The following are a number of erroneous and false statements that defense attorneys, academicians and social psychologists oftentimes make about the Reid Technique, followed by our responses.

The Reid Technique is an accusatory and confrontational process

Response

• The Reid Technique is clearly a non-accusatory, non-confrontational process
• The initial contact with the subject (absent a life-saving circumstance) should be a non accusatory, non-confrontational interview.
• All interviews should be conducted following the guidelines established by the courts, such as the appropriate advisement of rights; the presence of a parent or guardian for a juvenile; etc.
• Throughout the interview, the investigator should maintain a neutral objective fact finder demeanor.
• During the interview, the investigator should not engage in any accusatory or confrontational behaviors.
• The interview should begin with casual conversation, biographical information, employment information, etc. to acclimate the subject to the interview process, develop rapport, and develop the subject’s behavioral baseline
• The investigator should use open-ended questions to develop the subject's statement, story, version of events, or explanation of what happened.
• The investigator should do about 20% of the talking and the subject should do about 80%.
• The investigator should observe the subject’s verbal and non-verbal behaviors as a guide for the interview questions – suggesting when the subject may be editing or withholding relevant information, thereby indicating the need for additional follow-up questions
• It is important to remember that there is no behavior unique to truth or deception – behavior must be evaluated in context and against the subject’s normal behavioral pattern. Numerous factors can affect a subject’s behavior during the interview that the investigator must consider, including culture, mental and psychological impairments, physical condition, drugs and alcohol, and maturity.
• A subject’s verbal and nonverbal behaviors are not a substitute for evidence but can help identify when a subject may be less than candid during the interview, prompting additional questions that may in turn lead to the discovery of additional incriminating facts or evidence.
• If the subject offers an alibi the investigator should attempt to verify its authenticity.
• The investigator should not tell the subject what they already know about the case – but rather evaluate whether the subject’s statement is consistent with what is known or if the case facts and evidence contradict what the subject has stated.
• The investigator should not reveal all of the details about the crime (it is critical to withhold crime details that can later be used to confirm the authenticity of the subject’s acknowledgment of what he did)
• Do not show the suspect crime scene photographs that reveal corroborating crime details.
• The investigator should evaluate the subject’s possible involvement in the issue under investigation based on the investigation, case facts, factual evidence, and information
• developed during the interview/investigation.
• The interview should be recorded.