Does Reid & Associates teach officers a confrontational method of interviewing and interrogating that results in false confessions? I ask that question because recently they were basically accused of that. Or rather—the method they teach was accused of that.
So does their method result in false confessions? Not at all.
First it’s important to address this at the outset: I have absolutely no relationship whatsoever with Reid & Associates, who I believe to have the premier interview and interrogation training program in the country. I have, however, been to more than a half a dozen classes, seminars and lectures conducted by them over my 30-year career.
So I was both confused and skeptical when I read a press release distributed by one of their competitors. Their headline was more a declaration saying that they were discontinuing teaching the “Reid Method After More Than 30 Years.” They then insinuated that the “Reid Method” had been responsible for obtaining false confessions. Several academics weighed in applauding the decision which seemed to give the insinuation validity.
Again, I have no personal or professional relationship with anyone at Reid, but I do know what works as a real cop who spent a great deal of my career interviewing and interrogating. I also know when a characterization of both a company and a system is just flat out wrong. And this one is.
I’m not writing this to defend Reid. They don’t need my help. My intention here is to address a couple of broader points: 1. A method, in and of itself—short of torture—does not cause an innocent person to confess; and 2. The shortsightedness of maligning competition to improve your standing in this profession.
Only as Good as the Operator
I joke at the beginning of my book, Arresting Communication, that I have no natural talent. I can’t hammer two sticks together or hold a tune.
But God gives everyone some sort of skillset and luckily the one he gave me worked perfectly for my profession: I was really good at interviewing people and interrogating suspects. I even taught I & I for years, using my own experiences and my educational background having a BA in Psychology and being a voracious reader of human behavior and body language books.
And I can tell you this without equivocation: I never obtained a false confession and I used what I learned through Reid all the time.
So, what gives?
In every one of my classes I recommend that all cops go to the Reid seminars. I also tell them this: If you think their program is a cookie-cutter, step-by-step system for interviewing and interrogating, you’re wrong.
What Reid does is give you great insight into people under stress: Things to look for, body language and verbal analysis, timing of words used and not used, and so on. They do explain and give examples of ‘bait’ questions and answers that you should be wary of. But they make sure that students understand that in their evaluation of others, nothing is 100%. They must consider things in their totality.
Finally, Reid explains how to actually take a confession. Contrary to what I’ve read by the academics—who know very little about actual interrogations—a suspect simply declaring, “I did it” isn’t a confession. It’s much more complicated than that.
A proficient and skilled interrogator knows it’s critically important to get suspects to reveal their motives, their planning stages, their hesitations, what they felt, exactly where they were before, during and after the crime; if applicable, finding out where they bought equipment, placed it afterwards; and more. In short, suspects have to give plausible information that the interrogator didn’t and couldn’t give them—data independent of the interrogator’s knowledge.
So my point is this: If false confessions resulted from an interrogation—and, yes, there have been many—it was ‘operator error.’ And that shame is on the officer who conducted said interrogation. No method, including Reid’s, can wrest a confession from someone who didn’t do it. That said, any method can be misused or abused by an individual officer.
My last point about Reid. More than 20 years ago they were on top of the false confession phenomenon. I know this because I went to at least two seminars put on by their staff. Part of this seminar was a panel discussion that included lawyers and practitioners.
Conclusion
The police in this country aren’t perfect and we need to own up to what we do wrong, both institutionally and individually. But to in anyway insinuate that false confessions are either prevalent or a result of a storied company’s proven method is both dangerous and disingenuous.
Let’s not fan the flames of discontent and mistrust any more than has already been done reference police tactics and protocols. Let’s start demanding truth be told and stop ascribing evil intent or malicious indifference to law enforcement as a whole.
Misconceptions and false accusations might sideline a competitor, but they will also negatively impact our profession. Police need good, proven training—now more than ever.
You’re spot on with your observations Jim. It’s been many years ago when I attended a Reid Interview & Interrogation course, but the incredible insight and guidance I received in that course has stayed with me and assisted with successful investigations ever since. You’ve nailed this false claim very succinctly, “operator error.” If the officer does not follow the Reid guidance, and alters their questioning techniques, then it is possible for them to elicit a false confession (or something they perceive as a confession).
The company making this claim used to be a licensed provider of the Reid Method, but now (conveniently) is trying to tear Reid down while they are poised to ride the wave of success they had “for over 30 years.” They can then try to sell their own separate (but almost identical) instruction method without the Reid name and licensing fees. Shameful!
It is not operator error. It is skillful phsycological manipulation of volunerable suspects. Almost always those are minorities, low IQ, or youth. Everyone one of those false confessions is life spent in prison , and future destroyed. Stacks of cases at regional Innocence Project offices and growing conviction integrity units are a tragic testament to our nation’s misplaced trust in law enforcement. The non-federal LEO does not rate or deserve the trust or benefit of doubt he has been given. It is up to individuals, like myself, to end this vile practice.
Dmitri my friend! It’s always nice to see you find another law enforcement site to troll. The fact that you place Federal law enforcement on such a shrine is one of your greatest admissions of ignorance. 60 years ago there were not some of the safeguards (laws, and procedural changes) that protected some of the “vulnerable suspects” you mention. However, there are multiple laws now for just those people. Miranda ensures they know they don’t have to talk, and can have their attorney present when questioned. Juvenile laws have required a certified Juvenile Officer from the Family/Juvenile Court to be present and/or provide the questioning, to ensure juveniles are not pressured into a confession. These Juvenile Officers are juvenile advocates, protecting the rights of the juveniles.
What you obviously fail to recognize is that most often suspects are being questioned because there is already evidence already they were involved in criminal activity. In addition, most people were taught right from wrong as children (some more than others). The weight of criminality and lying are actually heavy burdens. I’ve seen felons, who knew they were going back to prison, confess because they didn’t want to carry that burden. Your comments are as ignorant and false as ever.
Yet we have dozens and dozens of exonerations. Sometimes decades later. Stacks upon stacks at Innocence Projects. If it wasn’t for IP work, the concept of ‘conviction integrity’ would not be around. Let alone dedicated units, who are seen as lower then whale feces by officers in the same departments. It is obvious that Innocence Project and Conviction Integrity are just barely scratching the surface of those who were wrongly arrested, convicted, and imprisoned. On that lame excuse for evidence that police claim to have. Those rights that suspects have, are routinely ignored, violated, and excused as good faith errors by lying cops.
Yet we have hundreds of thousands of solid convictions of guilty perpetrators every year (from traffic violations and city ordinance violations to serious felonies and misdemeanors). I have no problem with Innocence Project or Conviction Integrity doing their work. If someone truly is in prison unjustly I (like most officers) want them out! Good officers get pissed when a lab tech botches evidence, when another cop lies or does shoddy work, or other miscarriages of justice.
“On that lame excuse for evidence that police claim to have.” In a trial that evidence must be presented to judge or jury who then decide guilt or innocence. Your statement is baffling and jaded.
“Rights of suspects routinely ignored, violated, and excused as good faith errors by lying cops.” The very cops you malign, are the very ones that the majority of society praise and show gratitude. Your “ah-ha” moment for the very few times the system gets it wrong (cops, prosecutors, judges/juries), is so heavily outweighed by the times the system gets it right you cannot see any of the good that exists. This close-minded, blinder wearing approach precludes you from serious dialogue, and completely ignores the rights of victims as well.
All of this is great, and I am absolutely supportive of people using their rights. All I’m saying is the majority of convictions are valid because the person committed the crime.
The vast, vast majority of trials, never get to jury, or even a trial. 94% are plead out. PLease don’t tell me that innocent don’t plead. That fallacy has been debunked long ago. Don’t blame it on DA or defense lawyers or judges. It starts with cops collecting evidence, faulty evidence. Confanbulated reports, as in the video. Where the officer , on stand, commits perjury, or twists the interview, or just makes she-ite up.
You’re so full of it Dmitri. Stop looking through your pin hole glasses, you’re missing the forest of truth, for the one bad tree. You need to spend more time reading police reports, listening to confessions, and going to court to hear defendants tell a judge they did in fact commit the crime. Dmitri, you are aware that some people do in fact commit crimes aren’t you. I’ve appreciated your desire to shed light on the statistically very small number of cases where innocent people are convicted – for whatever reason. I, like any law-abiding citizen, hate that the system isn’t perfect. However, I know (from over 20 years working in the system) that the overwhelming amount of the time the system works, and is right. You’re a pinhead!
Yet we have hundreds of thousands of solid convictions of guilty perpetrators every year (from traffic violations and city ordinance violations to serious felonies and misdemeanors). I have no problem with Innocence Project or Conviction Integrity doing their work. If someone truly is in prison unjustly I (like most officers) want them out! Good officers get pissed when a lab tech botches evidence, when another cop lies or does shoddy work, or other miscarriages of justice.
“On that lame excuse for evidence that police claim to have.” In a trial that evidence must be presented to judge or jury who then decide guilt or innocence. Your statement is baffling and jaded.
“Rights of suspects routinely ignored, violated, and excused as good faith errors by lying cops.” The very cops you malign, are the very ones that the majority of society praise and show gratitude. Your “ah-ha” moment for the very few times the system gets it wrong (cops, prosecutors, judges/juries), is so heavily outweighed by the times the system gets it right you cannot see any of the good that exists. Courts are constantly evaluating if police methods meet Constitutional requirements. This close-minded, blinder wearing approach precludes you from serious dialogue, and completely ignores the rights of victims as well.
Well said Jim.