Chicanery

At the trial of George Zimmerman, Zimmerman's attorney brought up the testimony of the lead detective and quoted him in his closing arguments.  I have read several times in different sources about the training detectives receive in trying to get the witness to tell the truth.  The training has its roots in psychology.  The method used has the detective try different methods of identifying with the suspect in order to make the suspect think that the detective is working in the suspect's best interests.  How deceiving the method is.  I guess it falls in the category of fighting fire with fire - in this case fighting deception with deception.

I have seen this method used on TV in a number of police shows, including CSI New York, CSI Miami, SVU, and Blue Bloods.  The method is even touted in FBI bulletins written by one of their agents who investigates interrogation techniques.  The method works, not because it detects falsehood, but because the suspects don't have training in psychology enough to recognize the underlying intent of it.

However, detectives get caught up in the method and think their notions of how to extort truth (yes, "extort" because it is a tortuous method that gets people to change their information whether or not the change is from falsehood to truth) are truly the scientific way to uncover truth from a testimony.  They feel so confident that this method is scientific that they tell attorneys that they have x number of years of experience and consider themselves as an expert (but not by the legal definition or the scholarly definition) in revealing truth and deception.  Here's a truth for them - 30 clock hours of training does not an expert make!  In fact, their training only makes them dangerous (quoting Alexander Pope here: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, drink deep, therefore, or taste not the Pierian Spring. Shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.  Drinking deeply sobers us again."

I have experienced first hand the arrogance of a detective trying to use the methods he was taught.  He resented greatly being called out on his methods because he "thought" that they were foolproof in getting to the truth.  And, I have analyzed the interrogations of detectives of witnesses and suspects to see how each of them implements these same methods.  It's appalling and galling to me to see detectives use this deceptive and, to me, abusive method to work with deception.

So, when the attorney for Zimmerman quoted the lead detective, saying that if a suspect tells the same story again and again, it shows rehearsal, and rehearsal makes his story a lie, I nearly left my chair in hysterical disbelief.  Justice is in serious trouble when an attorney uses a detective's opinion after 30 clock hours of training as more than a simple notion.  Not only is the detective's opinion a simple notion, it is counterintuitive.  Truthful and accurate statements about deception are many times unexpected, but few scientific conclusions about deception are counterintuitive.  All of this is not to mention there are several scientifically proven methods that are not notions but based on empirical methods and statistical evidence.

Well, such chicanery worked for Zimmerman.  It allowed him to have different details in versions of his story.  Therefore, he was likely to be more truthful.  What a sham.