I recently returned from the Killer Nashville Writers Conference in Tennessee. For those who have not yet attended, this event offers a valuable opportunity for writers to engage with a wide array of specialized panels and discussions tailored to their interests. This year, I had the privilege of serving on three panels: Serial Killers, Crime of the Century, and Search Warrants. However, one notable omission was a session addressing interrogation techniques—a topic many writers expressed interest in exploring further. After discussing this with Clay Stafford, the conference organizer, I am pleased to announce that I will be leading a panel dedicated to Interrogation Techniques in the future.
Presenting on this topic is particularly meaningful given the frequency with which writers misrepresent interrogation procedures, often drawing from dramatic but inaccurate television portrayals. While such screen depictions can provide engaging narratives, they frequently depict actions that would result in disciplinary consequences or legal repercussions for real-life detectives. For instance, coercive tactics such as physical aggression are both unethical and illegal, and including these actions can detract from a story’s credibility among informed readers.
Effective interrogations rely on the detective’s ability to identify both verbal and nonverbal cues. In this discussion, we will focus on verbal indicators, while nonverbal cues will be addressed in a subsequent installment. Verbal signals—such as variations in speech pitch, pace, increased pauses before responding, or suspects repeating questions—may suggest deception. However, no single behavior is definitive; investigators look for clusters of indicators to draw more reliable conclusions.
Establishing a baseline for a suspect’s normal communication patterns is essential. Investigators begin with questions where answers are already known, such as name, age, or address. These straightforward inquiries allow for observation of typical responses, providing a reference point for later analysis.
Once a baseline has been established, attention shifts to specific verbal markers. For example, deceptive individuals may use filler words—such as “umm,” “and,” “well,” or “uh”—more frequently when formulating responses. Truthful individuals usually respond directly, whereas those concealing information might repeat the question or hesitate. It is important to note, however, that these patterns alone do not confirm deceit; they must be considered within the broader context of the interview.
Writers should recognize that signs of deception can also manifest in subtle linguistic choices, such as avoiding contractions (using “cannot” instead of “can’t”). Historical examples, like President Bill Clinton’s statement, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,” illustrate the potential significance of such language.
Additionally, experienced investigators often use storytelling during interrogations to observe how suspects react. Deceptive individuals may listen attentively and nod, while truthful persons tend to interrupt or immediately refute incorrect assertions. Consistency across varied lines of questioning is another marker; those telling the truth typically maintain consistent answers, whereas liars may struggle to do so.
It is important to understand that interrogations are rarely resolved quickly. While confessions can occasionally occur early in the process, most interviews require extended periods, sometimes over several days. When writing interrogations, it is crucial to balance authenticity and narrative pacing—providing enough detail to convey realism without overwhelming the reader with procedural minutiae.
By adhering to accurate representations of investigative practice, writers enhance the credibility of their stories and maintain reader engagement. Diligent research and thoughtful execution will ultimately enrich your work and resonate with discerning audiences.
Happy writing,
James
Leave a Reply