetrator and investigators or turning over critically implicated evidence like the murder weapon such as disclosing ‘key facts’ of the crime which would only be known to the perpetrator and investigators or turning over critically implicating evidence like the murder weapon Minimization and Maximization ● In general, interrogations techniques included in the Reid model can be broken down into two categories: ○ Minimization techniques: ■ Soft sell tactics that provide a sense of false security (e.g., justifying the crime) ● Calmly saying “I know you didn’t mean to do it” ○ Maximization techniques: ■ Scare tactics that attempt to intimidate suspects (e.g., making up evidence) ● Close distance, get into suspects face, good cop/bad cop ● Showing made up evidence to scare individual

Interrogation room layout ● People think layout is: ○ Table with couple of chairs on one side and one on the other side ○ The suspect sits on one side of the table and the interrogator sits on the other side of the table righ ■ Whether they're using minimization or maximization techniques they're either pointing to a piece of paper or yelling at them right or trying to intimidate them while they sit across now ○ In reality today interrogation rooms rarely if ever are set up in this way this is this is a media this is a fictional type of representation of what an interrogation room often looks like ● Modern day interrogation room ○ Table in the room yes there's usually three or two or three chairs in the room ○ Often times that table is not directly between the suspect and the interrogator the suspect ○ Table often pushed up against wall and suspect is in the corner ■ Like they are trapped ■ Between door and suspect is the interrogator, and the only way you are leaving is by confessing ○ Behind the interrogator will be the door ■ You usually want the suspect to see that the door is there because you want to increase their motivation to get out of this situation ■ When pressure builds, it will make them think “if I just confess I can walk out and leave” ○ Don’t want table in between interrogator and suspect ■ Psychologically creates a barrier between and will empower the suspect (safe from them) ■ Creates a disconnect that you don’t want to be present during investigation ○ Chair that the interrogator sits in ideally has wheels ■ You want to manipulate space between yourselves ■ As pressure builds, can subtly inch forward, or back up to give them more space (lean in or backup depending) ■ Interrogator is on the side of the table to control the space between them and suspect ● Can close gap to increase anxiety or console Examples of Police Interrogations ● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTH8ifgEMTc - Russel Williams Interview ○ Russel Williams: high ranking military individual in charge of one of the biggest air military bases in Canada (colonel) very powerful ■ A serial rapist and murderer ○ As an interviewer (Jim Smyth) want to be able to know what you’re dealing with

■ Knowing Russel Wiliams is high ranking and highly trained military officer, you have to strategize to deal with those characteristics ■ Used to controlling emotions, being in control, and being in charge ● Started with police investigator "small talk" ● "I appreciate it" ● Come in super confident (use it against him) ○ Walks in knowing he’s guilty but never asks to speak to a lawyer because of his own Hubris and his overconfidence ○ Jim Smyth doesn’t do step one of the Reid model because may have done damage to the interrogation ■ Never yells or threatens ■ “We have this evidence it seems to be connected to you, can you help us explain what’s going on so we can move on, we don’t really think you were involved, we just need you to answer some questions that will let us move on, no way you were involved” ● Even though he knows he was involved ■ Develops that confidence and conneciton with Russel without asking for a lawyer ■ Called him Russel/Russ, not Colonel/Sir to not give him power and control ○ Denial for a while ■ Trying to give an explanation to give the investigator ○ Don't want desk between each other ■ Want to be closer (more intimate) ○ Investigator from behavioural sciences unit of OPP ■ Trained polygraph technicians ■ Came up with profile of what Russel will say/do for each question (no surprises) ○ Brought Russel in for questioning about the disappearance of Jessica Lloyd (from her home in Tweed Ontario 2009 - missing for 10 days) ■ Russel has cottage in Tweed - geographical connection ■ Was never arrested so he could’ve left or asked for lawyer ■ But he was so overconfident in his ability to handle the situation ○ Investigation points to Russel Williams is tire tracks near the house (SUV parked) ■ Initially the tire tracks were missed ■ Then set up roadblocks to check everyone’s tires that drove along there - matched Russel ■ Then start monitoring him and watching ■ Geographical profiling (looks at epicentre of many crimes points to Russel’s cottage) ■ Another connection with unsolved case of military officer Marie Comeau ○ Detective silence is good because it makes it uncomfortable ○ Mirrors gestures ○ Becomes calm after confessing

○ 18min mark - Jim Smyth ask Russel what is he willing to give to move past investigation? What do you need? Would you be willing to give blood samples, footprint impressions? ■ When asked for boot/foot impressions he looks at his shoes (overconfident showing by wearing the same boots to the police station) ■ Asking for blood samples, boot prints (later), fingerprints, DNA ■ Body language is very confident, but slowly breaks down ■ Arms folded = closing yourself up psychologically ■ Eyes looking down, not much eye contact ○ 24min mark - reaction to finding out tire and boot matches the crime scene ■ “Huh interesting”, stares at them, no objections, no questioning of how that’s possible ■ An innocent person reaction would show some deviance - logical, doesnt make sense ■ Involuntary reaction of nodding - silence - russel shuts down long awkward silences excruciating ● He’s guilty and doesn’t know how to talk his way out of it, seemingly calm, but mind was racing ■ Investigator says we need to have some honesty, it is getting out of control really fast ● Called him in as benefit of doubt, “but you and I know you were at Jessica’s house, and I need to know why” in a calm tone ● Tells him his window of explanation is closing (“only one option here”) gives him the choice of what to do ● Try to be on same side, presents him with a bad ending, or a good ending ● Russel says call me Russ ■ Jim was very strategic because he mentions the tire print first (which could be questioned), and then the boot print, because that is undeniable evidence ■ Most investigators will keep on talking, but Jim is quiet and lets the silence take over ○ Way he subtly applies pressure ○ 36min mark - after 4/5 hours, he starts his confession by saying “get a map”, to tell them where the body (Jessica Lloyd) lies (turning point of the confession) ■ Jim Smyth does a good job to open up about other details, corroborating evidence that will help convict Russel Williams and gets him to confess to killing Marie Comeau at the same time (tells them where he keeps memory cards of photos and videos he takes of brutally assaulting victim before killing) ■ Once he says get the map, he becomes very calm and relaxed while answering the questions ■ Jim thanks him for doing the right thing and shakes his hand

■ Russel’s wife is the most important thing to him at this moment other than his career which has blown up after this confession ○ “Gold star” use of Reid technique ■ Done almost perfectly ○ Stop at 43min Potential Problems with the Reid Model ● There are potential problems with the Reid model: (designed to do a good job for partiuclar suspects in particular situations) ○ Reliance on Deception detection ■ Ability to detect deception, not as simple or accurate/reliable ○ Comprehension of legal rights ■ Suspects don’t understand legal rights, and Reid model takes advantage of that ○ Investigator bias ■ Investigator who is not openminded and are hellbent on this suspect being perpetrator with evidence or not ○ False confessions ■ Reid model is known for producing high number of false confessions ■ Applies so much pressure to individual that becomes so uncomfortable that they might confess to crime they didn’t commit The Reid Model in Action (indicative of how it can go wrong) ● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvgB9oaRSaA - Eric Morgan (in Peel region) ○ Inapprorpoate effective manner use of Reid Model ○ Eric Morgan hosts a big bday party for himself and at end of party outside of estbalishment, Mikey Spence is shot and killed ○ None of the witnesses identified Eric, or have him at the scene of the crime ■ Witnesses stated that the shooter was a “large, bald, very black man” ■ Description doesn’t fit Morgan ■ All witnesses have Eric inside party ■ Police don’t have a problem with that at first ○ Investigation went on for 3 years without luck, eventually 6 individuals with connections to victim are arrested and charged ■ Witnesses continued to be brought in ■ Witness (Elaine Morrison) changed story (not on purpose, it was long ago - vaguely) hiccup in memory ● She heard a rumour that it was the killer’s birthday but transformed the murder case ■ New information overlies original inforation without conscious awareness ■ Suddenly points a figner in his direction, not that she remembers (now he’s a person of interest) - investigative bias for Eric Morgan ○ Apply the Reid model to all of these witnesses and said it wasn’t Eric Morgan

■ Maximization techniques: fabricating evidence, yelling, pressuring, scaring them (mention their kids and the life they have) - manipulated ■ Witnesses were abused by police officers ● Gentle prompting (memory and gossip merged) ● Attacking witnesses ● “Anyone who holds back on telling becomes a party to the offence” ■ Lead to them changing their stories ● Suspects thought the only option was to tell them what they wanted to hear ■ Enough witnesses change their story ● Key witness was Brian Cox (Eric Morgan’s best friend) who testified he stood next to him when they found out about shooting ● He put up a fight and resilient ● Was in the room for 8 hours ● Final breaking point - all of the other witnesses have identified Eric Morgan as perpetrator and now it’s only his word against all of theirs, if he doesnt go along with it, he will be charged with first degree charges ○ Charged Eric Morgan and went to jail, went to prison for 3.5 years and was charged with homicide, but was not actually guilty ■ Mistrial because Brian then tells them what actually happened, then second mistrial ■ Gave Eric a deal, to confess to a lower charge and time served The case of Eric Morgan ● Used on witnesses to try and force them to confess something they didn't do ● Going sideways because of overzealous interrogators CBC report on Smyth/Williams ● New play being produced based on the interrogation of Russel Williams. ● http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/russell-williams-killer-play-toronto-1.3949187 Today’s Class… ● Interrogation – How the Reid Model can go wrong ● Detecting deception ● Profiling Comprehension of Legal Rights ● It is assumed that safeguards (e.g., knowledge of legal rights) are in place to protect individuals being interrogated ● Research indicates that people often do not understand their legal rights ● Comprehension can be improved if cautions are delivered in an appropriate format (e.g., written vs. verbal)

○ If you write it down and give it to them rather than just saying it once ● Certain populations are vulnerable to misunderstanding their legal rights ○ Young people ○ People with impaired intellectual capacity Investigator Bias ● Officers enter the accusatorial phase of the interrogation with the belief that the suspect is guilty ● This can lead to biased perceptions and behaviours on the part of the interrogator and observers of the interrogation (e.g., jurors) False Confessions ● Research suggests that the Reid model may also elicit false confessions ● A false confession occurs when an individual confesses to a crime they did not commit or exaggerates their involvement in a crime they did commit ● Must be distinguished from disputed and retracted confessions Types of False Confessions ● Three types of false confessions: ○ 1 - Voluntary false confessions ○ 2 - Coerced-compliant false confessions ○ 3 - Coerced-internalized false confessions 1 - Voluntary False Confessions ● A voluntary false confession occurs without being prompted by the police ● Can be the result of: ○ a desire for notoriety, ○ an inability to distinguish fact from fantasy, ○ an attempt to protect the real offender, or ○ a need to be punished ● Example: The Lindbergh case 2 - Coerced-Compliant False Confessions ● A coerced-compliant false confession occurs in response to a desire to escape further interrogation or to gain a promised reward ● The confessor knows that they did not commit the crime ● Example: Gerry Conlon and the IRA bombings, Eric Morgan 3 - Coerced-Internalized False Confessions ● A coerced-internalized false confession results from suggestive interrogations ● The confessor comes to believe they committed the crime ● People suffering from brain impairments, extreme anxiety, or confusion may be more susceptible ● Example: The Paul Ingram case

Detecting Deception ● It is assumed that investigators can detect deception when moving from stage 2 to 3 of the Reid model ● Little research supports this assumption Susan Smith ● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOFS-k8kkL0&t=70s ○ Early 1990's Susan Smith said her two sons were car jacked and kidnapped ○ Inability to produce general emotion ○ She was not carjacked, she killed her 2 sons ○ At first, there were no indications that she was lying, but soon after lies became too difficult to maintain ■ Can't show emotion (no tears, face flat, no emotion in voice) ○ Ekman: look for discrepancies (things that don't fit) ■ Speech doesn’t fit with voice, voice doesn't fit with the face, … ■ Micro expressions Deception ● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_6vDLq64gE - TedTalk ○ Lie spotters are armed with scientific knowledge of how to spot deception (get to truth 90% of the time vs. 54%) ■ Use it to get to the truth ○ Lying is a cooperative act ■ Lie has no power by its mere utterance, its power emerges when someone else agrees to believe the lie ■ “If you get lied to, its because you agreed to get lied to" ○ Not all lies are bad ■ Sometimes for the sake of social dignity ○ When we are unwilling participants of deception, there can be dramatic costs ○ Lying is very prevalent ○ We lie more to strangers than coworkers ○ Extroverts lie more than introverts ○ Men lie 8 times more about themselves than they do other people ○ Women lie more to protect other people ○ Average married couple lies to each other in 1/10 interactions ○ We are against lying and covertly for it ○ The larger the neocortex (more intelligent the species) the more likely it is to be deceptive ○ Deception begins very early on in life ○ 2 patterns of deception: ■ Speech ● Non-contracted denial - those overdetermined in their denial will resort to formal rather than informal language

● Distancing language - "that woman", liars distance themselves from their subject ● Qualifying language - "to tell the truth" or "in all candor" further discredits the subject ● If repeated question entirely or peppered account with too much detail even further discredits themselves ■ Body language ● Liars freeze upper bodies when they are lying and look you in the eyes too much (too compensate for myth of fidgeting and no eye contact) ● Also have fake smiles ● Crows feet of the eyes ○ Hot spots to see discrepancies between someone's words and actions ■ Attitude: honest = cooperative to show they are on your side, if they sense they are being accused, they will be infuriated throughout the entire course of the interview ■ Attitude: deceptive = withdrawn, look down, lower voice, pause, pepper with too much detail and irrelevant places, and tells story in strict chronological order ● Investigators will ask for them to tell story backwards ● Watch which questions produce the highest level of deceptive tells ○ We rehearse our words, but rarely our gestures ○ Duping delight = get away with terrible crimes and smile ○ Saying "yes" while shaking head "no" ■ Masking one expression while another leaks through ○ Contempt is associated with moral superiority, so it is very hard to recover from ○ Marked by one corner of mouth pulled up and in ○ Only asymmetrical expression ○ In presence of contempt, whether deception follows or not, liars will shift blink rate, point their feet towards an exit, put barrier objects between themselves and the people interviewing them, alter vocal tone to be lower ■ These behaviours are just behaviours, not proof of deception ● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R59i2p7i30 - Diane Downs ○ Can't even pretend to be an agonizing mother ■ Incredible discrepancy between horrific events she describes and her cool demeanor ■ Duping delight throughout ■ Shot kids at close range and said someone else did it ■ Took kids out on "sight-seeing drive" late at night and stopped to see "what a man standing there wanted" ■ Took time to carefully wrap arm in towel while driving to hospital, but not kids ■ Asked Diane to do a re-enactment ● Was giddy, laughing, making jokes, and didn't seem at all upset

■ She and her family offered to have a news conference very early on ○ Erin Runnion: actual grieving mother who is confronting daughter's torturer and murderer ○ Oversharing is not honesty ○ Manic tweeting and texting can blind us to the fact that subtleties of human decency is what matters R. Kelly ● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeNBXASdsOE&t=97s ○ Saying "absolutely" 3 times, but shaking his head no ○ Tone and pitch gets lower and lower ○ Avoiding the question ■ Goes around the "Yes or No" answer ○ Illustrators (hitting his chest) that are congruent with what he is trying to convince everyone else of (he is angry) ■ Stands up and steps away from interviewer (a sign of aggression, stepping away before attacking) ■ Real anger, but anger due to the fact that he got caught ○ Shoulder shrugs = uncertainty ○ Just act as a victim ○ Bit lip off to the side = bad events happened, concerns, negative thoughts ■ Not seen in liars or staged emotions Ted Bundy ● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bttnakYKmRk&t=212s ○ Lots of grinning and laughing ○ Dupers delight Can We Detect Liars? ● A simple guide to detecting liars??? Deception Detection ● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WamPAPl1HDs - Lie to me ○ An individual will leak out real, genuine emotions if stakes are high enough ○ We are pretty good at masking emotions, but if stakes are high enough, some genuine emotion leaks out in form of microexpressions ○ Universal no matter who you are ○ Lawyer instructed criminal to not speak at all to avoid getting in trouble ○ Scientist was instructed by FBI to talk to mass murderer, try to reason and get him to talk and explain what he is thinking to get certain reactions ○ Scientist said something that made the criminal feel happy, which he tried his best to conceal (to get microexpressions) ■ Secretly happy about the locations that scientist mentions, because not correct location

○ Body contradicts the words in the act - indicative of lying ○ When you accuse suspect in the act and he acts surprised, is there a way to tell if its real or not? ■ Real surprise acts for less than a second ■ Anything more than a second means they could be faking and lying ○ Microexpressions: concealed scorn, contempt, shame these expressions are universal ■ Look the same no matter who you are, and are written on our faces Paul Ekman ● http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PFqzYoKkCc - Emotions Revealed KQED QUEST ○ Are emotions result of nurture or nature? ○ Emotions are innate in all humans so they must be useful to use in some way ■ They’re essential for our survival ○ Certain emotions prepare the body for specific action ● Gestures in many human cultures are as diverse as spoken word ○ Very little appears to be universal ○ But when it comes to human emotion and we we express it might be the closest thing we have to a common language ● Surprise is the briefest emotion ● Ekman studied group in New Guinea that lived in isolation ● 6 universal emotions recognized around the world: joy, anger, sadness, surprise, fear, and disgust ○ Later, contempt was added ● Studied blind individuals to tell if it was nature vs. nurture ○ Found that blind athletes made same expressions as sighted athletes ● Circulation of blood: ○ Anger: blood goes mostly to arms, heart rate increases (prepared to fight) ○ Fear/Afraid: blood goes mostly to feet (escape) ● Paul Ekman’s work was the most important work that led to that ability ● FACS manual (facial action coding system): documents and tracks how our 40 facial muscles can move, can display over 10,000 expressions but only 100 are visible ○ Used by law enforcement agents, doctors - people who it is useful to know what emotion someone is really feeling ● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9i-9_QuetA&t=107s - Dr. Paul Ekman on Expression and Gesture and Their Role in Emotion and Deception ○ Dr. Paul Ekman on Expression and Gesture and their role in emotion and deception ○ First determined that expressions and gestures were due to nature not nurture ○ Only the 7 emotions have universal signals (not jealousy etc.) ○ Studying in Japan, when they thought they were not being watched, the expressions were the same, but due to the mannerisms they grew up with, when

they were being watched it was different (cover negative emotions with mask of smiling) ○ Facial expressions can turn on physiology of emotion in the body and brain Additional Slides: Chapter 3 - The Psychology of Police Investigations Learning Objectives 1. Describe and outline 3 problems with the Reid model of interrogation 2. Define the three major types of false confessions 3. Explain why police use criminal profiling and potential problems with it 4. Explain what geographic profiling is and its use in investigations LO1: Reid Model of Interrogation ● Power of Confession Evidence ● The Reid Model of Interrogation: Stages ● The Nine Steps of Reid ● Minimization and Maximization ● Use of the Reid Model ● Potential Problems with the Reid Model ● Detecting Deception ● Procedural Safeguards ● Investigator Bias ● Interrogations Practices and the Courts ● Alternatives to the Reid Model Power of Confession Evidence ● Confession is most potent form of evidence in court ○ Primary goal of many police interrogations ● Interrogators use variety of tactics to generate a confession ○ Historically physically coercive (e.g., whipping) ○ Replaced by psychologically coercive (e.g., lying about evidence) ● Tactics often viewed as necessary evil convince guilty people to talk The Reid Model of Interrogation: Stages ● Most used interrogation model in North America ● Involves 3 general stages: ○ Gather evidence ○ Conduct a non-accusatorial interview to assess deception (guilt) ○ Conduct an accusatorial interrogation to obtain a confession The Nine Steps of Reid ● The third stage involves 9-step approach to secure a confession ○ 1. Direct statement of belief in the suspect’s guilt

○ 2. Develop and introduce psychological themes ○ 3. Interrupt statements of denial ○ 4. Overcome objections to involvement ○ 5. Procure and retain suspect’s attention ○ 6. Handling the suspect’s passive mood ○ 7. Presenting the alternative question ○ 8. Turn admission into full confession ○ 9. Turning oral into written confession Minimization and Maximization ● Goal is to reduce anxiety associated with confessing ● Techniques can be broken down into two broad categories: ○ Minimization techniques: ○ Soft sell tactics that provide moral justification for actions ○ e.g., blaming the victim ● Maximization techniques: ○ Scare tactics that attempt to intimidate suspects ○ e.g., Making up or exaggerating evidence Use of the Reid Model ● Actual interrogations do not always include Reid techniques ● Commonly used techniques ○ Appealing to suspect’s pride with flattery ○ Minimize the seriousness of the offence ○ Build rapport with the suspect ○ Sympathize with the suspect by condemning others ● More tactics used led to more confessions ● Lack of direct research using real-world data Potential Problems with the Reid Model ● Two potential problems with the Reid model: ○ Deception detection ○ Investigator bias Detecting Deception ● 9-step process only commences if suspect deemed guilty ○ Assumes that investigators can detect deception accurately ● Little research supports this assumption ○ Training relatively ineffective ● Innocent suspects may undergo guilt-presumptive interrogation Procedural Safeguards ● Legal safeguards exist to protect individuals being interrogated ○ Right to silence

○ Right to legal counsel ● People often do not understand their legal rights ○ Both adults and youth ● Have complex structure and language Investigator Bias ● Officers enter interrogation believing suspect is guilty ○ Leads to investigator bias ○ Seek and interpret information that confirms belief ● Leads to more biased interrogations: ○ Ask more guilt-presumptive questions ○ Use more interrogation techniques ○ Judge more suspects as guilty ○ Exert more pressure on suspects to confess ○ Observers rate as more coercive Interrogation Practices and the Courts ● Trial judge must decide whether is confession is admissible ○ Made voluntarily? ○ Defendant competent? ○ Physical coercion will likely make confession inadmissible Psychological tactics more difficult to judge Alternatives to Reid Model ● These problems have led some agencies to change ○ U K has banned many Reid-based tactics ● New model known as PEACE ○ Inquisitorial vs. accusatorial ○ Same number of confessions before/after change ● Implementation of PEACE starting in Canada as well LO2: False Confessions ● False Confessions: Definition and Frequency ● Types of False Confessions ● Voluntary False Confessions ● Coerced-Compliant False Confessions ● Coerced-Internalized False Confessions ● False Confessions in the Lab ● Consequences of False Confessions False Confessions: Definition and Frequency ● Coercive interrogations may also elicit false confessions ○ Intentionally fabricated ○ Not based on actual knowledge of the facts

● Distinguished from disputed and retracted confessions ● Frequency of false confessions is unknown ○ Common within high-profile wrongful convictions Types of False Confessions ● Three types of false confessions: ○ Voluntary false confessions ○ Coerced-compliant false confessions ○ Coerced-internalized false confessions Voluntary False Confessions ● Occurs without being prompted by the police ● Can be the result of: ○ A desire for notoriety ○ An inability to distinguish fact from fantasy ○ A need to be punished ○ An attempt to protect someone else from harm ● Example: The Lindbergh case Coerced-Compliant False Confessions ● Suspect confesses but knows they did not commit the crime ○ Escape further interrogation ○ Gain a promised reward ● May be most common type of false confession ● Example: M J S confession to child abuse Coerced-Internalized False Confessions ● The suspect comes to believe they committed the crime ○ Occurs as a result of highly suggestive interrogations ● Several vulnerability factors: ○ Substance abuse ○ Inability to detect observed vs. suggested ○ Severe aanxiety, confusion, or guilt ● Example: The Billy Wayne Cope case False Confessions in the Lab (1 of 3) ● Classic “Alt-key” paradigm: ● Participants accused of committing a mock “crime” ● Manipulated two factors ○ Vulnerability: Speed of typing ○ False evidence: Witness “saw” the forbidden action ● Percentage of false confessions recorded ○ Compliance ○ Internalization

○ Confabulation False Confessions in the Lab (2 of 3) ● Table 3.1 Compliance, Internalization, and Confabulation in Kassin and Kiechel’s Study False Confessions in the Lab (3 of 3) ● Weaknesses of the “Alt-key” paradigm: ○ No consequences for confessing ○ All participants were innocent ○ May be confused about own guilt ● New paradigms confirm original findings ● False memories can also be induced easily with suggestive interviews Consequences of False Confessions ● False confessions often lead to convictions ○ Even when jurors are aware of coercive interrogation ● False confessions viewed as evidence of guilt ○ Difficulty believing innocent person would confess ○ Unable to distinguish between true and false confessions ○ True and false confessions often similar in content and structure ● False confessions may taint other evidence ● Misdirect the overall investigation LO3: Criminal Profiling ● Criminal Profiling: Definition ● Goals of Criminal Profiling ● Origins of Criminal Profiling ● Construction of a Criminal Profile ● Organized-Disorganized Model ● Investigative Psychology Approaches ● Validity of Criminal Profiling ● Theoretical Base ● Empirical Support for Assumptions ● Ambiguous Profiles ● Accuracy of Profilers Criminal Profiling: Definition

● Difficult to define Criminal Profiling precisely ● FBI definition: Technique for identifying the personality and behavioural features of an individual by analyzing the crimes they have committed ● Used in cases involving violent serial crime investigations Goals of Criminal Profiling ● Criminal profiles are used for a variety of purposes: ○ To flush out offenders ○ To determine the seriousness of a threat ○ To provide interrogation advice ○ To inform prosecutors when cross-examining defendants Origins of Criminal Profiling ● One of the earliest uses was during the Jack the Ripper case ● “Mad Bomber” case in New York in the 1940’s ○ Dr. James Brussel created profile ● F B I created profiling program in the 1970’s ○ Similar units in other countries including Canada ● Investigative Psychology ○ David Canter and colleagues in the U K Construction of a Criminal Profile ● There are two broad approaches: ● Deductive profiling: ○ Profiling from evidence relating to specific offender’s crimes ○ Underlying logic may be faulty ● Inductive profiling: ○ Profiling from what is known about similar (solved) crimes ○ Difficult to apply to unique specific cases Organized-Disorganized Model ● Inductive approach developed by the F B I in the 1980’s ● Organized ○ Planned, used vehicle, little evidence left, etc. ○ Offender likely intelligent, skilled occupation, owns vehicle, etc. ● Disorganized ○ Spontaneous, mutilation, evidence left, etc. ○ Offender likely unintelligent, lives alone, unskilled occupation, etc. ● Little research to support this model ○ Many offenders mixed Investigative Psychology Approaches ● Use rigorous analysis of proposed categories and their validity ● Use complex statistical analyses to examine offender behaviours

○ View how different offender types group together ● Use for future predictions Validity of Criminal Profiling ● Criminal profiling is often criticized on the following grounds: ○ It is based on personality theories that lack empirical support ○ Psychological assumptions used lack empirical support ○ Profiles are so ambiguous that they can fit many suspects ○ Professional profilers no more accurate than untrained people Theoretical Base ● Many forms of profiling based classic trait model ○ Consistent behaviour across time and situations ○ Similar behaviour in criminal and noncriminal settings ● Largely disregards situational influences Empirical Support for Assumptions ● Two key assumptions: ○ Offenders behaviour is stable across their crimes ○ Relationship between behaviours and background characteristics ● Partial research support for the stability assumption ● Little to no support for the link to background characteristics ○ Stronger when contextual details taken into account Ambiguous Profiles ● Profiles often contain ambiguous predictions ○ e.g., the offender will be a “social misfit” ● Can be interpreted to fit a variety of suspects Accuracy of Profilers ● Professional profilers compared to non-professionals ○ Limited research conducted ○ Done under laboratory conditions ● Professionals only moderately outperformed others ○ Calls expertise into question ● More realistic research needed to make firm conclusions LO4: Geographic Profiling ● Geographic Profiling: Definition ● Geographic Profiling Systems Geographic Profiling: Definition ● Uses crime scene locations to predict where offender likely lives ○ Used in serious serial cases

○ Used to prioritize suspects based on home location ● Assumes people offend close to where they live ○ Research generally supports this basic assumption Geographic Profiling Systems ● Computerized systems using models of spatial behavior ○ Assign probability values to locations surrounding linked crimes ○ Correspond to likelihood that the offender resides in those areas ● Geographic profiling systems can be quite accurate Additional Slides Chapter 4 - Deception Learning Objectives ● Describe what the polygraph is, its uses, and two types of polygraph tests ● Describe the research and scientific opinion about the polygraph ● Describe physiologically based alternatives to the polygraph: event-related brain potentials and functional brain imaging techniques ● Outline the verbal and nonverbal characteristics of deception, including research on the detection of high-stakes lies ● Define disorders of deception and summarize the three explanatory models of malingering ● Differentiate between the types of studies used to examine malingering and summarize research on malingered psychosis L O1: The Polygraph ● The Polygraph: Principles ● Applications of Polygraph ● Types of Polygraph Tests ● Comparison Question Test (C Q T) ● Phases of the C Q T ● C Q T: Assumptions ● Concealed Information Test (C I T) The Polygraph: Principles ● Principle: Deception associated with physiological change ○ Rice power and dry mouth ● Original polygraph created by William Marston in 1917 ● Current device measures: ○ Respiration ○ Heart rate ○ Sweating ● Lie detection vs. physiological changes detection

Applications of Polygraph ● Helps in criminal investigations ○ Suspect may be asked to take a polygraph test ● Verify a crime has occurred ○ Victim is asked to take a polygraph test ● Monitoring sexual offenders on probation ○ Violations and fantasies ● Pre-employment screening for security agencies and police ○ e.g., C S I S Types of Polygraph Tests ● There are two main types of polygraph tests: ○ Comparison Question Test (C Q T) ○ Concealed Information Test (C I T) Comparison Question Test (C Q T) ● Most common in criminal investigations ● Includes three types of questions ○ Neutral ○ Relevant ○ Comparison ● Deception is assessed by comparing physiological responses between relevant and comparison questions ● Table 4.1 Typical Question Series Used in a Comparison Question Test Type of question Questions Introductory Do you understand that I will be asking only questions we have discussed before? Neutral Are the lights turned on inside of this room right now? Comparison Between the ages of 18 to 28, did you ever deliberatively plan to physically hurt someone? Relevant Did you stab Petunia Bottoms on the night of March 10? Neutral Are you now physically located within Ontario? Comparison Prior to 2016, did you ever verbally threaten to hurt anyone? Relevant Did you use a knife to stab Petunia Bottoms? Neutral Were you born in November? Comparison Did the first 28 year of your life, did you ever do anything illegal? Relevant On march 10, did you participate, in any way, in the stabbing of

Petunia Bottoms? Phases of the C Q T ● Pre-test interview ○ Interview with suspect to develop the comparison questions ● Polygraph exam ○ Questions asked while physiological responses are measured ● Scoring ○ Polygraph examiner scores the physiological responses ○ Options: Truthful, deceptive, or inconclusive ● Post-test interview ○ If a suspect is judged deceptive they are pressured to confess C Q T: Assumptions ● Guilty people will react more to relevant questions ● Innocent people will react more to comparison questions ● Potential problems: ○ Innocent suspect may react more strongly to questions about a specific crime than to vague questions about past behaviour ○ Guilty suspects may not react as strongly to relevant questions if they have been repeatedly exposed to those questions Concealed Information Test (C I T) ● Assesses if suspect has information that only the criminal would know ● Asks suspects multiple-choice questions, one option is correct ● Assumes guilty suspects will react strongly to correct information ● Potential problems: ○ Assumes suspects are aware of and remember all information ○ Must have confidential crime-relevant information to use ● Rarely used in Canada or United States L O2: Validity of Polygraph ● Types of Polygraph Studies ● Accuracy of the C Q T ● Accuracy of the C I T ● Polygraph: Countermeasures ● Expert Opinion on the Polygraph ● Admissibility of the Polygraph Types of Polygraph Studies ● Laboratory studies ○ Simulated criminal behaviour ○ Advantage: Ground truth is known ○ Disadvantage: Lacks realism, limited real-world application

● Field studies ○ Real-life situations and actual suspects ○ Advantage: High realism and real-world applicability ○ Disadvantage: Ground truth is not known Accuracy of the C Q T ● Most studies use confessions as indicated of ground truth ○ Unreliable measure ● Majority of guilty suspects correctly identified ○ 84% to 92% guilty correctly identified ● Many innocent suspects falsely identified as guilty ○ 9% to 24% false positive errors ○ Many classified as inconclusive Accuracy of the C I T ● Mostly based on laboratory studies ● Very accurate at identifying innocent participants ○ Up to 95% correctly identified ● Less accurate at identifying guilty participants ○ Between 76% to 85% correctly identified ● No field studies have been conducted in North America ○ Israel: 98% for innocent, 42% for guilty Polygraph: Countermeasures ● Both physical and mental countermeasures are effective for C Q T ○ Biting tongue or counting backward ○ 50% of guilty suspects in laboratory study beat the polygraph ○ Polygraph examiners unaware of measures ● The C I T does not appear to be effected by anti-anxiety drugs Expert Opinion on the Polygraph ● U S National Research Council Report ○ Theoretical rationale weak ○ Existing validation studies have serious limitations ○ Practitioners claim overly high accuracy rates Admissibility of Polygraph ● Did not pass general acceptance test in U S ○ Frye v. United States, 1923 ● Not admissible into evidence in Canadian courts ○ R. v. Beland, 1987 ○ Imbued with “mystique of science” L O3: Physiological Alternatives

● Brain-Based Deception Research: E R P ● Brain-Based Deception Research: f M R I Brain-Based Deception Research: E R P ● Event-related brain potentials (E R P) ○ Measure brain activity in response to a significant stimulus ○ P300 responds to infrequent, significant stimuli ○ Guilty suspects: Stronger response to crime vs. non-crime question ● Laboratory research demonstrates relatively high accuracy levels ○ 75–90% of participants categorized correctly Brain-Based Deception Research: f M R I ● Functional magnetic resonance imaging (f M R I): ○ Measure blood flow in brain ○ Different brain areas activated when deceptive vs. truthful ● High accuracy rates (~90%) ○ Easily beaten by countermeasures ○ Limitations of laboratory research ● May have powerful influence on jurors L O4: Verbal and Nonverbal Cues ● Detecting Deception: Cues ● Detecting Deception: Verbal Cues ● Detecting Deception: Professionals Detecting Deception: Cues ● Assumption: Lying produces physiological changes ○ Difficult to control nonverbal responses in particular ● Nonverbal cues not reliable indicators of deception ○ Gaze aversion, self-manipulation, etc. ● Some verbal/vocal cues related to deception: ○ Higher voice pitch ○ Increased speech disturbance (ah, umm) ○ Slower speech ● Cues dependent on complexity of the lies Detecting Deception: Verbal Cues ● Verbal cues that are indicative of honesty: ○ Make corrections in account ○ Admit to lack of memory ● Verbal cues that are indicative of deception: ○ Fewer details ○ Less compelling accounts ○ Less cooperative and more nervous/tense

Detecting Deception: Professionals ● Lie detection rates similar among professionals and lay people ○ ~55% accuracy ● Reasons for low accuracy ○ Mistake beliefs about cues (e.g., gaze aversion) ○ Truth-bias ○ Few differences between liars and truth tellers ● Professionals tend to detect high stakes lies better than low stakes lies ● Training courses have limited effectiveness in increasing accuracy L O5: Disorders of Deception ● Categories of Disorders ● Malingering ● Defensiveness ● Explanations of Malingering ● Pathogenic Model ● Criminological Model ● Adaptational Model Categories of Disorders ● Vary on two dimensions ○ Intentionally/consciously produced symptoms ○ Motivation is external or internal ● Conversion disorder ○ Neurological symptoms, not intentionally produced ● Factitious Disorder ○ Intentionally produced symptoms, no external incentives ● Munchausen syndrome by proxy ○ Intentionally create symptoms in their children Malingering ● Psychological or physical symptoms are voluntarily fakes ● There are external motivations to produce symptoms: ○ Avoid criminal punishment ○ Obtain drugs or transfer to different institution ○ Avoid military duties or drugs ○ Compensation for an alleged disability/injury ● Prevalence quite high in forensic settings Defensiveness ● Conscious denial or minimization of symptoms ○ Wish to appear high functioning to be viewed as a fit parent ○ Unwillingness to admit to being a “patient”

● Ranges from mild to severe Explanations of Malingering ● Three explanatory models of malingering ○ 1 - Pathogenic model ○ 2 - Criminological model ○ 3 - Adaptational model 1 - Pathogenic Model ● Assumes malingering results from an underlying mental disorder ● The patient attempts to gain control by creating fictitious symptoms ● Little empirical support 2- Criminological Model ● Focuses on “badness” ○ Antisocial personality disorder (A P D) (bad person) ○ Legal difficulties (bad situation) ○ Uncooperative with process (bad behaviour) ● Little empirical support ○ Those with A P D not less willing to cooperation ○ Many patients uncooperative during evaluations 3 - Adaptational Model ● Malingering is likely to occur when: ○ A perceived adversarial context is present ○ Personal stakes are very high ○ No other viable alternatives are perceived ● Research findings support this model L O6: Studying Malingering ● Study Designs ● Case Studies ● Simulation Design ● Known-Groups Design ● Detecting Malingered Psychosis ● Assessments: S I R S ● Assessments: M MP I/M MP I-2 Study Designs ● Three basic designs to study Malingering: ○ 1 - Case study ○ 2 - Simulation ○ 3 - Known groups

1 - Case Studies ● Not widely used ● Useful for generating a wide variety of hypotheses ○ Tested using experimental methods ● Only way to study rare syndromes 2 - Simulation Design ● Most frequently used ● Participants are told to malinger a specific disorder and compared to ○ Control group ○ Clinical comparison group ● High experimental rigour ● Limited generalizability to the real world 3 - Known-Groups Design ● Involves two stages ○ Establishing the criterion groups (e.g. genuine patients and malingers) ○ Analysis of the similarities and differences between criterion groups ● Good generalizability to real-world settings ● Problems classifying criterion groups ○ “Genuine” patients may be malingering ○ Those classified as malingerers may be genuine patients Detecting Malingered Psychosis ● Clues regarding the symptoms: ○ Report rare, atypical symptoms ○ Report atypical delusions or hallucinations ○ Absence of subtle symptoms ○ Continuous hallucinations rather than intermittent Assessments: S I R S ● The Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (S I R S) ○ Uses a structured interview ○ 172 items organized into 8 scales ○ Research indicates good validity Assessments: M M P I/M M P I-2 ● Self-report personality inventories ● Contain scales to detect unusual or atypical symptoms ○ Infrequency (F) and Back F (Fb) scales ● Research indicates these scales are useful in detecting malingerers Psych 2032 – Practice Quiz Chapters 3 & 4

1. True or False: Polygraph tests are 100% accurate in detecting deception. 2. True or False: Microexpressions are facial expressions that last for an extended period, making them easy to analyze for deception. 3. True or False: Eye contact is always a reliable indicator of truthfulness in deception detection. 4. True or False: People who are left-handed are more likely to be deceptive than those who are right-handed. 5. What are a suspect’s interrogation rights called in the United States? A. Marianne rights B. Monica rights C. Miranda rights D. Marissa rights E. Melissa rights 6. Who developed the first polygraph test? A. John Larson B. William Marston C. A group of FBI researchers D. James Frye E. Hugo Munsterberg 7. Which of the following is not measured by the polygraph test? A. Heart rate B. Galvanic skin response C. Micro facial expressions D. Breathing E. The polygraph measures all of these things Lecture 5: ● Eyewitness Testimony (Chapter 5) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzJY5bF6gvE&feature=youtu.be Modern cognitive ● For example – Elizabeth Loftus ● Memory and factors can distort eyewitness memory ● Focused on how malleable and unreliable eyewitness memory can be

● Misinformation effect – due to questioning or time that has passed, our memories can be altered and changed ● Its impact on eyewitness memory and testimony The role of memory ● Eyewitness testimony relies on: ○ Encoding, storing, and recalling information ● Storing memories requires several steps including: ○ Attention, encoding, short-term memory, long-term memory ○ Short-term = brief 25-30 seconds and 7 +/- 2 bits of information ○ Long-term = Need to keep it connected and accurate to pull out of memory and into conscious mind ● Not all memories pass successfully through these stages and problems may occur at each stage ● Even if they do, can still be manipulated/changed over time Stages of Memory ● Encoding ● Storage ● Retrieval Remembering ● Involves all 3 of these processes ○ 1 - encoding ○ 2 - storage ○ 3 - retrieval ● Failure in any one of these processes can result in memory failure ○ Any mix up with any stage = memory altered or details lost Unconscious transference example ● Dr. Thompson: Psychologist from Australia who studied (ironically) Human Memory ● Accused of sexual assault and brought in for questioning ● Perfectly matched the victim’s description of perpetrator ● Alibi : doing a live TV interview on how to better remember faces ● Victim had watched the interview just prior to incident ○ Unconsciously transferred all the details and physical characteristics of Dr Thompson on to perpetrator ○ Shows how malleable memory can be ○ During trauma, our brain tries to protect ourselves, so can result in false memories ○ So when asked about perpetrator in her mind - her memory was the characteristics of Dr Thompson, by overlaying it onto the perpetrator ○ She wasn’t aware she was doing this ○ There was too much emotion - so the mind forgot instead of remembering

Flashbulb memories ● Recollections that seem so vivid, so clear, that we can picture them as if they were a snapshot of a moment in time ● Most likely to occur for distinctive, positive, or negative events that evoke strong emotional reactions. Flashbulb memories - how accurate? ● OJ Simpson’s murder trial verdict ○ University students were asked “how, when, with whom, and where they had learned of the verdict” ○ Also reported whether they agreed with it or not and how emotional they were about it. ■ Everyone had a opinion about the verdict and how it should have gone ■ Important question in determining people’s future accuracy ■ Asked how emotional they were about it ○ Retested 15 months later – only 10% made major errors. ■ 90% did not make error which is pretty good and maintained pretty high degree of accuracy ○ Retested 32 months later – 43% made major errors. ■ Made major mistakes about where they were, what they were doing ■ Should not happen if this is a true flashball memory - supposed to be consistent over long period of time ○ Key factor in accuracy? ■ It was the level of emotion they felt upon hearing the verdict ■ Consistent for flashball memory that seems to need certain level of emotional arousal (intensity balance) ○ Their emotional response/reaction – stronger = better recall ● September 11th (9/11) ○ Alot of people can recall alot of details (even professor) about the vivid responses of where they were, what time, how they felt ○ 1 study - 569 students asked to complete a memory questionnaire after 9/11. ○ One of the items on questionnaire was: ■ “On September 11th, did you see the video on television of the first plane striking the first tower?” ● 73% said yes. ● Researchers put this question in the questionnaire for a reason: they wanted to determine accuracy and confidence level ● Problem: ¾ of people report seeing that - because its impossible because there was no coverage of the September 11 incident ● Any coverage that occured was after the fact ■ With research on flashball memory: incorrect responders were actually MORE confident than those who said “No”. ■ Accuracy level is almost opposite of the confidence level

■ Negative correlation: in flashball memories have determined as confidence increases, accuracy decreases ● Princess Diana Car Crash ○ Study in England asked participants if they remember seeing the video of the car crash on the TV news. ○ 44% of the individuals said “Yes”. ○ Problem: again….not possible. Video didn’t exist. ○ BUT confidence level was just as high as those who said “No”. ○ Confidence level rated siginficnatly higher in those who responded incorrectly compared to those who responded correctly ○ Can’t be fooled by confidence level Types of eyewitness memory ● Two types of memory retrieval that eyewitnesses perform: ○ 1 - Recall memory – reporting details of a previously witnessed event/person ■ More open ended ■ Can you recall the events that took place, or details of the perpetrator to see how much details they can provide (free recall task) ○ 2 - Recognition memory – determining whether what is currently being viewed/heard is the same as the previously witnessed item/person ■ Ie, traditional lineup - do you recognize the perpetrator - comparing what they’re looking at vs the memory, trying to RECOGNIZE the memory (matching up task) Studying eyewitness issues ● Eyewitness issues can be studied using a variety of methods ○ Archival data ■ Here’s all the information we got, eyewitness testimony, details from court, details from police interviewing - comparison with all the data ○ Naturalistic observation ■ Observe these things taking place without having control of what’s going on ■ Taking a backseat observation ○ Laboratory simulations ■ Simulate ■ Test people’s ability to recall the details ■ Mock event ■ Hope the data would translate and be beneficial to real life situations Types of Eyewitness Independent Variables ● Two types of independent variables in eyewitness research: ○ 1 - Estimator variables: ■ Present at the time of the crime and cannot be changed (e.g., age of witness, wearing glasses?) ○ 2 - System variables:

■ Can be manipulated to increase (or decrease) eyewitness accuracy (e.g., lineup procedure - is it going to be 5 individuals with a number on their chest, have them say something or going to be sequential with photos) ● Sequential lineup vs traditional lineup Recall of the event/perpetrator ● Recall of the crime event can take two forms: ● 1 - Open ended recall/free narrative: ○ Witnesses are asked to recount what they witnessed without being prompted ○ “Tell me what you remember” ● 2 - Direct question recall: (with prompt) ○ Witnesses are asked specific questions about the event/perpetrator ○ Being prompted ○ “What colour was the coat?” ○ “Tell me about the van that they were driving” - provided potentially misleading information ○ Hope that police officers would control beforehand - misinformation can occur by be putting in details that could influence witnesses memory Types of eyewitness dependent variables ● Three general dependent variables used in eyewitness studies : ○ Recall of the event ■ How accurate was the witness in recalling what happened before, during, and after event ○ Recall of the perpetrator ■ How many accurate details did witness provide in terms of suspect or perpetrator ○ Recognition of the perpetrator ■ When later shown pictuer or in lineup, did they accurately identify perpetrator ■ Did they do the match with recognition (lineup/photo match memory) ■ Later on, can they successfully identify the perpetrator Eyewitness Memory Documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_QbTX2qS10 - Can YOU spot the murderer? - Eyewitness - BBC Two ● 10 volunteers taking part a TV documentary about memory were filmed doing experiments in a tv studio ● Lunchtime on day 2 of testing in experiments, and are taken to a local pub for lunch ● While the fight breaks out, they believe that the cameras stop rolling so it looks believable ● Not aware that everyone in that shop is a stuntman or actor, it is all a setup ● 10 people are in a coffee shop and all witnessed a “murder” and are tested for their memory of the accident

● A woman is at a table, and a guy in the yellow vest is talking to her, and then a man comes up to the table and picks a fight with the yellow vest guy ○ A yellow vest guy stabs the guy that alked up to the table ○ A male was stabbed in the shop ○ Puncture wound to the abdomen ● Volunteers are all eyewitnesses ● Police handle the crime as a real case ● They didn’t know they would be eyewitneses https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVHWn3m2PDE - What Do They Remember About the Crime? - Eyewitness - BBC Two ● They are eyewitnesses giving statements of what they witnessed ● Not everyone remembers what happened before the fight, everyone remembers what happens when the shouting happened ● Trouble is - the crucial part - eyewitnesses remember differently ○ Everyone remembers different details ○ Glass being thrown, who was stabbed, who had a knife, who was the stabber, and whether punches were thrown are all details that varied ● Had to try and recall the whole process ● How are the participants doing? Withdrawing? Remembering? ● The types of questions they asked ○ Free recall - Open ended recall/free narrative: ■ “Picture where you were in your mind” ○ No prompt on questions ○ Just asked to tell them as much as they could about the incident https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZhcp6dOKds - Identifying the Murderer - Eyewitness - BBC Two ● 6 weeks after the stabbing ● Being shown 10 photos and have be in photo identification experiment ○ 3 of which are actors from pub fight ○ Murderer Gordon and accomplice Jimmy ○ Victim Dean ○ Rest were section of male faces unknown to the witnesses ● Recognition type tasks: shown 10 photos and have to match it to what they remember ● Asked any individuals they recognized and the part they played in the crime ● 7/10 individuals picked out Jimmy as the guy in the yellow/high visibility jacket ● No one identified Gordon as murderer ○ Only one witness placed Gordon at the pub time of the crime ● 2 people selected the same innocent man as the murderer - shocking because they could have never seen him before ● Horrible accuracy of identifying the murderer, not as bad for identifying Jimmy the accomplice

● Factors that may impact: where they sat, who they sat with, being interrupted during free recall Impeding interviewing witnesses ● Police officers may impede the interview process by: ○ Interrupting witnesses during free recall ■ Allow them to provide free recall with detail without being prompted or interrupted ○ Asking short specific questions which may not get at critical information ■ Too direct narrow questioning ■ Critical information may help later down the road ○ Asking questions not relevant to what the witness is currently describing ■ Impatience of getting all the information can lead to police officer jumping and asking about not relevant ■ Shifting witness memory from overall specifics, going back later causes distortion in memory Witness contamination ● Witnesses can be “contaminated ” by information they may become aware of from other witnesses ○ If an event takes place today and there are multiple witnesses, the first thing investigators are supposed to do is isolate witnesses ○ For example, if they directly communicate with each other or learn of what others reported ■ First thing they do know, is separate the witnesses - so they can’t communicate with each other ○ Where they instill bits of misinformation along the way by how they ask a question or details put in the question that distorts the witness, ● This is known as “ memory conformity ” ● May add information to memory system because they just heard it ○ For example - they used to grab all the witnesses and put them in a room and bring them in one at a time, but then they all get the chance to talk to each other ■ Think suspect had jacket, but didn’t see it (only thinks because someone else had told them they saw it) ■ Unknowingly their human nature to talk and ask questions, so they are convincing each other and changing the memory ○ New information is a “Glob on to our existing memory” ○ Good at taking new information and putting it in new information ■ But bad at tracking the new information (the source of where it came from) ■ Memories are globbed onto each other - morphed our memories Misinformation effect ● Occurs when a witness is provided with inaccurate information about an event after it is witnessed and incorporates the ‘misinformation’ in their later recall ○ Can be done by other witnesses or police officers

○ “Ask what colour the van is that they were driving?” ■ Could have witnesses truck or SUV, but because question asked van, now it is a van in their mind Misinformation effect results ● Participants who are given misinformation provide different reports than those who receive no misleading information ○ Power of planting of misinformation ● Subtle differences in phrasing of the question (e.g., using ‘smashed’ instead of ‘hit’), may bias witness’ responses ○ One word changes estimation of speed significantly ● Lot of research done by Elizabeth Loftus ○ Eyewitness of a car crash ○ Manipulate one word in questioning and changed bias the response of the witness ■ How fast were the cars going when they smashed vs hit each other? ○ Significantly impacted the reported speed of the witnesses who were describing the speed - influence the outcomes and charges of an outcome How good a witness are you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSzPn9rsPcY - Eyewitness memory ● Brooklyn Law School - Professor Burger is in the middle of a case ● Her purse is stolen in 9 seconds, and the room full of law students become witnesses ● Class is warned not to share thoughts about intruder ● Incident not rigoruous scientific experiment but yields kind of result that investigators run into all the time as they look for crucial eyewitness - where one testimony could provide the big break ● Identify perpetrator and see how you would provide a description of the perpetrator ● Interview 29 students to get their descriptions ○ Descriptions of what he was wearing were all over the place ○ Even worse with describing his face and hair ○ Remembers the odd shape of nose - because the professor planted that false piece of information ● Memory isn’t always most reliable ● Studies show that simple procedural changes in the lineup can have a profound effect on eyewitness accuracy ● More common now to use photo lineups more than live lineups, but about 20% of the witnesses pick out the innocent person placed to be the innocent filler https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mfUGWif6pQ - Eyewitness Test Part 1 ● Seeing the guy on the roof https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFYYJZwYy_8 - Eyewitness Test Part 2 (Lineup) ● Showing the lineup of suspects

Lineup identification ● Witnesses are frequently asked to identify a perpetrator from a lineup ● Lineups contain the suspect (who may or may not be guilty) who is placed among a set of individuals who are known to be innocent for the crime in question, called foils or distractors ● It may not have been clear to witnesses (especially back in the day) that the perpetrator may not be in the lineup - alot of post talk interviews said that witness never thought of it, and tried to match someone in lineup with memory ○ You don’t want it to be closest to, you want yes and no ● foils/distractors could influence eyewitness from getting to the right answer Eyewitness Menory: Case of Ronald Cotton video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97DSyF_Z3Do ● Eyewitness testimony is a common and powerful element in courtrooms, often considered damning evidence. ● DNA evidence has exonerated 233 individuals in the United States, with over three- quarters initially convicted based, at least in part, on eyewitness accounts. ● Jennifer Thompson, a victim of sexual assault on July 28 1984, played a crucial role in the wrongful conviction of Ronald Cotton through eyewitness identification. ○ He was raping her and Jennifer was studying him so much so that if she lived she could help the police find him ● Ronald Cotton was convicted based on faulty eyewitness testimony, a false alibi, and circumstantial evidence, leading to a life sentence. ● 3 key people involved in the case are willing to share and provide information ○ Victim: willing to share everything going through her mind while the crime occurred, anything after, and for a year after (very open about what she did) ○ Ronald Cotton: shares his experience and how he was involved ■ How he tried to overcome what happened ○ Police investigator: play-by-play of what happened, what he did, and where things went wrong ● Police showed her a series of photos and said perpetrator may or may not be one of them and said take your take ○ She studied each photograph slowly and narrowing them down ● Ronald came in for questioning and provided an alibi for her whereabouts, but got confused and made it seem like he was lying ○ Then put in a physical lineup ○ She was absolutely certain, because she managed to pick out the same person that she did in the photo ○ So she tricked herself into thinking that it was him ● Jennifers' mindset during the crime, spoke with police officers, doing lineup, trial, mistrial, retrial - are important and ultimately see where it ends up??? ○ She was very confident in her choice once she realized she picked the same person out twice ○ She wanted to remember and find the man that raped her

● While in prison, he sees a new guy named Bobby Poole who happened to be from the same end of town, and looked very similar ○ Looked the same that prisoners began mixing them up ○ Years later, DNA testing revealed Cotton's innocence and identified the true perpetrator, Bobby Poole, highlighting the fallibility of eyewitness identification in the justice system. ○ Important in terms of understanding eyewitness memory and how malleable it is, and everyone involved allows themselves to be interviewed (victim, convicted person, police officer) and provide information ● In past - crime committed all prosecution wanted was an eyewitness = open and shut case ○ Get them to point to the victim and convict them ○ Most powerful thing in terms of prosecuting a crime is getting a eyewitness, statement, and point a finger in trial (and not dismissing) ● What went wrong? ○ No DNA testing done ■ He heard OJ Simpson’s case and DNA and called up his attorney and said to do it ○ If DNA comes back and matches - he will be sentenced for life ○ If DNA comes back and doesn’t - he will be free ● Jennifer felt so ashamed and bad because she ruined 11 years of a man ○ She apologized and he forgave her because he wanted them to move on Types of lineup judgments ● Two types of judgments may be used in lineup procedures: ● Relative judgment : ○ Comparing lineup members to one another and choosing the one who looks most like perpetrator ○ Ex - When woman had all the pictures and started comparing them in the Ronald Cotton case ○ Most people default to this ○ Which one looks most like perpetrator ● Absolute judgment : ○ Each member is compared to the witness’s memory of the perpetrator ○ What you want to be happening ○ Hard to control for this Recall of the perpetrator ● Descriptions of perpetrator by eyewitnesses are lacking in detail and accuracy ● Gender, hair, clothing, weight, and height are commonly reported descriptors ○ What you want the witness to provide ○ Hopefully clear characteristics and details ○ We are not great at this though

Recognition memory ● Recognition memory can be tested in several ways: ○ Live lineups or photo arrays (pick them out of a lineup) ○ Video surveillance records (show recording and see if they point out someone) ○ Voice identification (see if recognize a voice) Loftus – Case of Steve Titus ● On October 12, 1980, a female hitchhiker was sexually assaulted. Police described the rapist as 25 to 30 years old, driving a royal blue car with temporary license plates and cloth seats, and having a beard ● The rape was reported to have taken place at 6:45 p.m. The victim walked to a nearby house, and after approximately 10 minutes of conversation, called the police at 7:22 p.m. There were tire prints found near the scene which matched that of a Michelin XYZ tire, which was standard on 1981 Honda Accord LX cars, a model that was first sold in September 1980. The victim reported that there was a large brown folder in the car and that the rapist wore a three-piece suit. ● Steve Titus was arrested and was later identified by the victim in a line-up. ○ Car somehow matched, had a beard, no tire marks, cloth seats didn’t match, had folder, didn’t even own a suit ○ Like the rapist, he had a beard. He had a new car, a royal blue Chevrolet Chevette. ○ However, the car had neither Michelin tires nor cloth seats. The car had a large brown folder which Titus later claimed was planted in the car by the police. ○ He did not have any suits. ● Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus argued at trial that the victim had elicited a false memory of the attacker due to a biased line up. When shown a line-up of suspects the victim had initially claimed that Steve Titus was the man who “looked the most similar to the attacker”. ● Later in court the victim said that she “definitely knew it was him”. Her perceptions had been changed throughout the process of going to court through cues which created a false memory. (Often, victims go from “I think that’s him” to “I know that’s him”) ○ Picked him because she picked him out of the lineup ○ Less about matching to perpetrator but matching to her false memory ● When she first picked him out of the lineup she said “he look familiar” but wasn’t like that ‘s him for sure - by the time the court comes around because of false memory she’s fully confident that it was him ○ Powerful testimony led to victim wrongfully convicted ● At trial prosecution testimony was changed and evidence of innocence was explained away by prosecution experts and law enforcement officers. As a direct result, Titus was wrongly convicted of Rape in the First Degree , a crime that carried with it a mandatory prison sentence. ○ Now gone through the trial and spent time in prison so when the conviction was overturned he was so bitter and upset he sued police department for wrongful convinction

● Titus researched and contacted an investigative journalist. The two of them ultimately found evidence that lead to the real rapist and led to Titus having his conviction overturned. ● He was convicted on March 4, and the conviction was overturned June 8. ● Edward Lee King , a convicted rapist later confessed to this crime ● Steve works really hard to get case to go to trial against police for wrongful convinction - loses job, fiancé, becomes bitter, starts a civil suit to try and get justice (but is so stressed that Steve Titus dies from a heart attack (when he finally got his day in court) Explaining the misinformation effect ● Three theories attempt to explain the misinformation effect: ○ Misinformation acceptance hypothesis ■ The incorrect information is provided because the witness guesses what the officer or experimenter wants the response to be ■ Shows power of interviewer possesses over witness ■ We are compelled to do the right thing - in our human nature ■ If we can pick up on any cues from the police that is how they want to answer, we’ll answer that way ■ Feel like they aren’t guessing anymore, but they are sure when they recall ○ Source misattribution hypothesis ■ The witness has two memories, the original and the misinformation; however, the witness cannot remember where each memory originated or the source of each ■ Can’t tell which is original and which has changed ■ Not good with keeping conscious awareness of where information comes from (e.g., 2 different memories become 1) ○ Memory impairment hypothesis ■ The original memory is replaced with a new, incorrect, information ■ Fully morphed into new information ■ Ronald Cotton case ● Original memory was gone and replaced by Ronald Cotton ● Face of Ronald Cotton for Jennifer became the face of perpetrator - it impairs her memory, got to the point where it became Ronald’s face instead of Bobby’s face Lineup procedures ● Simultaneous lineup : ○ A common lineup procedure that presents all lineup members at one time to the witness (holding numbers and pick best one) ○ We know that sometimes things can go wrong - won’t match up so they often pick the best/closest one ■ Kind of like a multiple choice answer where you pick the closest one available ○ Might ask them to step forward and say something, but all presented together ○ Feel as though they have to pick someone

● Sequential lineup : ○ Lineup members are presented serially to the witness ○ Prefer asking “Is this perpetrator, yes, or no?” so they don’t feel forced to choose somebody ○ Step out, is that them no then next, go one at a time until you identify the perpetrator ● Showup : ○ Only the suspect is shown to the witness ● Walk-by : ○ Witness taken to a public location where the suspect is likely to be ○ See if they recognise Biased lineups ● Biased lineups – suggest who the police suspect and thereby who the witness should identify (unconsciously/consciously give hints to who suspect is) ● Types of biases that increase false identification : ○ Foil bias ○ Clothing bias ○ Instruction bias Cognitive interview ● Based on memory retrieval techniques: ○ Reinstating the context ■ Try to create context over again to help witness access information correctly ○ Reporting everything ■ Open aspect of questioning ■ Allowing for them to recall and give details about a wide variety not just what the police think is important at the time ○ Recalling events in different orders ■ Tries to help keep memories up ■ Try to see if someone is being deceitful ■ Get them to tell the story backwards - throws people who are deceiving you (trip them up) ○ Changing perspectives ■ Go from end of crime to beginning ■ Hopefuly provide different point of view and additional information https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fAkb_FLSBc - Reforms Aim To Make Police Lineups More Reliable ● Problems with lineups ● New law is intended to correct the mistakes ● 24 years ago Marcus Lyons was wrongfully convicted of rape and it began with flawed lineup

● Victim was shown a series of photos, and Marcus’ photo was the only one shown wearing shirt and tie ○ Obviously police suspect ● Only one not in a mug shot, it was his work id ● Based on that evidence alone, he went to prison for 3 years ● New law would curb line-up abuses lineups must be conducted by an officer who doesn't know who the suspect is that prevents the cop from either consciously or accidentally giving signals to the witness as to who police they think suspect is ● Lineups can’t have one suspect stick out like a sore thumb (ie, everyone wearing blue except one) ● All lineups must be audio or videotaped Foil bias – lineups ● The suspect is the only lineup member who matches the description of the perpetrator ○ For example, the suspect has a beard and moustache while the other members are clean shaven ● Or suspect is “elderly, Caucasian, women with glasses” Clothing bias – lineups ● The suspect is the only lineup member wearing clothes similar to that of the perpetrator ● For example, the perpetrator was described as wearing a blue baseball hat etc. Instruction bias – lineups ● The police fail the mention to the witness that the perpetrator may not be present , the police imply that perpetrator is present and that the witness should pick him or her ou ● Supposed to tell them at the beginning ● They are picking the one that is most like them ● Have to make it clear that they may not be in the lineup Lineup procedure effectiveness ● Sequential lineups increase the likelihood of a correct rejection compared to the simultaneous procedure ● However, recent research suggests that the superiority of sequential over simultaneous lineups may be the product of methodological factors Accurate Identification Decisions Type of lineup Guilty perpetrator present Correct decisions Target - present Yes Correctly identify perpetrator/ correct identification Target - absent No Correctly reject lineup/ correct rejection ● Best if you can have a correct identification and then correct rejection for each case Additional Slides:

Chapter 5 - Eyewitness Testimony Memory Stages ● Eyewitness testimony relies on memory ● Memory process involves several stages: ○ Perception/Attention ○ Encoding ○ Short-term ○ Long-term ○ Retrieval ● Problems may occur at each stage ○ Memory fallible and malleable Types of Eyewitness Retrieval ● Two types of memory retrieval that eyewitnesses perform ○ Recall memory ■ Reporting details of a previously witnessed event/person ○ Recognition memory ■ Currently viewed information same as previous information LO2: Studying Eyewitness Issues ● Eyewitness Research ● Laboratory Simulation ● Eyewitness Research: Independent Variables ● Eyewitness Research: Dependent Variables ● Recall of the Event/Perpetrator ● Recognition of the Perpetrator Eyewitness Research ● Eyewitness issues can be studied using a variety of methods ○ Archival data ○ Naturalistic observation ○ Laboratory simulation ■ Most common paradigm used to study eyewitness issues ■ Participant views event and questioned afterward ● Describe details of event/person (recall) ○ Examine lineup (recognition) Eyewitness Research: Independent Variables ● Variables manipulated by the researcher ○ Two broad types ● Estimator variables ○ Present during crime and cannot be changed (e.g., age of witness) ○ Not under control of the justice system

● System variables ○ Can be manipulated to impact accuracy (e.g., lineup procedure) ○ Under the control of the justice system Eyewitness Research: Dependent Variables ● Variables measured by the researcher ● Three broad types ○ 1 - Recall of the event/crime ○ 2 - Recall of the perpetrator ○ 3 - Recognition of the perpetrator 1 - Recall of the Event/Perpetrator ● Recall can take two forms: ● 1 - Open ended recall/free narrative ○ Witnesses recount what they witnessed without being prompted ● 2 - Direct question recall ○ Witnesses asked specific questions about the event/perpetrator ● Recall examined for ○ Amount of information reported ○ Type of information reported ○ Accuracy of information reported 2 - Recognition of the Perpetrator ● Recognition of the perpetrator is usually done through a lineup ○ Can also use voice or clothing lineups ● Recognition response examined for ○ Accuracy of decision ○ Types of errors made L O3: Recall Memory ● Interviewing Eyewitnesses ● The Misinformation Effect ● Explaining the Misinformation Effect ● Impact of the Misinformation Effect ● Procedures to Help in Witness Interviews ● Hypnosis ● Cognitive Interview ● Enhanced Cognitive Interview ● Cognitive Interview: Results ● Recall of the Perpetrator Interviewing Eyewitnesses ● The goal of an interview is to obtain a complete and accurate account ● Police officers may impede the interview process by

○ Interrupting witnesses during free recall ○ Asking short specific questions ○ Asking predetermined or randomly-ordered questions ○ Asking leading or suggestive questions ● Witnesses’ memory can also be contaminated by other witnesses ○ Memory conformity The Misinformation Effect ● Witness incorporates new inaccurate information in later recall ○ Phrasing of a question ● Car crash experiment ○ Small wording variations impact recall (hit vs. smashed) ● Protestor experimenter ○ Number of people present during event misremembered (4 vs. 12) Explaining the Misinformation Effect ● Misinformation acceptance hypothesis ○ Participants guess what the experimenter wants to hear ● Source misattribution hypothesis ○ Have two memories, report the inaccurate one ● Memory impairment hypothesis ○ Original memory replaced with new inaccurate one Impact of the Misinformation Effect ● Influence recall by inadvertently providing unknown information ○ e.g., “Did you see the gun” ● Witness may overhear other witnesses and change their recall ● Influence recall by incorporating inaccurate information into question ○ First eyewitness provides erroneous details ○ Interviewer incorporates into subsequent questioning Procedures to Help in Witness Interviews ● Three primary procedures ○ 1 - Hypnosis ○ 2 - Cognitive Interview ○ 3 - Enhanced Cognitive Interview 1 - Hypnosis ● Hypnotically refreshed memory ○ Age regression ○ Television technique ● Effective in generating more details ○ Just as likely to be inaccurate as accurate ○ Highly suggestible ○ Interviewee unable to differentiate between accurate & inaccurate

● Information obtained under hypnosis is not usually admissible in court 2 - Cognitive Interview ● Includes memory retrieval techniques: ○ Reinstating the context ○ Reporting everything ○ Reversing order ○ Changing perspectives 3 - Enhanced Cognitive Interview ● Components were added to the original Cognitive Interview: ○ Rapport building ○ Supportive interviewer behaviour ○ Transfer of control ○ Focused retrieval ○ Witness compatible questioning Cognitive Interview: Results ● Generates more accurate information than general police interviews ○ Small increase in inaccurate information ● Officers often hesitant to use all aspects of the approach ○ Time consuming Recall of the Perpetrator ● Descriptions of perpetrator often lacking in detail and accuracy ○ Limits usefulness in investigations ● Gender, hair, clothing, and height are commonly reported descriptors Recognition Memory ● Recognition memory can be tested in several ways: ○ Live lineups or photo arrays ○ Video surveillance records ○ Voice identification Lineup Identification ● Witnesses are frequently asked to identify a perpetrator from a lineup ● Lineups contain ○ The suspect (who may or may not be guilty) ○ Foils or distractors (known to be innocent) ● Strategies for selecting foils ○ Similarity-to-suspect ○ Match-to-description ● Important to have a fair lineup – suspect doesn’t stand out

Estimating Identification Accuracy ● To accurately assess the rate at which real witnesses will correctly identify perpetrators, two types of lineups are needed in research: ○ Target-present lineup ■ Lineup contains the perpetrator ○ Target-absent lineup ■ Lineup contains an innocent suspect ■ Don’t tell witness ○ Both required to have a clear understanding on lineups Possible Identification Decisions ● Table 5.1 Possible Identification Decisions as a Function of Lineup Type Identification Decision Type of lineup Correct identification False rejection Foil identification Correct rejection False identification Target - present X X X Not possible Not possible Target - absent Not possible Not possible X X X Live vs. Photo Array ● Photo arrays are more common because: ○ Less time consuming ○ Portable ○ No right to counsel for suspect ○ Photos are static ○ Witness may be less anxious ● May also use video-recorded lineups Lineup Presentation Procedures ● Simultaneous lineup ○ Presents all lineup members at one time to the witness ○ Encourages relative judgement ● Sequential lineup ○ Lineup members are presented serially to the witness ○ More likely to make absolute judgement ● Sequential may lead to more correct rejections ● Showup ○ Only the suspect is shown to the witness ○ Used rarely (e.g. death-bed identifications) ● Walk-by

○ Witness taken to a public location where the suspect is likely to be Biased Lineups ● Biased lineups ○ Suggest who the police suspect ● Types of biases that increase false identification ○ Foil bias ○ Clothing bias ○ Instruction bias Voice Identification ● Limited research in the area ● Factors that lead to lower accuracy ○ Having shorter voice samples ○ Voices with an unfamiliar accent ○ Whispering ○ Emotion Multiple Identifications ● Asked to make multiple judgments (voice, face, clothing, etc.) ● Accurately identify multiple features increases reliability of judgement Witness Confidence ● Small positive correlation between confidence and accuracy ● Moderating variables ○ Speed of decision ○ Interval between event and identification ● Confidence can be manipulated with post-identification feedback ● Confidence increases as decision is expressed multiple times ○ Mock-jurors do not appear sensitive to “inflated confidence” Estimator Variables ● Age ○ Older: fewer correct identifications and correct rejections ● Older adults overall less accurate ● Race ○ Witnesses remember faces of their own race more accurately ○ Cross-race effect ● Cross-race effect may relate to ○ Attitudes ○ Physiognomic homogeneity ○ Interracial contact ● Weapon focus ○ Witness’ attention focused on weapon not perpetrator

● Attempts to explain this phenomenon ○ Cue-Utilization hypothesis ○ Unusualness hypothesis ● Occurs in lab and real-world cases Eyewitness Expert Testimony: Controversy ● Disagreement on application of research in courts ● Points of contention include: ○ Reliability of results across studies ○ Applicability of laboratory simulations to real life situations ○ Time spent viewing perpetrator ○ “Common sense” of findings ● Canadian courts limit expert testimony Identification Guidelines: U S ● National guidelines ○ Person conducting lineup should not be aware of who suspect ○ Eyewitnesses should be informed perpetrator may not be present ○ The suspect should not stand out as compared to foils ○ Witness’ confidence should be taken at time of the identification ● Additional recommendation: Video entire procedure Sophonow Inquiry: Canada ● Wrongful conviction case from Manitoba ● Inquiry made several recommendations ○ The lineup procedure should be videotaped or audiotaped ○ Inform witnesses it is just as important to clear innocent suspects ○ The photo lineup should be presented sequentially ○ Officers should not discuss a witness’ identification with him or her