There are numerous references to the Reid Technique in Wikipedia....here are a few of the misinformed statements that they have made.

Wikipedia: The Reid Technique is a method of interrogation. The Technique involves a nine- step process. The first step involves directly confronting the suspect with a statement that it is known that he or she committed the crime.

Correction: In the Reid Technique the initial contact with the subject is always a non- accusatory, non-confrontational interview, in which the investigator is a neutral objective fact finder. This interview is designed to develop investigative information – the subject’s activities during the time period in question, their relationship with the victim, the who, what, when, where, why and how of the issue that is under investigation.

Interrogation is only appropriate when the facts, evidence and information developed during the investigation indicate the subject’s probable involvement in the issue under investigation.

Wikipedia: The technique is known for creating a high-pressure environment for the interviewee, followed by sympathy and offers of understanding and help, but only if a confession is forthcoming.

Correction: The Core Principles of the Reid Technique are as follows:

• Always treat the subject with dignity and respect

• Always conduct interviews and interrogations in accordance with the guidelines established by the courts

• Do not make any promises of leniency or threats of harm or inevitable consequences

• Do not conduct interrogations for an excessively lengthy period of time

• Do not deny the subject any of their rights

• Do not deny the subject the opportunity to satisfy their physical needs

• Exercise special cautions when questioning juveniles or individuals with mental or psychological impairments

The goal of an interrogation is to learn the truth, not to secure a confession. There are occasions when the subject being interrogated did not commit the crime but has been concealing the fact that he knows who did.

We never teach to maximize the subject’s punishment if he does not confess – “If you don’t tell me that you did this you will never see your family again.”

We also never teach to minimize the subject’s punishment if he does confess – “Look, if you tell me that you did this so you can go home…you’ll never spend a day in jail.”

Wikipedia: …….the technique too easily produces false confessions, especially with juveniles….and with people whose communication/language abilities are affected by mental disabilities, including reduced intellectual capacity.

Correction: We teach to exercise extreme caution when interviewing or interrogating juveniles or individuals with mental or psychological impairments. For example, we state that an investigator should not introduce fictitious evidence when questioning individuals from either of these groups. A statement from a juvenile or mentally impaired subject that “I did it” is essentially meaningless unless they can provide corroborating details.

The investigator should withhold crime details so that when the subject provides those details they can serve as confirmation of the authenticity of their statement.

Wikipedia: Of 311 people exonerated through post-conviction DNA testing, more than a quarter had given false confessions—including those convicted in such notorious cases as the Central Park Five. The implicit suggestion is that the Reid Technique was involved in these cases.

Correction: False confessions are caused investigators engaging in coercive behaviors (threats of harm, promises of leniency, denial of rights, etc)…in reviewing DNA exoneration cases two critics of police interrogations, Richard Leo and Deborah Davis, stated that “Many, and perhaps most, of the interrogations in the cases …….crossed the line of proper interrogation technique through the use of explicit threats and promises, feeding suspects crime facts, and/or other coercive practices.” All of these behaviors violate the Core Principles of the Reid Technique as outlined above.

Wikipedia: …..Reid believes that "tells" such as fidgeting was a sign of lying, and more generally believed that trained police interrogators could intuitively check lies merely by how they were delivered. … police officers have shown to be no better than average people at detecting lies merely from their delivery in studies

Correction: A subject’s verbal and nonverbal behavior symptoms should not serve as the sole basis of an investigative decision but should always be considered in the context of the case facts and evidence. There is no behavior unique to lying. All behavior must be evaluated in context. During an interview a subject’s verbal and nonverbal behaviors can be very helpful identifying when the subject may be editing or withholding relevant information, indicating the need to ask the appropriate follow-up questions.