Reid Technique

Reid Technique

1. 1. Positive Confrontation

   • 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.
     • This first step in the Reid Technique begins with the detective being open and sincere to Phillip. He lets him know continuously that he matches a description, but is free to go at anytime, free to get a lawyer, and then proceeds to collect simple information about Philip.

2. 7. Presenting an alternative question

   • The investigator should present two choices, assuming the suspect's guilt and developing as a "logical extension from the theme" with one alternative offering a better justification for the crime, ( Did you plan this thing out or did it just happen in 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."
     • Watching this interview is honestly a magical symphony because the interviewer is so good at his job! It is difficult to describe how he "lured" Philip in, but I can see it clearly and it's unbelievable how he does that. The detective kept repeating similar questions about why Philip was there (with photo evidence) and he was there when the homicide took place. If Philip is so innocent, why he is getting more angry and frustrated rather than annoyed about getting asked the same questions? If I was a truly innocent person and getting asked the same questions I would worry about answering truthfully, not dodging direct questions with indirect answers.

3. 5. Procurement and retention of suspects attention

   • The investigator must procure the suspect's attention so that the suspect focuses on the investigator's theme rather then 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.
     • Philip gets obviously aggravated/on edge when asked about girls and if he has had any problems with them. Philip states he has no clue about anything like that, that happens in Boston. During this time, if you lived in Boston, all of this material and incidents were a BIG deal. I even showed my parents this and they remember. If you didn't know about what was happening, you're either lying or live under a rock! Someone is lying...

4. 3. Overcoming Objections

   • When attempts at denial do not succeed, a guilty suspect often makes objections to support a claim of innocence (e.g I would never do that because I love my job.) The investigator should generally accept these objections as if they were truthful, rather then arguing with the suspect, and use the objections to further develop the theme.
     • Philip is consistently asked what he is doing on any given day, and it seems odd that he can't remember much at all on what he does on days not too long ago. Philip is relatively young and has no record of a bad memory, so he is denying it. I am seeing a trend in the detective's questions theme of asking very small questions, then asking more personal and direct, then indirect, and so on and so forth. Because sooner or later, someone will say a little more than he's supposed to, like how frequently gets hotel rooms at the Foxwoods/ how much he gambles. Philip is being very indirect to basic questions.

5. 2. Theme Devlopment

   • The investigator then presents a moral justification (theme) for the offense, such as placing moral blame on someone else or outside circumstances. The investigator presents the theme in a monologue and in a sympathetic manner.
     • This definitely nails exactly what was happening. The detective was being so open and sympathetic that it was like he was talking in the same tone as he would to his best friend. He consistently made remarks that he doesn't have to answer any questions. The detective was making small talk and asking small, easy questions that should correlate to easy answers...if the person getting questioned was innocent. One thing I picked up on is the detective asking him why he was in the same location/hotel/bar as the incidents were! It is easy to note that the detective has to dig deep to get simple answers. Something is up.