A recent article entitled, "Solving Crimes in Deceptive Ways: Should Police Lie to Suspects to Prove Murder?” by Clarence Walker was published Jan2, 2025 online at NewsBlaze

Here is our response (which was emailed to Mr. Walker):

Dear Mr. Walker,

Your story entitled "Solving Crimes in Deceptive Ways: Should Police Lie to Suspects to Prove Murder?” is replete with misinformation and misleading information about the Reid Technique. It appears as though you did not make any effort to contact us or to review our published materials to determine the accuracy of some of the statements that you make. Consider the following statement: "The Reid manual explicitly instructs officers to utilize the false evidence tactic, outright declaring it “clearly the most persuasive” method for extracting truthful information."

To the contrary, in our book, Criminal Interrogation and Confessions, 5th edition, 2013, we state the following on page 352:
1. Introducing fictitious evidence during an interrogation presents a risk that the guilty suspect may detect the investigator’s bluff, resulting in a significant loss of credibilityand sincerity. For this reason, we recommend that this tactic be used as a last resort effort.
2. This tactic should not be used for the suspect who acknowledges that he may have committed the crime even though he has no specific recollections of doing so. Under this circumstance, the\ introduction of such evidence may lead to claims that the investigator was attempting to convince the suspect that he, in fact, did commit the crime.
3. This technique should be avoided when interrogating a youthful suspect with low social maturity or a suspect with diminished mental capacity. These suspects may not have the fortitude or confidence to challenge such evidence and, depending on the nature of the crime, may become confused as to their own possible involvement if the police tell them evidence clearly indicates they committed the crime.

It has been consistently established by research and the courts that false confessions almost always occur when the investigators engage in coercive behaviors such as threats of harm, denial of rights, promises of leniency, excessively long interrogations, denying the subject the opportunity to satisfy their physical needs, etc., all of which the Reid Technique has been teaching as unacceptable practices for decades.

In one research effort, the author studied the first 110 DNA exoneration cases reported by the Innocence Project. The author reported that “This study failed to find a single false confession of a cognitively normal individual that did not include the use of coercive tactics by the interrogator, such as…the use of physical force; denial of food, sleep or bathroom; explicit threats of punishment; explicit promises of leniency; and extremely lengthy interrogations.” (J. Pete Blair, “A Test of the Unusual False Confessions Perspective: Using Cases of Proven False Confessions” Criminal Law Bulletin Vol 41, Number 2)

In fact, Richard Leo, a well-known law enforcement interrogation critic, has testified on numerous occasions that “when innocent people falsely confess, there's almost always some threat and/or some promise….. So threats and promises typically go together, and in the proven false confession cases, they are in a very high percentage of those cases.”

Leo has testified that “the Reid & Associates manual is sort of the bible of interrogation in America. It was then, and it is now.” When he was asked, “What actions did the officers in this case do that you are opining violated national police interrogation standards?”, he responded, “One would be the use of promises or threats which Reid has advised investigators not to do for over 60 years.” Leo also testified that “ ……. the Reid and Associates training manuals and programs have always from the 1st edition in 1942 to the current edition in 2022, repeatedly implores police investigators not to use any interrogation technique that is “apt to make an innocent person confess.”

Furthermore, you reference the Innocence Project and the false confession cases they discovered in their DNA exoneration cases. In his 2011 book, Convicting the Innocent, Brandon Garrett, a law professor at the University of Virginia, examined most of the case files for the first 250 DNA exonerations, which included 40 false confession cases, several of which included lying to the subject about the case evidence. However, as pointed out by Dr. Deborah Davis and Dr. Richard Leo, “Many, and perhaps most, of the interrogations in the cases Garrett reviewed crossed the line of proper interrogation technique through the use of explicit threats and
promises, feeding suspects crime facts, and/or other coercive practices.”

You failed to include in your article any information about the emphasis we place on corroborating a confession and made no reference to our Investigator Tip, “I did it”…is that a valid statement of guilt? which included the following information:

To identify the probable trustworthiness of a confession clearly requires an analysis of the circumstances and content of the interrogation, as well as intrinsic factors within the suspect who offered the confession.

The investigator should attempt, in every case, to obtain a confession that contains dependent or independent corroboration.

Dependent corroboration consists of information about the crime purposefully withheld from all suspects and the media. In other words, the only people who should know this information are the investigators and the guilty suspect. Examples of dependent information include the denomination of currency stolen in a theft, the origin of a fire in an arson, or the nature and location of injuries to a homicide victim, the type of murder weapon used, etc.

Upon arriving at a crime scene, the lead investigator should decide, and document on the case folder, what information will be kept secret.

The second type of corroborative information is called independent corroboration. This describes information about a suspect’s crime that was not known until the confession and was independently verified by the investigator. Examples include the location of a confirmed murder weapon, the recovery of stolen property, or verification of the suspect’s planning activities before the crime was committed or post-crime activities. Every investigator should strive to not only develop independent corroboration within a confession but to go out and verify it.

With the above discussion in mind, the following represents some factors to consider in the assessment of the credibility of a suspect’s confession. These issues are certainly not all-inclusive, and each case must be evaluated on the “totality of circumstances” surrounding the interrogation and confession, but nevertheless, these are elements that should be given careful consideration:

1. The suspect’s condition at the time of the interrogation
   1. Physical condition (including drug and/or alcohol intoxication)
   2. Mental capacity
   3. Psychological condition
2. The suspect’s age
3. The suspect’s prior experience with law enforcement
4. The suspect’s understanding of the language
5. The length of the interrogation
6. The degree of detail provided by the suspect in his confession
7. The extent of corroboration between the confession and the crime
8. The presence of witnesses to the interrogation and confession
9. The suspect’s behavior during the interrogation
10. The effort to address the suspect’s physical needs
11. The presence of any improper interrogation techniques

In June 2023, we published the following Investigator Tip on our website: Reid Policy on the Use of Deception During an Interrogation, which includes (among others) the following recommendation (which is not referenced in your article):
Given current judicial and legislative trends regarding the use of deception during an interrogation, investigators should adopt a general practice of avoiding misrepresentations concerning incontrovertible or dispositive evidence.

Furthermore, you completely ignored and failed to include in your article any information from our Investigator Tip, False Confessions - The Issues to be Considered, which details the common causes of false confession cases and describes the behaviors that the investigator should follow so as the minimize the possibility of a false confession - from the Tip:

“To summarize our discussion up to this point, the primary causes and contributing factors for false confessions are the following:

• Physical abuse of the subject

• Threats of physical harm

• Threats of inevitable consequences

• Promises of leniency

• Denial of rights

• Denial of physical needs

• Excessively long interrogations

• Disclosure of crime details

• Failure to properly take into account the subject’s mental limitations and/or

psychological disabilities

• Failure to properly modify approaches with socially immature juveniles

• Failure to properly corroborate confession details

The best way to avoid false confessions is to conduct interrogations in accordance with the guidelines established by the courts, and to adhere to the following Core Principles and Best Practices:

• Do not make any promises of leniency

• Do not threaten the subject with any physical harm or inevitable consequences

• Do not deny the subject any of their rights

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

• Withhold information about the details of the crime from the subject so that if the subject

confesses the disclosure of that information can be used to confirm the authenticity of the

statement

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

psychological impairments

• Always treat the subject with dignity and respect

• Conduct an interview before any interrogation. Absent a life-saving circumstance the

investigator should conduct a non-accusatory interview before engaging in any

interrogation

• Conduct an interrogation only when there is a reasonable belief that based on the

investigative information the suspect committed the issue under investigation or is

withholding relevant information

• Attempt to verify the suspect’s alibi before conducting an interrogation

• When interrogating a non-custodial suspect, do not deprive the suspect of his freedom to

leave the room

• Do not conduct excessively long interrogations

• Electronically record the interview and interrogation to establish a record of what was

done and said

• The confession is not the end of the investigation.

Following the confession, the investigator should investigate the confession details to

establish the authenticity of the subject’s statement, develop corroborating information, and attempt to establish the suspect’s activities before and after the commission of the crime.

You also failed to reference our Investigator Tip, Principles of Practice: How to Conduct Proper Investigative Interviews and Interrogations, and failed to include in your article the detailed practices we teach investigators to follow to ensure the integrity of any acknowledgment of guilt from the subject.

And most importantly you failed to include any information in your article from our Investigator Tip, What Questions Should be Asked to Determine the Voluntariness and Validity of a Subject’s Confession? which outlines the issues that should be examined to determine the voluntariness and validity of a confession, such as:

While there are numerous issues to consider in the process of evaluating the voluntariness and validity of a subject’s confession, the following questions may be helpful in making such an assessment.

The recording

Was the entire contact with the subject recorded, both the interview and the interrogation?

Was there any time when the discussion with the subject was not recorded? If so, what was the reason?

Subject Rights

Was the subject in custody or was he/she free to leave?

If in custody, was the subject properly advised of his/her rights?

Did the subject demonstrate a knowing and intelligent waiver?

Did the subject exercise any of their rights in an unequivocal manner at any time during theprocess? Was such an invocation honored?\

If the subject is a juvenile, were the rights properly explained to the subject?

Were any of the subject’s rights denied during the interrogation process?

Was the subject allowed to use the washroom facilities?

Was the subject provided any drink or food?

Was the subject allowed to sleep?

Subject Attributes

Does the subject have or exhibit any mental or psychological factors that would affect his/her ability to make a voluntary and true statement?

Is there any language issue that may have precluded the subject’s ability to properly understand the process, questions and situation?

Does the subject have prior experience with law enforcement?

Does the subject have the cognitive ability to make a knowing and intelligent waiver?

Was the subject under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the interrogation?

Was the subject suffering from any physical injury during the interrogation?

If the subject is a juvenile, does the law require that a parent or guardian be present during the interrogation? If yes, were they contacted?

Length of the interrogation

How long did the interview of the subject last?

How long did the interrogation of the subject last?

Did the interrogation take place during the subject’s normal waking hours?

Did the interrogation exceed a reasonable length of time based on the statements made by the subject?

The interrogation process

Did the subject have access to the door? Was it unlocked?

Did the investigators make any threats of harm or inevitable consequences?

Did the investigators make any promises of leniency?

Did the investigators reveal details of the crime to the subject?

Did the investigators show the subject pictures of the crime scene?

Did the investigators engage in any coercive tactics?

Did the investigators deny the subject any of their rights?

Did the investigators deny the subject the opportunity to use the restroom? to get something to drink or eat? to sleep?

The confession

Did the subject provide details that were consistent with the crime evidence?

Did the subject provide details that had been withheld by the police?

Did the subject provide details that the police did not know?

Did the subject write the written document? If not, did he read it or just sign it?

Did the subject provide the content of the written statement, or was it written for him?

Furthermore, you failed to include in your article any reference to what the courts say about the Reid Technique:

Your article did not make any reference to what the courts have said about the Reid Technique. Consider the following:

In People v. Elias the Appeals Court pointed out several prescribed Reid procedures that were not followed by the investigator, resulting in a confession that was found to be involuntary…. these are the procedures that were not followed:

1. A non-accusatory interview was not conducted before initiating an interrogation

2. The investigator misrepresented the case evidence when questioning a 13-year-old

3. There was no corroboration of the incriminating statement

4. There was contamination - disclosing details of the crime

In US v. Preston the US Court of Appeals reviewed the confession of an eighteen-year-old with an IQ of sixty-five. The court pointed out that the investigators did not follow the cautions we suggest when interviewing individuals with mental limitations. Quoting from the court’s opinion:

“Among the police tactics used here were several recommended by a manual on police interrogation, see Fred E. Inbau, John E. Reid, Joseph P. Buckley & Brian C. Jayne, Criminal Interrogation and Confessions (5th ed. 2013) ("Reid manual"), from which both the officers who interrogated Preston were trained. The officers, however, sometimes disregarded the manual’s cautions about the tactics they used. For example, using one of the recommended approaches, the two officers asked Preston a number of questions with two alternatives as to how the crime was committed... These questions were derived from similar exemplars in the Reid manual… The manual, however, suggests that the inculpatory alternatives technique recommended may be unduly coercive when used for suspects of seriously impaired mental ability…”

From U.S. v. Jacques: (United States v. Jacques, 784 F. Supp. 2d 48 (2011) “In his declaration and at the hearing, Professor Hirsch explained that the primary cause of “coerced compliant” confessions are certain interrogation methods employed by law enforcement, including a widely used method known as the Reid technique....Beyond his own intuition, however, Professor Hirsch offered no basis for concluding that these tactics had any tendency necessarily to cause false, rather than true, confessions. ... Professor Hirsch's declaration offered no other evidence of the danger of certain police interrogation tactics, and the Reid technique in particular, except to say that “the use of these tactics [employed in the Reid technique] and their correlation with false confessions are extensively documented in the literature....Despite this broad statement, he did not provide any further explanation…” In sum, the proffered expert testimony to the effect that the Reid technique enhanced the risk of an unreliable confession lacked any objective basis for support whatever. Although Professor Hirsch insisted that “there is a wealth of information about the risks of the Reid technique,” he could point to none.”

In State v. Belaunde the Superior Court of New Jersey, stated in their opinion that "No case supports the contention that using the Reid technique renders an adult’s confession inadmissible. A suspect will have a “natural reluctance ... to admit to the commission of a crime and furnish details.” ...Therefore, “an interrogating officer ...[may] dissipate this reluctance and persuade the person to talk ... as long as the will of the suspect is not overborne.”

In July 2014, at the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys conference, the attorneys were encouraged to use the information on our website (www.reid.com) and our book, Criminal Interrogation and Confessions as a reference for proper police practices. During the presentation, Attorney Nirider told the audience “There’s a lot of gold in the Reid interrogation manual and on reid.com and we really.... encourage you guys to go there and cite that material.”

Over the years John E. Reid and Associates has assisted the Innocence Project (New York) on several cases as expert witnesses on proper interview and interrogation techniques, as well as the exoneration of one of their clients by obtaining a confession from the real offender. In fact, this case was detailed in the story, “I Did It” in New York magazine (http://www.reid.com/pdfs/ididit.pdf).

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Joseph P.Buckley, President

John E. Reid and Associates

800-255-5747 ext 119