1

Polygraph in the Age of PEACE

Thoughts on the evolution of ethical interviewing when used

in conjunction with a polygraph examination

Bruce G. Pitt-Payne & Dr. Sarah MacDonald

January 23, 2017

Introduction:

A major criticism of the J. Reid Interview and Interrogation Technique and its derivatives is that it

facilitates confirmation bias and a confession-driven attitude, propelled predominantly by the

interviewer’s belief that the suspect was guilty. This presumption of guilt could be attributed, in part, to

the results of two widely used interview tools designed to assess the suspect’s credibility at the outset of

the interview: (1) the Behaviour Analysis Interview (BAI)1 (Inbau, Reid, Buckley, & Jayne, 2011) and the

polygraph. The BAI is a line of questioning that requires the police officer to interpret answers from the

1 The process I refer to as a Behaviour Analysis Interview (BAI) has been replaced by Behaviour Symptom Analysis (BSA); however, the purpose has not changed significantly. For ease of reference, I will use BAI throughout this paper.

2

suspect and decide whether or not the responses are truthful. If the suspect is judged to be lying (i.e.,

culpable), an accusatory interrogation typically follows2 (J. Reid and Associates, Inc., 2016). The BAI leads

to a bias that points to presumptive guilt which has the potential to spur on tunnel vision and an often-

accusatory interview from which a confession is the most desired conclusion. Although an interviewer

might truly believe he or she is being open-minded in the search for the truth, the inherent biases

attributed to the BAI results could overpower the intended goal of neutrality. Moreover, as the BAI has

never been empirically shown to accurately detect deception, it could be extremely dangerous to the

investigative process (i.e., ultimately resulting in a potential miscarriage of justice). Similar concerns arise

from the administration of the polygraph at the beginning of an investigative interview. Although some

proponents of the polygraph cite research suggesting the instrument can accurately detect deception

upwards of 95%3 of the time (American Polygraph Association, 2011), there is a wealth of controversial

findings in the literature (Iacono & Patrick, 1999) and serious concerns over the quality of lab-based

studies, as noted by the United States National Research Counsel (NCR, 2003). In many jurisdictions within

Canada and the US, results of the polygraph are still used to rationalize the use of an interrogation much

the same as the BAI4 (Canadian Police College, 2016).

Taken together, there are concerns over the use of deception detection strategies like the BAI or

polygraph at the outset of an investigative interview, given that both could potentially lead the officer to

presume guilt and launch into a confession-driven interview rife with confirmation bias. The goal of this

paper is to outline concerns of the BAI and polygraph and also suggest opportunities for reforming

practises. It should be noted that we are not aiming to attack any particular technique or lambast the

polygraph. We do hope; however, that this paper provides an opportunity or source of inspiration to look

further into the issues raised.

The BAI Mindset:

The BAI begins with a suspect being asked several behaviour-provoking-questions referred to as BOQs

(Behaviour Observation Questions)5 (J. Reid and Associates, Inc., 2016). The rationale for asking BOQs is

that it’s believed that the responses of deceptive people differ from those of an innocent (truthful) person.

It has been theorized that the difference in responses is caused by cognitive dissonance whereby the

2 The following is an excerpt from the J. Reid website which explains the goal of the BAI: “The BAI serves several important functions. Primarily, it provides objective criteria to render an opinion about the suspect’s truthfulness through evaluating responses to the behaviour-provoking and investigative questions.” 3 I have chosen to use the high-end of the estimate spectrum to avoid irrelevant argument over the accuracy of the polygraph. For the same reason, I have not entered into discussion on the effect of adding the percentage of “inconclusive” results into the calculations. 4 Under the heading “Course Objectives” for the Canadian Police College Polygraph Examiners Course, the following is found: “apply the rules of interrogation to subjects identified as deceptive in order to obtain an admission of guilt or a confession”. 5 While describing the BAI, the following was found: “In addition to standard investigative questions, we advocate the asking of structured “behavior provoking” questions to elicit behaviour symptoms of truth or deception from the person being interviewed.”

3

anxiety of telling a lie would cause a combination of cognitive and emotional leakage, observable to the

interviewer. The responses are scored as either deceptive or truthful and, if the majority are deceptive,

an (often accusatory) interrogation would follow. The definition of interrogation for the purpose of this

paper is: a guilt-presumptive interview that is accusatory in nature. Not to be confused with

confrontational; the interviewer simply informs the suspect that he or she is believed to have committed

the offence. Although confrontational interviews do occur, they are not synonymous with accusatory

interviews.

The problem with this route has been well-articulated in the following words:

“Once leakage has been identified, it is the interviewer’s job to explore, via effective interviewing

techniques, its cause(s) (Cooper et al., 2009; Yuille, 1989). Here lies another important point to

understand about leakage. Emotional leakage by an interviewee only tells the interviewer that an

emotion has occurred; it does not tell the interviewer the cause of that emotion (Ekman, 2009,

2003). Similarly, seeing signs of cognitive load only tells the interviewer that the interviewee is

exerting greater mental effort than is expected given the question or task (Cooper t al., 2009). It is

therefore crucial that interviewers not label leakage as a sign of deception. That decision is simply

premature. Instead, the interviewer should note the information as it is important; that is, it is a

“hot spot’ (i.e., a clue to importance) to be further investigated (Cooper et al., 2009). Otherwise,

errors that could have been avoided will be made.” (Yarbrough, J., Herve, H., and Harms, R., 2013)

Following the accusation, the interviewer would offer the suspect potential ways to rationalize or justify

having committed the offence. Should the suspect choose to be accountable for his actions, he could

choose to confess in a face-saving manner. He could accept responsibility yet minimize the moral gravity

through projecting the moral blame onto either someone or something else or rationalizing that his

intentions were less nefarious than they appeared. Denials would be frowned upon and efforts would be

made to stop them early. The interrogation would continue until either the interviewer gave up or the

suspect confessed. If a confession was received, its reliability or accuracy might not be heavily scrutinized,

partly due to the overwhelming confirmation bias linked to the results of the BAI. In essence, the

interviewer initially received feedback from the BAI that pointed towards guilt and deception; the

following interrogation was conducted to solely confirm those beliefs. The following chart illustrates this

interrogation process and where the BAI fits:

Step 1: Factual Analysis

Step 2: Behaviour Analysis Interview (BAI)

Step 3: Interrogate the presumptively-guilty suspect

4

Let’s be clear on something here. I am in no way saying that all confessions from either a confession-

driven or an accusatory interview are unreliable or false. If done in a manner that does not deprive the

suspect of the ability to choose whether or not to speak and in situations where the suspect is not from a

vulnerable or suggestive population where he or she may inherently lack the ability to choose, the

resulting confession may indeed be voluntary and reliable. However, since life may not provide us with

the perfect situation, I must agree with the scholars who have linked BAI biases to issues of reliability6. I

am concerned with the ethical aspect since the BAI is still being used despite research showing its accuracy

is approximately that of chance7. A professional policing agency should; therefore, be worried that the

use of the BAI could lead to a false confession and potentially a wrongful conviction.

The PEACE Model of Interviewing8:

An alternative approach that is neither guilt-presumptive nor confession-driven has spread quickly since

its birth in the U.K. in the 1990s. The PEACE Model found its name in the acronym for its constituent parts

which are:

P Planning & Preparation

E Engage and Explain

A Account, Clarification & Challenge

C Closure

E Evaluation

The design of the PEACE Model has led to a diminution of confirmation bias9 partly because it does not

incorporate the BAI or other methods of deception detection. As opposed to methods such as the Reid

Technique which are confession-driven, the goal of the PEACE model is to generate information through

communication (cognitive interviewing and conversation management; see Snook et al., 2010). Arguably,

this would make the PEACE Model more ethically-sound than other models that value a BAI. For this

reason, the PEACE Model, and some evolutionary adaptations such as the RCMP Phased Interview Model

6 Snook, Eastwood, Stinson, Tedeschini, & House (2010) Reforming Investigative Interviewing in Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 52, 215-229. 7 Vrij (2008) Nonverbal dominance versus verbal accuracy in lie detection: A plea to change police practice. Criminal Justice and Behaviour 35: 1323-1336. 8 Rather than describe this model in detail, I have decided to speak to only aspects of it that are relevant to the topic of the paper; confirmation bias and confession-driven attitude. A more detailed schematic may be found in the Appendices. 9Milne & Bull (1999). Investigative Interviewing: Psychology and Practice. Chichester: Wiley.

5

for Suspects10 and the Forensic Alliance’s Step-Wise Suspect Model11 (Yuille & Herve, 2013) have found a

home in countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Mexico and certain jurisdictions within the USA.

Having said that, the PEACE Model has yet to make its nest within the polygraph tree where that device

is used as nothing more than a high-tech BAI12 (Canadian Police College, 2016) which could still lead to a

confirmation bias on the part of the interviewer. As with the BAI, this bias would not be negated by

repeating banal expressions such as “The goal of the interview is to find the truth, not a confession.”

There is a bit of a misconception that PEACE, by very nature of its name, is a soft interviewing style that

might not work with difficult or hardened suspects or people in very serious cases. However, embedded

in the Account phase, is the Challenge phase, which addresses parts of the suspect’s account that might

not be consistent with other pieces of evidence collected (e.g., witness statements).

The Polygraph Process

The modern polygraph examination is a complex creature as it relies on both science and opinion. The

science is found in the ability to detect physiological changes such as heart rate and blood pressure and

the opinion is found in the operator’s take on whether the deviation from the physiological baseline was

attributed to deception or another factor13 (R. v. Beland [1987] 2 SCR 398, 1987). The research on the

reliability of the opinion ranges from 50% (flipping a coin, or “chance”) to 95%. For the purpose of this

paper, to appease those who believe the control-question exam model leads to increased accuracy, I will

accept that the modern polygraph examination is more accurate than a BAI. Having said that, I also accept

that the polygraph examination is not 100% accurate. I have done this to avoid an attack from polygraph

10 The RCMP developed and adopted this model in 2015 as a proactive attempt to find an ethical technique that reduced confirmation bias and increased the reliability of information received. It was predominantly based on the PEACE Model but was modified to suit Canadian law which permitted the use of an accusatory phase as long as a statement was free of oppression (nothing deprived the suspect of his ability to choose whether to say anything to the person in authority) and it did not contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Accusatory Phase differs from that of the Reid Technique as it does not use a BAI, it readily accepts denials, it incorporates a conversation management approach, and its goal is to obtain information and not a confession. To gain an understanding on Canadian interview law I recommend the following Supreme Court of Canada rulings: Oickle, Singh, Grant, and Sinclair. 11 The Step-Wise Suspect Interview is another Canadian model developed by Dr. J. Yuille and Dr. H. Herve of the Forensic Alliance in approximately 2013. These scholars formulated an approach which carries all the advantages of the PEACE Model yet fits Canadian law. 12 Under the heading “Course Objectives” for the Canadian Police College Polygraph Examiners Course, the following is found: “apply the rules of interrogation to subjects identified as deceptive in order to obtain an admission of guilt or a confession”. 13 This Supreme Court of Canada ruling is similar to several in the USA and elsewhere in its belief that the results of a polygraph examination should not be adduced as evidence in criminal proceedings. The following quote sums up the belief of the Court vis a vis the reliability of the test results: “The results recorded by the polygraph instrument, their nature and significance will reach the trier of fact through the mouth of the operator. Human fallibility will thus be present, but now fortified with the mystique of science.”

6

purists who may want to detract from my argument by focusing solely on the issue of accuracy and not

on the lurking confirmation bias and confession-centric use.

There are several uses for the polygraph but we will deal with what is called a Specific Incident Test,

colloquially referred to as the Criminal Test, as it is the most prevalent in police work. It involves asking a

suspect whether he committed or was involved in a specific action. Many people have never experienced

a real polygraph examination and often think it is conducted much like those on television shows such as

Jerry Springer. To be fair to the process, I feel it necessary to walk us through what a realistic police

polygraph session would look like.

The Initial Investigative Interview

Prior to the day of the examination, an investigator would interview the suspect and ensure that he

understood the jeopardy he or she faced. This means that the suspect must be told for what he is under

suspicion or charge. This is a prerequisite for testing as the polygraph examination relies on the

stimulation of the autonomic nervous system, or as it is often referred, the fight or flight response. If a

guilty suspect did not know what he was accused of, he would in turn not have any fear of failing the test

and; therefore, not have a fight or flight response when the anxiety-provoking question was asked. In

essence, the questions would be meaningless.

During the initial investigative interview, the interviewer would conduct a non-accusatory interview

which, had he not been PEACE-trained, would include a few Behaviour Observation Questions to detect

deception as part of the BAI14. Should the suspect choose to deny the allegation the interviewer could

choose to commence an accusatory interview and/or present the polygraph as an opportunity to clear

himself. The polygraph would not be offered if the investigation contained evidence that unequivocally

showed guilt as it would make the test redundant15. The use of an accusatory interview would not

negatively affect the subsequent polygraph examination. In fact, it has been theorized that it might assist

the process by leaving the suspect with an extremely clear understanding of his jeopardy.

14 The RCMP has removed the BAI from its new RCMP Phased Interview Model for Suspects and no longer uses Behavioural Observation Questions. Having said that, the model does incorporate Insightful Questions (ISQs) for which the goal is to learn as much as possible about the suspect. Whereas a presumption of guilt had been the goal of the BAI, the ISQs are used to generate conversation with the suspect in order to learn about his values and beliefs. 15 This is an important point when faced with anyone proposing that the accuracy of the polygraph negates the risk of any guilt-presumptive bias. If the polygraph were indeed reliable enough to minimize the risk of bias, the operator would not hesitate to use it even when there was overwhelmingly incriminating evidence such as DNA. My understanding of polygraph use is that the polygraph would not be used in an investigation where guilt could be conclusively proven through direct evidence. The fact that conclusive evidence would and should always trump the necessity for a polygraph test, is evidence of the true belief of its reliability or the operators would not fear using it when its accuracy could truly be tested.

7

The Polygraph Examination Session

Although the examination proper only takes about 20 minutes, the entire session could take two to three

hours. The examination session would have the following structure:

a. Introduction and explanation of the process

b. Legal warnings and requirements

c. Rapport building (continuous)

d. BAI: Behaviour Observation Questions (or Insightful Questions if no BAI)

e. Non-accusatory interview to obtain an account

f. Polygraph test if a denial is received

g. Post-test interview if shown to have been Not Deceptive.

h. Post-test accusatory interview (interrogation) if shown to have been deceptive or, on occasion,

inconclusive

In some countries, such as Canada, although the examination results are not admissible in criminal

proceedings, any words or gestures from the suspect could be used as evidence in Court as long as they

were given voluntarily and they were not obtained as a result of a violation of The Charter of Rights and

Freedoms. It is important to know that what happens in one interview could affect the admissibility of

subsequent interviews. This means that a threat or promise of leniency, for example, in the Initial

Interview or during the introductory stages of the Polygraph Examination Session could render a

subsequent utterance inadmissible16 (R. v. Wittwer [2008] 2 SCR 33)

Assessment of the Polygraph/Interview Combination

At first glance, it might appear that the only issue with the current polygraph process would be the type

of interview model linked with it. Following this train-of-thought, a polygraph test held in conjunction with

an ethical, non-confrontational, non-confession-driven interview model might render the process free of

criticism. However, although it would probably be better to avoid accusatory techniques, and certainly

confrontational ones, this would not completely eliminate the problem of bias. Even if the polygraph

process distanced itself from the standard BAI, arguably the examination itself could lead the operator

and investigative team to believe a suspect was in fact guilty. If this were the case, the polygraph results

would have had the same deleterious effect as the BAI and the confirmation bias and a confession-driven

attitude could follow suit. Perhaps the polygraph should be viewed as nothing more than a high-tech BAI

and removed from the investigative process entirely. Unfortunately, the treatment for bias might be

allegorical to the treatment of addiction; total and complete abstinence from the source of the problem.

16 This Supreme Court of Canada ruling spoke to the Court’s belief that admissibility issues from one interview could “taint” subsequent interviews, regardless of efforts to fix the initial violation.

8

Suggested Changes to the Polygraph Process:

Having never been the type of person to point out a potential shortfall without providing a solution, I

would like to look at ways to improve the polygraph process (the pairing of polygraph and interview). I

have come up with three options that range from extreme to mild. An explanation of a suggested shift

from a protocol-oriented approach to one that is more flexible will follow. From this point on, I will draw

on my experience as an investigator and interviewer as well as research and other sources.

Cease using the polygraph in conjunction with any interview model

If the polygraph test results do indeed lead to an interview skewed by the confirmation bias it has caused,

then, continued use of the instrument in coordination with any interview process would be an unethical

decision. Unless a remedy were found that eliminated the bias, any subsequent interview or interrogation

could be affected by it. An analogy could be found in the treatment of a disease such as cancer where

damage could still happen to other tissue and organs if the cancer were not eradicated completely from

the primary location. This drastic remedy would render the polygraph useless as an investigative aid17

(Accociation of Chief Police Officers, 2014) as, without an associated interview, the investigation would

not be able to gain any admissible evidence from the process.

Only use the polygraph as an exoneration tool

Another option would be to limit the bias by only using the polygraph to clear the innocent. This scenario

would, although still accepting the potential bias, limit its damage by controlling the scope of any

subsequent interview. Following the polygraph test, a result of Deceptive would either lead to the

conclusion of the process or an interview from which only evidence of exclusion could be used. A test

result of Inconclusive would lead to a retest with the hope of obtaining either a Deceptive or Not

Deceptive result. A result of Not Deceptive would be followed by an interview to obtain details to enhance

the reliability of the test through corroboration. This middle-ground approach to the bias issue would

allow the police to retain the polygraph as in investigative aid to exonerate suspects yet reduce the fear

of wrongful conviction. The confirmation bias would not have been removed entirely but any error would

be directed toward a presumption of innocence as opposed to guilt.

17 This report outlines the position of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the National Investigative Interviewing Steering Group regarding polygraph use in investigations in the UK. Part of the rationale for completely banning the use of polygraph in investigations is found in the following quote: “Where a suspect has been implicated as a result of polygraphic examination it could be argued that the line of enquiry that followed were heavily influenced by ‘confirmation bias’ based on the use of flawed technology rather than being the product of an ‘investigative mindset’ as advocated in Practice Advice on Core Investigative Doctrine (ACPO 2012)”.

9

Only use the polygraph (the results of which are kept blind from the interviewer) in conjunction with

an interview model such as PEACE that might reduce the bias effect and; therefore, the confession-

driven attitude

The final and least drastic solution would be to only use the polygraph alongside an interview model

proven to either eradicate a pre-existing bias or act as a safeguard against its influence on the outcome

of an interview. The appropriate model would; therefore, have to be an information-driven, open-ended

(funnel based) approach such as the PEACE model or any of its true adaptations. Most importantly, to

enhance the chance of avoiding troubling confirmation bias, the interviewer should not be made aware

of the polygraph results prior to the start of the interview. Perhaps the results of the polygraph could be

made available on an “as needed” basis during the challenge phase of the interview. This way, the

interviewer could exhaust the collection of information from the suspect without having been made privy

to the (potentially) misleading results of the polygraph. Instead of polygraph results providing the basis

for topics the interviewer should examine, they could serve the purpose of identifying any topics or

narratives that might have been missed entirely by the interviewer (and perhaps should be probed

further) in one of the final stages. If these criteria were met and the model’s built-in protection

components limited the effect of bias, it could follow a polygraph test. If the model did not have these

qualities, the ethical quandary posed by the remaining bias might not be acceptable. Short of having the

interview conducted by a robot, the human problem of bias would continue to fester. Seeing that the

issue of bias appears to be a human characteristic, perhaps the cure could be found in a solid infusion of

self-awareness, coupled with a heavy dose of hypothesis testing18 (Yarbrough, J., Herve, H., and Harms,

R., 2013) which would have to be not only part of the model but reinforced throughout an interviewer’s

career. To quote Yarbrough et al.:

“For now, the reader is reminded that the probability of conducting a successful interview that results

in accurate information is enhanced when the following steps are followed:

1. Be Aware of the personality characteristics, traits, and background of the interviewer and the

interviewee;

2. Determine the Baseline behaviour of the interviewee;

3. Watch for the Changes in the interviewee’s behaviour during the interview;

4. Actively listen and watch for Discrepancies between the interviewee’s behaviour and the

verbal content of the statements;

5. Be willing to Engage and challenge the interviewee when deception possibly occurs; and,

6. Conduct a Follow-up investigation to corroborate the interviewee’s statements.”

18 Although this would not be a panacea, it might have enough impact to minimize the effect of polygraph-associated bias.

10

Since the above steps appear to be the foundation of the PEACE Model and its Canadian adaptations, the

RCMP Phased Interview Model for Suspects and the Step-Wise Suspect Interview, it would follow that all

three could be used in conjunction with the Specific Incident polygraph test. The RCMP model, due to its

incorporation of an accusatory phase, might require a certain degree of training and oversight to avoid a

reliance on that phase as opposed to focussing on the Non-accusatory phase19.

Shift from protocol to process

The current polygraph technique used by the RCMP relies on adherence to a heavily-structured protocol

that includes voluminous rote-memorization by the operator to adhere strictly to the training. This

memorization ensures that every test, from beginning to end, follows a format that would be acceptable

to the Canadian Police College and the RCMP Truth Verification Unit. In short, it may be financially-

efficient to train the operators in this way as it would minimize the depth of review required to avoid or

detect drift from the training given. This decision may be justified in standardizing the test procedure

across the country; however, it may also conflict with the goal of the PEACE Model which is to adapt the

process to the individual being interviewed as well as the circumstances and context of the overall

situation. The idea of a protocol, which is to be used the same way for every person and every situation,

must be re-evaluated and possibly replaced with the concept of a process that is multi-faceted, versatile

and infinitely-adaptable. To cite Charles Darwin, “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the

most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”

Should the polygraph process adopt the PEACE Model of interviewing it would arguably have to

incorporate the adaptation component and rid itself of a ridged structure. Although specific instructions

may require rote memory, the use of the interview within the process must be adaptable to any situation

presented. This may mean that the location of the polygraph test proper within the entire procedure

(polygraph and interview) may vary depending on situational factors in the same way a challenge would

never be tied to a specific point in time for each and every interview. Having said this, it would not be

unreasonable to predict that many tests would logically belong in either the Account Phase, possibly as a

new form of challenge, or following the Evaluation Phase. Regardless of the location, what should be

heavily discouraged would be the continuation of the current practice of automatically following the test

with an accusatory interview.

Omitting to inform the suspect that he had failed the test would not necessarily mean the interview could

be considered non-accusatory. A suspect could believe he had failed the test and was being accused of

committing the offence without having been actually told of the results. Although current practice may

19 The RCMP committee that designed and developed this model recognized that, although not all accusatory interviews would be responsible for false confessions, an Accusatory Phase should ethically follow a solid attempt at the Non-Accusatory Phase. The Accusatory Phase would be available for “no-comment” interviews in the same way the Special Warning of adverse inference is used by the police in the UK. As the UK warning would render a suspect statement inadmissible in Canada due to the adverse inference of remaining silent, the RCMP built its current model around Canadian Supreme Court rulings that support the use of interviews which, contextually-based, neither deprive a suspect of his ability to choose whether to speak to the police nor his Constitutional Rights to specific legal expectations and procedural fairness (refer to footnote 10 for specific rulings).

11

not have the interviewer bluntly mention that the suspect had “failed” the test, subtlety would surely be

missed on most people once the post-test interview had commenced. Realistically, why would an

interview be conducted if the suspect had been proven to have given truthful denials? Perhaps the suspect

should be told that the test was unable to clear him as opposed to leaving the impression that he was

being called a liar? Perhaps great thought should be put into explaining that the test result was

inconsistent with the suspect’s account and a challenge should be followed in the normal PEACE manner.

Perhaps, as mentioned already, the solution is found in an interview conducted by someone blind to the

test result.

Conclusion:

My ever-changing life experience and education has had a pronounced effect on how I view the world. It

has allowed me to continuously assess and reassess my beliefs and values so much so that I could watch

a movie one day and take something different from it on a subsequent viewing. This is the growing process

I have observed regarding my understanding of the polygraph. Although I have used the polygraph

extensively in serious criminal investigations and would love to see it remain available as an investigative

tool, I have to question whether its benefits outweigh its limitations.

Until a detection-of-deception technique that is 100% reliable has been found, we should err on the side

of caution and assume it could mislead an investigator into believing its accuracy and the question of

whether it was a conscious decision or not would not be important. All that mattered would be whether

a guilt-presumptive bias had been created and had been carried into the interview process.

As mentioned at the outset of this paper, the goal was not to blindly lambast any particular model or

technique be it related to either interviewing or polygraph examination. With hope, it will; however,

disrupt the status quo by having this topic reviewed further in a scholarly manner.

12

References

Accociation of Chief Police Officers. (2014). National Policing Position Statement: The Use of the

Polygraph in Investigations. National Investigative Interviewing Strategic Steering Group

(NIISSG).

American Polygraph Association. (2011). Meta-Analytic Survey of Criterion Accuracy of Validated

Polygraph Techniques. The AD-Hoc Committee on Validated Techniques.

Milne, R. and Bull, R. (1999). Investigative Interviewing: Psychology and Practice. Chichester: Wiley.

Canadian Police College. (2016, December 21). Canadian Police College. Retrieved from Polygraph

Examiners (PEC): http://www.cpc-ccp.gc.ca

Inbau, F., Reid, J., Buckley, J., & Jayne, B. (2011). Criminal Interrogation and Confessions (Fifth ed.). (F.

Inbau, Ed.) Burlington, MA, USA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

J. Reid and Associates, Inc. (2016, December 21). Critics [sic] Corner. Retrieved from The Reid Technique:

http://www.reid.com

Pitt-Payne, B. (2016, December). Program Manager: Investigative Interviewing Training RCMP PRTC. (B.

Pitt-Payne, Interviewer)

R. v. Beland [1987] 2 SCR 398, 18856 (Supreme Court of Canada October 15, 1987). Retrieved from

http://www.scc-csc.lexum.com

R. v. Grant [2009] SCC 32, 31892 (Supreme Court of Canada). Retrieved from scc-csc.lexum.com

R. v. Oickle [2000] 2 SCR 3, 26535 (Supreme Court of Canada). Retrieved from scc-csc.lexum.com

R. v. Sinclair [2010] 2 SCR 310, 32537 (Supreme Court of Canada). Retrieved from scc-csc.lexum.com

R. v. Singh [2007] 3 SCC 48, 31558 (Supreme Court of Canada). Retrieved from scc-csc.lexum.com

R. v. Wittwer [2008] 2 SCR 33, 32130 (Supreme Court of Canada). Retrieved from http://www.scc-

csc.lexum.com

Snook, Eastwood, Stinson, Tedeschini, & House. (2010). Reforming Investigative Interviewing in Canada.

Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 52, 215-229.

Vrij, A. (2008). Nonverbal dominance versus verbal accuracy in lie detectioin: A plea to change police

practice. Criminal Justice and Behaviour 35.

Yarbrough, J., Herve, H., and Harms, R. (2013). The Sins of Interviewing: Errors made by investigative

interviewers and suggestions for redress. New York: Springer.

13

The PEACE Model20

20 This is the model presented on the College of Policing webpage http://www.app.college.police.uk

14

The RCMP Phased Interview Model for

Suspects21

21 This model was created and developed by the RCMP’s National Interviewing Committee in 2015

15

The Step-Wise Suspect Interview

(Yuille & Herve, 2013)

16

Schematic of the Step-Wise

Suspect Interview Model