I have had the honor of training many students during their studies at Reid College. Following graduation most of them went on to have very successful careers in the private sector, law enforcement or various government agencies. Some of them are current staff members of John E. Reid and Associates. What these students all have in common is their first interrogation - they all pretty much went like this:

I: "Joe, our investigation clearly indicates that you did do this. What is really important to establish at this point is why this thing happened. I would like to think that this is not typical of you and that you acted out of character. I know things have been rough at home for you. You haven't had a raise in over a year and yet you're paying more for gas, utilities, food and rent. I really believe that you are an honest person and that this was out of character for you but with the financial pressure you were under you just couldn't take it any more. Every night you were lying in bed staring at the ceiling and wondering how you were going to pay off your credit cards and what you were going to do at the end of the month, knowing that you didn't have enough to pay rent. I think all of this financial pressure built up in you and then you saw that someone left the deposit out and in a weak moment, probably just a second or two, you gave in and grabbed the deposit. Is that what happened Joe? Did this thing just happen on the spur of the moment or did you plan it out? It was just the spur of the moment, wasn't it?"

S: "I don't know what you're talking about."

I: "OK. I'm going to step out of the room for a minute."

Unless an investigator is fortunate enough to have clear and convincing evidence of the suspect's guilt, very few suspects confess after 10 or 15 minutes of interrogation. During the first 15 to 20 minutes of most interrogations the suspect is trying to figure out whether or not the investigator really knows that he committed the crime, or is the investigator bluffing? If the suspect is convinced that the investigator knows that he committed the crime, he begins to wonder how strong the case is against him. This may take another 20 or 30 minutes. If the suspect concludes that the investigator, in fact, does have convincing evidence of his guilt he realizes that his only chance to escape consequences is to keep his mouth shut. The suspect can remain at this stage for hours. Throughout this entire process, the investigator must continue offering the suspect a theme. How can a theme last 30, 60 or even 90 minutes? How did the students at Reid College learn to draw out theme development for the necessary time it took for the suspect to decide to tell the truth? The answer is by using both first and third person themes.

A first person theme addresses the suspect's crime and describes how the suspect probably justified or rationalized the crime. In essence, the investigator attempts to recreate the suspect's thoughts or emotions that led up to the suspect's decision to commit the crime. The problem, of course, is the available content for a first person theme is finite - it cannot go on forever.

This is not the case with a third person theme, which has endless possible material that can go on forever. A third person theme is a real or fictitious event about the investigator, friend or past case depicting a similar type of crime to that of the suspect's and the emotional state or extenuating circumstances that led to the act. In addition to extending the duration of theme development, third person themes have the following benefits:

1. Does not encourage denials. Because a first person theme specifically addresses the suspect's crime the suspect feels obligated to offer a denial. If the suspect is told, "George I think what happened is this gal came on to you and gave you nonverbal messages that you picked up on and then you did this to her." This very personal statement will cause the suspect to feel threatened and he is likely to respond, "I never even saw that girl." However, this is not the case with a third person theme: "George, when I was your age I remember going into bars with my buddies. We'd order a couple of drinks and sit back and watch the girls. You can always tell which girls were there to be with their girlfriends and were not interested in companionship and then there were the other girls. Just looking at how they dressed and acted, there was no doubt what they were interested in..." This theme is not at all threatening to the suspect and he is likely to sit back in the chair and listen to it.

2. Easing into an interrogation where the suspect's guilt is uncertain. Not all interrogations are conducted on suspects whose guilt has been established with reasonable certainty. Sometimes during the course of an investigation an innocent person lies, perhaps about their alibi. Other times a guilty suspect does not exhibit sufficient behavior leading to a definitive determination of guilt. In both of these instances it would be preferable for the investigator to start the interrogation with a third person theme to "feel out" the suspect. If the suspect appears to be relating to concepts within the third person theme the investigator may increase his confidence that the suspect is, in fact, guilty. On the other hand, if the suspect does not appear to relate to the third person theme the investigator may step down the interrogation and pursue other possibilities, e.g., the suspect lied about his alibi, the suspect has guilty knowledge, or the suspect has committed an unrelated offense.

3. Third person in the room. Occasionally an investigator encounters an interrogation where a suspect advocate (parent, employee representative, etc.) insists on being present. Under this circumstance if the investigator starts off the interrogation with a first person theme the advocate is likely to interrupt the theme with some type of challenge, e.g., "What evidence do you have against my son?" But consider how things change when the investigator starts the interrogation with third person theme:

"Tommy, one of the reasons that I wanted to come back in here to talk to you and your dad about this whole situation is that I have seen many cases where an honest, law abiding person like yourself gets approached by a so called friend who asks them to get them some weed or pills. The person does not want to get involved in something like that but, maybe they owe the guy a favor or maybe they figure well, he's a good friend I'll just do it once. At any rate they go ahead with the deal and on one occasion help out their friend.

Before long, rumors start spreading in the school. This guy can get you anything you want - he's got connections all over the place! In reality, all this fellow did was to help out a friend one time. Now he's got people lining up at his locker like he's running some sort of pharmacy. That was not the case at all."

The father, in this case, rather than interrupting the investigator and asking "what proof do you have that my son is dealing drugs?" is more likely to sit back and listen. He may very well nod his head in agreement with the fact that perhaps his son was merely taken advantage of by an undeserving acquaintance.

Sources of Third Person ThemesTypically about 80 - 90% of theme material will consist of third person themes. These themes are easy to introduce with phrases such as, "Not long ago I had a guy in here..." or, "I had a room mate named Loras who...", or, "have you been following the news article on..." There are three primary sources of material for third person themes. Each has different applications:

Personal Story

This source features the investigator, relative, friend or other person who experienced some circumstance similar to the suspects: "Joe, you may not guess it, but you and I share a similar trait. We both have a bad temper." An advantage to the personal story is that it may give the investigator credibility and help establish further rapport with the suspect. The disadvantage is that the investigator may lose credibility if the personal story sounds too coincidental to be true. This third person theme is clearly a double-edged sword. It is best suited for an investigator who can genuinely present something the investigator and suspect have in common.

Current Event

Every week there is a politician, sports figure or actor making headline news by engaging in illegal or unethical behavior. The following is an example of a third person theme built around the MLB current investigation of a number of players for their alleged use of PED's:

"Joe, have you been following the news about these baseball players getting in trouble for using performance enhancing drugs? Ryan Braun was able to beat the charge on a technicality the first time around but eventually his lies caught up with him and he is now suspended for the rest of the season. Right now there's talk of suspending A-Rod permanently! But think about this, Joe. What if these guys had told the truth when the initial drug results came back positive? What if they hadn't lied? Don't you think that major league baseball and the fans would have been more understanding? Often what is important is not what a person has done but rather, how they handle the situation. That is why I came back in here to talk to you."

Using a current news item as a third person theme lends credibility to the theme because the suspect knows that the statements are based on a real current event. An additional benefit is that the investigator can increase the persuasive impact of the theme by using a prepared visual prop. Perhaps the news event was featured by a weekly news journal in which case the investigator can bring into the interrogation a copy of the journal and point to the cover story. Similarly, a newspaper article can be cut out and presented to the suspect when the theme is introduced by the investigator, e.g., "Joe, look at this article. You know what it's about..." A drawback to using a current event is that it is less flexible. The investigator must stick with the basic facts of the news event. To do otherwise risks losing credibility with the suspect who may challenge the investigator about the accuracy of the news event.

Past Case

Our most frequent source of a third person theme is some fictitious past case. These are easily introduced during the interrogation and have endless flexibility:

"Joe, just last Monday I had a young man sitting in the same chair you're in right now. The previous day he had stolen a woman's purse. The woman was at a bus stop waiting for the two o'clock bus and he runs by, grabs her purse, and takes off down the sidewalk. What the man didn't realize is that there was a security camera mounted on a light pole that showed everyone in the area of the bus stop. We got the video, identified our purse snatcher and picked him up the next day.

Now, because it was early in our investigation we could not reveal to him the evidence that we had. Just as I can't discuss with you specific evidence in this investigation. But I sat down with him and told him that we had clear evidence indicating he was the guy who took the purse. What I was interested in learning is how many other times has he done this, whether he was involved with more serious offenses like robbery or home invasion? What did he need the lady's money or credit cards for? But he just sat in that chair and continued to deny having anything to do with taking the lady's purse...."

Step two of the Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation is theme development. An interrogation theme is the primary psychological vehicle used to persuade a suspect to tell the truth. A substantial period of time is typically required to develop and reinforce the concepts within the interrogation theme. Statements that directly address the suspect's crime are referred to as a first person theme. To keep the theme flowing for 30, 60 or 90 minutes often requires third person themes, which address some situation removed from the suspect's crime. Among the benefits of using a third person theme is the fact that because the third person theme does not directly address the suspect's crime, it is less likely to elicit denials or challenges from the suspect.