W-R-R The Reid Method

Since Ghost left and took down the WRR post and all the things that were in it, I felt it necessary to remind some of an important part of that post. It is the Reid Method of Interrogation. This wasn't included in the original WRR post, but something I found on the webz and when discussed, Ghost thought it worthy to include in WRR. I'm not that e-savy, so if someone could find a way to hunt this down and maybe post it into a stickie, it could be a value to those of us who have a potential to be arrested.springerdave.

Here are my thoughts on posting the REID 9 Step Method. It is of little use for the general public to read and understand the actual format, and here is why I say that. The REID 9 Step Method was NOT designed for side of the road questioning. It is a structured interview process done in a room after a Behavioral Analysis Interview (BAI) is completed and/or the evidence at hand is overwhelming and shows the subject is involved in something. Note that this is just not my opinion; it is what REID teaches in their interview and interrogation courses.

On the other hand their course DOES teach the use of bait/leading questions in order to trip up a guilty suspect. They primarily teach the use of these types of questions for the initial encounter/investigation and or the BAI. Listing some of these types of questions with examples of how investigators can twist things around might be helpful to the average OCer since this is what they WILL face at the initial encounter at the side of the road.

The best piece of advice that can be given to anyone who ends up in an accusatory interview is for them to clearly invoke their right to remain silent and demand a lawyer. After clearly stating that they should say nothing more without the advice and direction of legal counsel. If a suspect is put in an interview room and hasn’t invoked the 5th at the time of the investigator makes the initial accusation, they will usually forget about this right and allow themselves to dig their hole a lot deeper as the investigator goes through the REID 9 Step Method.

Again, this is just MY opinion and not a slam for anyone who thinks the REID 9 Step Method needs to be posted.

budlight said:

Here are my thoughts on posting the REID 9 Step Method. It is of little use for the general public to read and understand the actual format, and here is why I say that. The REID 9 Step Method was NOT designed for side of the road questioning. It is a structured interview process done in a room after a Behavioral Analysis Interview (BAI) is completed and/or the evidence at hand is overwhelming and shows the subject is involved in something. Note that this is just not my opinion; it is what REID teaches in their interview and interrogation courses.

Click to expand...

As such, if a person finds themselves in an interrogation room, the only thing they should say is "Attorney", even if the cops pressure you otherwise.

What may be more useful is how to pass BAI.

Bud, ANYTHING that may help keep the general public from potentially causing themselves more problems is, in my opinion, helpful. It's just another tool for our edification. I will agree that the best advice is to keep the pie hole shut though and that is where I was going with the read-the-Reid thing.springerdave.

I though about posting the general BAI format with examples on how to pass each question.

The problem though is; anything you say can be used against you. For example if you lie to pass the questions and later other evidence surfaces and the case goes to trial, the detective can take the stand and tell the jury how you lied to him adding further fuel to the fire. This is why I am hesitant to post anything more on it.

The general BAI format is used in the interview room and not on the side of the road. Therefore if you are in the interview room, either because you were invited in to discuss some “unimportant” matter or are in custody, you must invoke your right to remain silent.

It should also be noted that the US Supreme Court ruled this year that a defendant must clearly invoke his/her right to remain silent. In this case a defendant was advised of his MIRANDA rights, was asked if he was willing to talk to the police, said nothing and the detective went on with his intro. After some time passed the defendant felt he had no choice to tell his story to save himself. Since he clearly didn’t invoke his right to remain silent the court ruled the confession was admissible. Note; this is a very brief summary of the case but the main point is clearly state you are taking the 5th and say NOTHING else.

Now if we were talking about the private sector, things are a little different. Let’s say five people worked in the cash office at a retailer and it came up $1000 short. If there was no good video showing the theft, they might do a BAI on all the people that worked in the office that day. If you were the thief, knowing the answers then would have you coming out looking like a Sunday school kid. The case would eventually be closed and end of story since they didn’t get any indicators on who did it and therefore would not be able to move in for interrogation. On the other hand, if you were the one that took the money and didn’t know the correct answers, there is an 85% chance or greater that you will be determined to be deceptive. The real problem for employees is they need to decide whether or not to talk during an investigation. If it’s general questioning or a BAI, you can say what you need to very carefully. If you haven’t been directly accused of something and just plead the 5th, some companies will terminate the associate for failure to cooperate with their investigation. Now I don’t want to go into some legal debate on whether they can do this or not, the point is it does happen and maybe this would be the only place for someone to know the correct answers to a BAI. Now giving the correct answers to help a criminal is not the way to go either.

This website covers it pretty well:

http://www.michiganprincipals.org/special/PDF/marquette_sem_hndout06_ctr1.pdf

And this too...

http://books.google.com/books?id=2Q...esnum=6&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Reid 9 step interrogation process will be outlined in the new and improved WRR, and will be cited properly. Expect to see it soon. I'm coordinating with another prominent fellow OC member to get things up and going soon. It should be finished in the next few days. Expect to see a lot more information on this one.

After some further consideration, I'll post the link here for the 9 step process, however it will not be outlined in the future 'WRR' so to speak. If you find yourself in an interrogation room, there is nothing in past or future guides (that I'm going to write at least) that will be any specific help to you.

Edit to add: The link posted and provided previously does not work. You'll have to ask Stainless.

Its in here

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?80802-Wash-Rinse-Repeat




Step One: Direct Positive Confrontation

A. Presentation of fact synopsis to suspect.
B. Reference to evidence, real or fictional.
C. Suspect is told that he is involved in the crime.
D. Behavioral observation of suspect.
E. Restatement of confrontation, stronger or weaker.

Step Two: Theme Development

A. Transition phases from confrontation.
B. Propose reasons that will justify or excuse the commission of the crime.
C. Behavioral assessment of suspect to choose proper theme.
D. Longest portion of 9 steps.

Step Three: Stopping Denials

A. Both guilty and innocent deny the crime at issue.
B. Starts during direct positive confrontation.
C. Absence of denials in step two indicates probable guilt.
D. Interrogator recognizes and stops denial before it is complete.
E. Progress is indicated by cessation or weakening of denials.

Step Four: Overcoming Objections

A. Suspect proposes a reason why he allegedly did not commit the crime.
B. Normally offered by only the guilty.
C. Indicates progress n the interrogation if given after denials.
D. Handled differently than denials by first listening and accepting.
E. Proper handling of objections helps overcome the subject’s defenses.

Step Five: Getting the Suspect’s Attention

A. Suspect is on defensive and is tense and confused.
B. The themes will work only is suspect is listening.
C. Interrogator reaches peak of sincerity in his speech.
D. Physical closeness and use of verbal techniques to command attention.
E. Physical gestures of sincerity are used to establish attitude of understanding and concern.

Step Six: The Suspect Quiets and Listens

A. The physical signs of surrender begin to appear.
B. The themes are shortened and lead toward alternatives.
C. Establishment of eye contact is most important at this point by verbal and physical techniques.
D. Tears at this stage positively indicate the suspect’s guilt.

Step Seven: Alternatives

A. Non-threatening to suspect they concern some minor aspect of the crime.
B. Gives choice between acceptable reason and unacceptable reason for committing the crime.
C. One alternative is stressed to lead subject to choose the positive alternative.
D. Either choice is an admission of guilt.

Step Eight: Bringing the Suspect into the Conversation.

A. The acceptance of one alternative is reinforced by the interrogator.
B. The suspect is encouraged to talk about aspect of the crime.
C. The use of realistic words is introduced by the interrogator.
D. Initial corroboration of the confession is begun.
E. Oral witnessing of admissions by two persons.

Step Nine: The Confession

A. Reduction of oral statement into written, typed, or electronically recorded form.
B. Voluntariness of statement is established along with corroboration of details.
C. Suspect’s signing of statement is witnessed by two or more persons.

Post Interrogation Interview:

A. Provides a method to determine technique effectiveness.
B. Keeps guilty suspect in proper frame of mind during typing of formal statement.
C. Allows interrogator to calm down an innocent suspect who was confronted.



This comes from Practical Aspects of Interview and Interrogation, David E. Zulawski, and Douglas E. Wicklander,
CRC Press, Ann Arbor, 1998.



http://faculty.law.wayne.edu/moran/T...ERROGATIon.htm

stainless1911 said:

Step One: Direct Positive Confrontation

C. Suspect is told that he is involved in the crime.




Step Three: Stopping Denials

C. Absence of denials in step two indicates probable guilt.
D. Interrogator recognizes and stops denial before it is complete.
E. Progress is indicated by cessation or weakening of denials.


Step Four: Overcoming Objections

A. Suspect proposes a reason why he allegedly did not commit the crime.
B. Normally offered by only the guilty.
C. Indicates progress n the interrogation if given after denials.



Step Five: Getting the Suspect’s Attention

D. ...use of verbal techniques to command attention.



Step Six: The Suspect Quiets and Listens

A. The physical signs of surrender begin to appear.
D. Tears at this stage positively indicate the suspect’s guilt.



Post Interrogation Interview:

C. Allows interrogator to calm down an innocent suspect who was confronted.

Click to expand...

This thing sounds a little sick.

It also sounds like someone attended a bad sales seminar combined with some psuedo-science like psychology.

The person who is only a suspect is "told that he is involved in a crime"? Huh!?! This little trick is called "assumptive selling" in the sales world.

The headings of the next two sections--stopping denials and overcoming objections--are straight out of Sales 101. Salesmen call them stopping refusal/ignoring refusal, and overcoming objections.

In the section headed "Overcoming Objections", notice the contradictory nature of the two words I highlighted in red--"normally" and "only." "Normally" indicates usualness, whereas, "only" indicates "always". Huh!?! "Only the guilty offer reasons why they didn't do it. Normally (meaning sometimes the innocent do, too)." Yeah, right.

Use of verbal techniqes to command attention? Umm. Why are we commanding attention?

The physical signs of surrender appear? And, then tears are a positive sign of guilt? How about the person surrendered, is being treated like a crook, can't get anybody to believe him, is isolated in a small room, is having an extremely unpleasant experience, and faces having his life turned upside down? I know a number of people who would be crying at this point. Or, even before.

The post interrogation interview allows an interrogator to calm down an innocent suspect? My a$$. After all that, what's he going to say? Some BS justification that "we had to know for sure whether it was you".

But, lets look at something really important: something missing. Where are all the indicators of innocence? Where the list of things to look for that tell the interrogator the suspect is innocent?

Oh, and how about this little point. If the cops got so much evidence that a person can rationally conclude the suspect is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, why do they need a confession?



I suspect this does nothing to correct the age-old problems with interrogations:

• people confessing falsely under pressure or lengthy interrogations
• police who seek to get "somebody/anybody" for career or political reasons

Bear in mind that the whole reason this sort of thing exists is because police don't have enough evidence to convict the person. Meaning the problems from interrogations arise because the police created the problem of trying to convict somebody they don't have enough evidence on. Just to illustrate this from another angle, if they don't have enough evidence, what shaky reasoning did they use to conclude he done it.

Nice to know what they're up to, though.

This thing sounds a little sick.

Keep in mind the 9 step process listed above is a general overview of the Reid Interrogation process. The actual basic course is 3 days long and an additional day for the advanced course. The class is taught by motivational speakers and actual interrogation videos are shown to give real world examples.

On a side note if you think this is sick you don’t want to see the additional training for sexual assault and child abuse investigations. There they cover how sometimes you have to get down with the subject and say things that are not appropriate for me to post on this form.

It also sounds like someone attended a bad sales seminar combined with some psuedo-science like psychology.

When I attended the Reid course, my instructor actually used the car salesman example for overcoming objections. He said to put yourself in a salesman’s shoes and think about all the different tactics high pressure sales people use. He gave the example if a customer says I like the car but not the color, you say “well I’m glad you brought that up, come on out back I have several others to choose from.” He said that a good car salesman can over come any objection and in most cases close the deal.

The physical signs of surrender appear? And, then tears are a positive sign of guilt? How about the person surrendered, is being treated like a crook, can't get anybody to believe him, is isolated in a small room, is having an extremely unpleasant experience, and faces having his life turned upside down? I know a number of people who would be crying at this point. Or, even before.

This is covered in depth as well. Basically a normally innocent person may cry due to the accusation. But the guilty will start to slump down in the chair, head hanging down, etc. That is when you know you have them in submission.

But, lets look at something really important: something missing. Where are all the indicators of innocence? Where the list of things to look for that tell the interrogator the suspect is innocent?

That is why they teach using the BAI first along with examining all the evidence at hand. They also teach that as time goes on the guilty subject’s denials get weaker and weaker while the innocent usually get stronger. They also cover a whole list of other examples.

Oh, and how about this little point. If the cops got so much evidence that a person can rationally conclude the suspect is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, why do they need a confession?

There are many times the evidence is weak or circumstantial. In order to prosecute the case a confession seals the deal.

Overall the REID format is very good. The Reid training program is utilized by local, state, and federal law enforcement, including the FBI and the Secret Service. Also private sector investigators attend this as well, including some insurance claims reps. While insurance reps won’t be doing any interrogations, they are there to learn the BAI along with detecting other possible signs of deception. They then use their training to decide if they should approve, or delay the claim and submit it for further investigation.

It should also be noted that two employees of REID went off to form their own company (Wicklander/Zulawski) and came up with another method called the Non-Confrontational Approach. They use the same BAI and other techniques, but their interrogation method is an 18 step process. They are also licensed to teach the REID method as well. Their format is used by some law enforcement and is very popular in the private sector field.

Finally, good investigators don’t just read a book and start doing interviews and interrogations. The good ones take the course, study the materials, and spend time with experienced interviewers and develop their skills over time. They also attend additional training seminars to keep their skills current.

budlight said:

SNIP There are many times the evidence is weak or circumstantial. In order to prosecute the case a confession seals the deal.

Click to expand...

I hate the long reply-post game where various quotes from one post are replied individually back-and-forth in an on-going conversation. So, I won't. I'll just pick the above, and one other. My omission of others is not assent, agreement,nor concession.

1. This is exactly my point. If all they have is weak evidence or circumstantial evidence, how on earth did they conclude the [strike]suspect[/strike] victim is their man? What poor logic, conclusion-jumping, or shaky rationale led them to certainty this person done it?

2. I have very deep suspicions about a declaration that an innocent person just cries while a guilty person slumps. I would need to see lots of cases of guilt completely proven, that phenmena aside. And, we still have the "only-normally" contradiction.

I very much suspect the theoretical under-pinnings of this methodology. We're dealing with the quality of people's lives here and their financial state. I would expect every premise of this methodology to be examined in-depth. Particularly when there is money to be made by the promoters. Can we be sure this thing is not a few pet theories cobbled together with some sales techniques and some already-accepted methods in order to make money for the promoters? (rhetorical question)

Citizen, I can understand your concerns and distrust with these methods. Given the outline shown WITHOUT an in depth training session makes it look like a pretty sloppy technique.

One thing I can say for sure is that both REID and Wicklander/Zulawski cover several times in their courses that their methods are not 100% fool proof in detecting deception. They advise that experience, instinct and totality of the circumstances must be considered before moving in for interrogation or backing out of one.

Unfortunately whether we all agree, disagree or are in between on these methods, the entire court system in America generally accepts them as appropriate methods.

Bottom line, I think we can ALL agree that the best thing anyone can do whether they are guilty or purely innocent is to exercise their right to remain silent and demand a lawyer. Given the fact that these methods are controversial is why I had suggested in the beginning not to post them as reading the method itself is not going to help someone in my opinion.

budlight said:

Bottom line, I think we can ALL agree that the best thing anyone can do whether they are guilty or purely innocent is to exercise their right to remain silent and demand a lawyer.

Click to expand...

AMEN!

On the topic of errors, I would personally have 50 false-innocent interviews than 1 false-guilty interview. I prosecution of an innocent person and the financial burden they must bear to prove their innocence -- even if they get found not guilty -- is a [strike]HUGE[/strike]GRAVE injustice.

Please folks, even if they tell you that if you don't talk to them you'll never get to see your family again (they very well may tell you that) DEMAND an attorney.

I believe in some jurisdictions, if they continue to interview you after you clearly state you want a lawyer, anything that is produced thereafter is inadmissible if they withhold an attorney. My question is, is Michigan such a jurisdiction?

TheQ said:

AMEN!

I believe in some jurisdictions, if they continue to interview you after you clearly state you want a lawyer, anything that is produced thereafter is inadmissible if they withhold an attorney. My question is, is Michigan such a jurisdiction?

Click to expand...

1) Amen and halleluja, to silence and attorney!

2) I was under the impression the entire country is such a jurisdiction. The requirement is set out in Miranda vs Arizona, the namesake for Miranda Rights. Here are some excerpts:

...Our holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow, but, briefly stated, it is this: the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody...(emphasis added by Citizen)

...At the outset, if a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation, he must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent...

...The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court...

...we hold that an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation...

...it is necessary to warn him not only that he has the right to consult with an attorney, but also that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him...

3) Regarding the use of the word "interview" in the quoted post, I try to avoid using the government's spin words when I recognize them. The government uses this word because it feels less intrusive, less scary, less forceful. In short, the government is trying to create more distance between what actually occurs and the concept conjured by the word. Conjure being an appropriate term, given that the government is trying to magically make an interrogation less offensive/objectionable by using a different word to gloss over it. And, of course, avoid the little public relations image problem where the word interrogation serves as a little reminder that cops are not really the Norman Rockwell Officer Friendlies they find it useful for us to believe.

gostrider had his wrr rmoved form the fourm, ok . this does not meen we can not redo the wrr over with new info form research we do. or call it basic info for open carry.

I understand that 2 of our members are working on getting that info out to us soon. I would expect the thread to be stickied.