1. 1 Dave Walsh, University of Derby, UK Ray Bull, University of Leicester, UK

2. 2  Disclosure of evidence* (100%)  Open questions (100%)*  Repetitive questions (93%)  Leading questions (75%)  Handling suspect's mood (73%)  Emphasising contradictions (65%)*  Positive confrontation (60%)*  Interruptions (55%)  Silence (35%)*  Challenge account (28%)  Suggest scenario (20%)  Gentle prods (15%)*  Concern (10%)  Situational futility (3%). Bull and Soukara (2010)

3. 3  Tactics most often found within 10 minutes or less of confession  Disclosure of evidence  Open questions  Repetitive questions.  Followed by  Leading questions  Handling suspect's mood  Emphasising contradictions  Positive confrontation.

4. 4  85 fraud interviews  25 interviews involved confessions in later stages and 3 immediately interview commenced

5. 5  Disclosure of evidence (100)  Regular summarising (12)  Emphasising contradictions (76)  Positive confrontation (67)  Gentle prods (82)  Concern (85)  Silence (48)  Repetitive questioning (45)  Leading questions (88)  Open questions (93)  Probing questions (20)  Challenging the account (86)  Persistence (78)  Providing appropriate structure (25)  Encouraging account (46) The following tactics were excluded from analysis as they occurred in less than 10% of sample: maximisation, minimisation, intimidation, suggesting scenarios, interruptions, situational futility, handling suspect’s mood

6. 6 Number of ‘later’ confession interviews where tactic found (N = 25) Confess. Interview 10 mins before 5 mins before At confession Disclosure of evidence*252325 Regular summarising*8786 Emphasising contradictions*24152115 Positive confrontation*22101721 Gentle prods16311 Concern2113 14 Silence (N = 16)145101 Repetitive questioning*19171516 Leading questions*23 2118 Open questions*24 2221 Probing questions*128107 Challenging the account204113 Persistence*1931317 Providing appropriate structure*1814 Encouraging account*1913146

7. 7 No of interviews where tactic used% resulting in confession Disclosure of evidence 8529 Regular summarising* 1080 Emphasising contradictions 6537 Positive confrontation 5739 Gentle prods 7023 Concern 7229 Silence (58 tapes examined) 2850 Repetitive questioning 3850 Leading questions 7531 Open questions 7930 Probing questions* 1771 Challenging the account 7327 Persistence 6629 Providing appropriate structure* 2186 Encouraging account 3949

8. 8  Examined  Degree of shift towards confession  1 = no shift  5 = complete shift  Category A – 3,4,5 (partial, major, complete)  Category B – 1,2 (no or little shift)  Assessed skill levels  1 = needs further training  3 = satisfactory (minimum standard)  5 = highly skilled  Usage of tactic interview  1 = no usage of tactic  5 = extensive usage of tactic

9. 9 Skill level of tactics in sample% Satisfactory/skilled in shift interviews % Satisfactory/skilled in no- shift interviews Disclosure of evidence 95% of 2528% of 60 Regular summarising 100% of 80% of 2 Emphasising contradictions 58% of 2425% of 41 Positive confrontation 68% of 2217% of 35 Gentle prods 62% of 169% of 54 Concern 76% of 2116% of 51 Silence (58 tapes examined) 64% of 147% of 14 Repetitive questioning 79% of 1921% of 19 Open questions 67% of 249% of 55 Probing questions 67% of 1220% of 5 Persistence 76% of 1923% of 47 Providing appropriate structure 78% of 1866% of 3 Encouraging account 86% of 1926% of 20

10. 10  Mean rank  Cat ACat BUzr  Disclosure of evidence63.6832.842195.590.61  Regular summarising 58.4135.43366.504.270.46  Emphasising contradictions63.0733.142365.450.59  Positive confrontation 61.1634.08289.504.980.54  Gentle prods 62.9333.212405.380.58  Concern62.5433.402515.320.58  Silence42.4820.971044.980.65  Repeat questioning63.2133.072325.520.60  Open questions62.5933.38249.505.620.61  Probing questions62.7933.382445.450.59  Challenging the account59.6834.813314.550.49  Persistence61.2734.03286.505.010.54  Providing app structure62.43 33.482545.290.57  Encouraging account 63.5032.932245.690.62  All ratings significant p ≤0.01

11. 11 Extent of usage of tactics in sampleFrequent usage in shift interviews Frequent usage in no-shift interviews Disclosure of evidence 88% of 2523% of 60 Regular summarising 50% of 80% of 2 Emphasising contradictions 83% of 2424% of 41 Positive confrontation 64% of 2217% of 35 Gentle prods 82% of 1611% of 54 Concern 90% of 2116% of 51 Silence (58 tapes examined) 57% of 147% of 14 Repetitive questioning 64% of 19 Leading questions 35% of 2371% of 52 Open questions 100% of 2433% of 55 Probing questions 66% of 1220% of 5 Challenging the account 70% of 2025% of 53 Persistence 74% of 1923% of 47 Providing appropriate structure 94% of 1833% of 3 Encouraging account 95% of 1955% of 20

12. 12  Mean rank  Cat ACat BUzr  Disclosure of evidence 64.1132.632075.710.62  Regular summarising57.7335.76385.54.390.48  Emphasising contradictions 61.4333.952825.010.54  Positive confrontation 61.5433.892795.100.55  Gentle prods 60.2534.533154.730.51  Concern53.6437.775003.140.34  Silence43.0720.5990.505.290.69  Repetitive questioning 43.1342.73790.500.080.01  Leading questions29.3649.704163.710.40  Open questions 56.8036.22411.503.940.43  Probing questions59.5534.87334.504.590.50  Challenging the account59.5934.85333.504.530.49  Persistence60.5734.373064.810.52  Providing appropriate structure59.0735.113844.390.48  Encouraging account62.1833.582615.320.58  All ratings significant p ≤0.01

13. 13  Multiple regression analysis conducted  A significant model emerged (F (1, 56) = 36.73, p < 0.01, r = 0.39)  Disclosure of evidence - tactic associated with explaining the largest variance (  =.38, p = <.01).  Regular summarising (  =.35, p = <.005) explained a further 6% in the variance (F (2, 55) = 6.56, p = 0.13).

14. 14  We do not know how many false denials amongst the 60 cases  Or how many false confessions amongst the 25  Weight of (largely documentary) evidence  Measured 1 = weak; 5 = very strong  Amongst denials, 65% of interviews evidence weight was assessed as at least ‘3’  Amongst confessions, 72% of interviews evidence weight was assessed as at least ‘3’  Attitude

15. 15  Results suggest that  When persuading suspects, reasonably suspected of being guilty, to confess  Important to understand what tactics tend to be present  More skilled and more frequent usage of certain tactics leads to increased shift towards confession  Future directions

16. 16 GQM – Griffiths & Milne, 2006) Open Probing App. Closed Inapp. Closed Leading Multiple Forced choice Opinion Stmt       25 20 13 9 1 0 Time 6 12 17 18 20 22 24 29 31 33 37 41 46 1 4 12 13 16 19  

17. 17 Enhanced GQM – Interview No.43 Open Probing Approp. Closed Inapprop Closed Leading Multiple Forced choice Opinion/ Statemt 54321 54321 Time 510152025 Rating scale S S S S E P E E E PP C S E

18. 18  Dave Walsh  D.walsh@derby.ac.uk

19. 19 Presence of tactics in shift v no-shift interviews % of shift interviews % of no – shift interviews % 10 mins % 5 mins % conf point Disclosure of evidence 100 92100 Regular summarising 323 2832 Emphasising contradictions 9668966084 Positive confrontation 8858884068 Gentle prods 647264124 Concern 84858452 Silence 60436040 Repetitive questioning 7632766860 Leading questions 928792 84 Open questions 969296 88 Probing questions 488 3240 Challenging the account 8088801644 Persistence 7678761252 Providing appropriate structure 725 56 Encouraging account 7645765256