I’ve been spending a lot of time reading examples of transcripts where detectives are interviewing juveniles, to see some of the techniques, and to compare what’s been happening in the case I’m working on with other similar cases.

There are some interesting things I have learned from reading these examples. For example, certain detectives like to teach religion lessons while interrogating suspects: “You know what karma is? You know, what you put out into the world comes back to someone in your life. So if you do something bad, and you don’t make amends, something bad is going to happen to your grandma, or your little brother.” Some detectives prefer a less religions approach, staying with the classic: “the truth will set you free.” My personal favorite, however, is the “television is the only common denominator” approach: “You watch CSI, right? You know then about transference. Transference is whenever you go somewhere, you leave something behind- a footprint, an eyelash, some skin- and we can tell. So it doesn’t really matter if you tell the truth. We’ll still know.”

Now, technically, it IS legal to tell a suspect a lie during an interrogation in an effort to get them to divulge information. But come on, people- do you really think that they’re going to find your EYELASH in the FOREST where the shooting happened? A week later? Come ON. You would be amazed at how many people just spill all their shit after these little speeches.

I wonder what a cop could tell me that would compel me to tell the truth. I mean, I have kind of a problem with lying, (remember the principal/spelling test episode?) so I’d probably just walk into the room, burst into tears, and tell the whole thing. But if, for some reason, I was playing things close to the vest, a cop could probably get me to spill all with a quick “Ralph Feinnes is waiting for you to confess.”* Or a glass and a half of wine.

* But only if he correctly pronounced it “raif”, not rallllph.