Reid Technique

When the suspect asks for permission to speak at this stage (likely to deny the accusations), the investigator should discourage allowing the suspect to do so. The Reid website asserts that innocent suspects are less likely to ask for permission and more likely to “promptly and unequivocally” deny the accusation. The website states that “[i]t is very rare for an innocent suspect to move past this denial state.”

At approximately12:43, the suspect seems to mention that the don’t remember the last time that they were at hotel. The suspect must’ve caught onto the way the investigator were asking leading questions to pin point them on one of the crime scenes. The suspect doesn’t want to admit when was the last time he was at a hotel but doesn’t admit that they have been to a few recently.

The investigator must procure the suspect's attention so that the suspect focuses on the investigator's theme rather than on punishment. One way the investigator can do this is to close the physical distance between himself or herself and the suspect. The investigator should also “channel the theme down to the probable alternative components.”

At the time of 12:16 the investigator mention suspects age and compare it to their own children. This method of charging personal information and comparing either setting the tone for the room to feel more at ease. This helps it feel more like a conversation than an interview. They take note of how the suspect doesn’t watch the news and how their child as well doesn’t really pay attention to the news as well. By this point, the investigator is probably already assuming that that the suspect is lying bout not seeing all of the news about the “Craigslist” killer as he keeps mentioning how important the news has been. At the timestamp of 32:32 mentions for at least the third time that he’s a good kid. This method could be used to ease Markoff into potentially making a mistake that that truly wasn't intentional because he is such a good person.

The investigator tells the suspect that the evidence demonstrates the person's guilt. If the person's guilt seems clear to the investigator, the statement should be unequivocal.

At approximately 17:25 of the investigator lets a Markoff know that there are surveillance tapes of the potential suspect at multiple hotels. This puts the suspect in a position to make them feel as though they need to defend themselves which can go either way. The suspect can either crawl into a ball and plead for an attorney or to confess information they know about the actual suspect. The way the investigator talks to Markoff isn’t harsh or aggressive which is why the Markoff was still comfortable to continue taking for 20 more minutes. He mention how his likeness, “white guy good looking kid” such as hisself that might describe his description.

The investigator then presents a moral justification (theme) for the offense, such as placing the moral blame on someone else or outside circumstances. The investigator presents the theme in a monologue and in a sympathetic manner.

Time stamps 33:13 the investigator explains to the suspect that a woman might’ve called the police and made stuff up. This scenario is put out on the table as bait to either get Markoff to grab the bait with would be to piggyback off of the that scenario by sayings that's what might've happened at the hotel. It could also be used to collect information about other potential suspects of how they could've brought them as a suspect. This could be a trick to get him to say any information that he has. Also at the time stamp of 39:13 it implies that there might be a scenario where he’s cheating on his fiancé with other people and doesn’t wanna throw himself under the bus. The explain to Markoff how that is the only way to make things right is by telling the truth. The investigators brings up the fact that they are dancing around the answers and don’t want to answer because they either genuinely don’t know or because they are trying to hide information from investigators

The investigator should present two choices, assuming the suspect's guilt and developed as a “logical extension from the theme,” with one alternative offering a better justification for the crime (e.g., “Did you plan this thing out or did it just happen on the spur of the moment?”). The investigator may follow the question with a supporting statement “which encourages the suspect to choose the more understandable side of the alternative.”

At the timestamp of 37:36 the investigators explain to the subject that they might’ve been in the area where a murder was occurred. They explain it to them in a way that they are not implying that they could indeed be the suspect of the murder but that they are very close in the investigation. They also do this by explaining to the subject but that they might have information about the murder that will be helpful. The questions they ask such why they would be seen at a hotel in Rhode Island. At 36:46 they present two scenarios where they would be implicated for the murder or simply on the scene for something unrelated. They do this to show to encourage that there is two sides to the story in which he should explain for himself.

Resource summary

	Created by Kayla Sanchez about 6 years ago