The Non-confrontational Interviewing Approach Was Introduced by Reid and Inbau in 1967

When you hear or read that the Reid Technique is a confrontational approach and begins with an accusation of guilt, i.e., telling the subject that the investigation clearly indicates that they committed the crime that is under investigation, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Reid Technique begins with a non-confrontational, non-accusatory investigative interview.

The Interview

Almost 60 years ago in the second edition of their book, Criminal Interrogation and Confessions (published in 1967), John Reid and Fred Inbau stated that the best approach in questioning a subject whose involvement in the commission of the act under investigation is unknown is for the investigator to maintain a neutral position and to engage the subject in conversation about the issue that is under investigation, by asking the following questions:

• Ask the subject if they know why they are being interviewed
• Ask the subject to relate all that they know about the occurrence, the victim, and possible suspects
• Obtain from the subject detailed information about his activities before, at the time of, and after the occurrence in question
• Test the validity of the subject’s alibi
• Where certain facts suggestive of the subject’s guilt are now, ask him about them rather casually and as though the real facts were not already known
• At various intervals ask the subject certain questions in a manner which implies that the correct answers are already known
• Refer to some non-existing incriminating evidence to determine whether the subject will attempt to explain it away: if he does, that fact is suggestive of his guilt
• Ask the subject if he ever thought about committing the offense in question or similar to it
• Ask the subject if he is willing to take a polygraph examination

Following the interview, investigative steps may be taken to determine the credibility of information provided during the interview, such as investigating the suspect’s alibi.

When the investigative information and evidence indicate a suspect’s probable involvement in the commission of the crime, the investigator may choose to transition into the second phase of the process - the interrogation.

The Interrogation

Typically, the interrogation begins with a statement of involvement. The opening statement in Step One of the interrogation represents the first time that the investigator is expressing any judgment or opinion regarding the subject’s involvement in the incident under investigation.

There are several optional statements suggesting the subject’s involvement that the investigator can make:

• As a result of the investigation that we have conducted and considering the information you gave me during our interview, the investigation indicates that there are some areas that we need to clarify.

• The results of our investigation indicate that you have not told me the complete truth about (issue)

• As you know, we have interviewed everyone in the area, and you are the only one that we cannot eliminate from suspicion.

• I have in this file the results of our investigation into the (issue). The results of this investigation clearly indicate that you are the person who (committed the offense).

The least provocative statement is:

“As a result of the investigation that we have conducted, and considering the information you gave me during our interview, the investigation indicates that there are some areas that we need to clarify.”

If the subject’s attitude in the interview was defensive, argumentative, uncooperative, and in general combative, then the investigator may consider using this indirect approach.

The most provocative statement is:

“I have in this file the results of our investigation into the (issue). The results of this investigation clearly indicate that you are the person who (committed the offense).”

The most significant advantage to this more direct opening statement is the value of the subject’s initial response. For example, when the investigator makes it clear to the subject, via this direct opening statement, that the results of the investigation clearly show the subject committed the crime and the subject offers a weak denial or no denial at all, it is a strong reinforcement to the investigator of the subject’s probable guilt. (It is interesting to note that in post-confession interviews one of the reasons that guilty subjects give for their decision to admit their guilt was the degree of confidence that the investigator displayed in their guilt.)

There are several factors to consider when selecting the proper language that should be used in the opening statement of the interrogation, such as

1. The attitude of the subject during the interview and in general during the investigative process

2. The quality of the evidence against the suspect: is the evidence circumstantial or is there irrefutable proof of the suspect’s guilt?

3. The experience level of the investigator

4. Whether it is a custodial or non-custodial interrogation

5. The nature of the issue under investigation

An additional approach that can be used to initiate the interrogation is the non-confrontational approach in which the investigator skips the statement of involvement, “you did it” and moves directly to a “third person theme.”

A third-person theme is a real or fictitious event about the investigator, friend, or past case depicting a similar type of offense to that of the suspect's and the emotional state or extenuating circumstances that led to the act. One of the benefits of using a third-person theme is that it does not encourage denials because it is not specifically directed at the subject’s behavior. The following example illustrates a third-person theme.

Joe, the reason I want to talk with you today is that you remind me of a fellow we had in here a couple of weeks ago. He was young and ambitious and a real go-getter. By working his way up the ladder at a bank, he went from clerk to teller, and finally he was promoted to auditor within a period of 10 months. Everything seemed to be going well for him. He had a loving wife, two lovely children, and they were in the process of moving to a newer home in a nice subdivision. One day, while he was balancing the books, he noticed a teller had failed to record a $6,000 deposit. This was the amount the fellow I’m talking about needed to complete a down payment on his new home. On the spur of the moment, a decision was made to take the money. I don’t think I have to tell you what happened next. The bank noticed the shortage after the customer called. This young auditor came under suspicion, and I remember him sitting right where you are, telling me how sorry he was for taking the money. The reason you remind me of him is that, just like him, you have a lot going for you. You are intelligent, ambitious, and are basically very honest. I think what happened to you is that on the spur of the moment you decided to do this to help pay bills for food or maybe clothes for your family. . . .

As this example illustrates, the third-person theme should somewhat parallel the present suspect’s circumstances or motivation. Although the story should have a “happy ending,” such as the person deciding to tell the truth, the investigator should not imply leniency as a result of the other suspect’s confession.

In our training programs and written materials, we teach all of these options for the initial statement of involvement and the appropriate circumstances to consider in determining which statement of involvement best fits your case/subject.

*(For a more detailed discussion of the Behavior Analysis Interview, see Investigator Tips ‘The Reid Behavior Analysis Interview” (July/Aug 2014) and “Conducting A Custodial Behavior Analysis Interview” (Jan/Feb 2008)).