Angie Timothy
It’s 18 years ago today “18th November” Luke Mitchell’s trial was restarted.
What is the Reid’s technique?
It is something that is used when there is no solid evidence to try and elicit a confession or manipulate you into saying something incriminating. This technique was used on Luke during his section 14 interview.
Interrogators used the Reid’s technique on a child who had just turned fifteen.
A section 14 interview in 2003 allowed officers to question anyone, adult or child, for six hours without a parent, legal guardian or lawyer present. Although this was allowed at the time (it was later changed), the senior investigating officer {Craig Dobbie} had discretion to allow access to a lawyer, especially if the witness or suspect was vulnerable, for example, a 15 yr. old child. During Luke’s section 14 interview on 14th August 2003, the interrogating officers lied and selectively interpreted a number of pieces of ‘evidence’, using the Reid technique to try and secure a confession.
One of the aims of the Reid technique was to attempt to induce false confessions, it can also cause suspects to make un-factual statements during an interrogation. The Reid technique of psychologically manipulating people through trickery, deceit, embarrassment and harassment, may lead to false confessions – but one problem with the method is that both guilty or innocent, all suspects become more willing to confess. There is no strategy that motivates only the guilty suspects to talk. In the Reid technique, interrogation is an accusatory process, in which the investigator tells the suspect that the results of the investigation clearly indicate that they did commit the crime in question. Below is a list of some of the things said to Luke and how these things were put to him. As the interrogation went on, they left no room for him to answer, but they weren’t interested in answers, the barrage of questions was designed to put pressure on him and confuse him, and to make him feel uncomfortable, degrade, belittle, and humiliate him.
DCI: “I am talking specifically about the harness. What does Mia understand the harness means? You have been trained, partially trained to train Mia… through your mum, you have just said that did you not? Is that not what you’ve just… Right, how do you understand the harness? So, if you wanted Mia to track you would put the harness on?”
Luke: “I could not say what Mia understands the harness to mean, I am not a dog psychologist. I have not been trained to train Mia. I have not been trained. I have not been trained to, like, totally understand what the dog feels…I have just been trained to…tend…to the track. The harness, well, to us its working, but to them, I would say it is sort of a game for them.”
As you can see, the interrogating officers are clearly trying to insinuate that if Mia did not have the harness on, she would not track, yet as Luke said it’s all just a game of hide and seek to Mia - if somethings hidden, Mia seeks it.
The officers then moved on to another barrage of questions, asking about Luke’s sexual relationship with Jodi, how many times they had sex? And where it usually happened?
Luke: “Eh my bedroom”
DC: “Every time? In your room?
Luke: “Yeah.”
DC: “Did you use protection?”
Luke: “Yes”
Luke was asked on numerous occasions if he used protection, and replied ‘yes condoms’ every time, yet the interrogating officers still saw fit to ask questions like, did you withdraw before ejaculation or anything like that - this further question appeared to have no justification other than keeping an intense and uncomfortable focus on sex. They asked: “Ok so with your sexual relationship, what did it involve? Was there oral sex involved…masturbation…with Jodi? Was that part of your sex act?” They asked questions like did he have a particular sexual fantasy? How do you get an erection? What do you think about when you get an erection? What do you find erotic? Luke answered this barrage of questions as best he could. He said sex was …” just sex”. They then reverted back to previous questions Luke had already answered: Have you ever asked Jodi to perform a … a specific sex act?
Luke: “No”
DC: “Oral sex for example? Have you ever asked her to perform oral sex?”
Luke: “No”
There was no need for this line of questioning, as the police had already by this point decided it was not sexually motivated (according to reports from police in the media), so it seems probable this line of questioning was intended to humiliate and degrade him - a child just turned fifteen. Luke had asked to speak with his mum or a lawyer on several occasions, and was told not just now, or later.
“DCI RT says you’ve got a huge, big bowie knife…you had it the last time he saw you; you took it home…where is that knife now?”
Luke, after been goaded like this for over an hour, responded,” I don’t even know what a f…….. bowie knife looks like. So how would I know”
DC: “It’s a hunting knife similar to a fishing knife…people call them Rambo knives, people call them hunting knives, have you ever owned something like that?”
This question you can’t answer as the question is not designed to allow for an honest answer.
Luke: “No”
DC: “Why would RT say that, then?”
And on and on they went about a number of people talking about Luke having a bowie knife
DC: “So, are they all lying? Every single one of them? People who don’t even know each other.”
DC shows Luke a picture of a knife: “Do you recognise that knife?”
Luke confirmed that it was his fishing knife.
DC: “Where’s the knife now?”
Luke: “I don’t know the police probably got it. you’ve no idea where it is? Well considering you’ve got photos of if I take it, you’ve got it.”
They then showed him another photo of a knife, it was a knife Luke confirmed was from work and was used for opening boxes.
DC: “Where did that go to?”
Luke: “Well considering you’ve got the photos, you’ve got it, haven’t you?”
DC: “Well, how did we get it then?”
What was the officer implying by that last question? Having twice raided the family home, searched the business premises and took every knife the family owned; it was fairly obvious that the investigating officers were trying to insinuate they had found a knife elsewhere.
The officers said: “In all, there was about forty-five different people we’ve spoken to, who all say you have knives, you take them out in public, you have a fascination for knives, where are all those knives?”
This is one to trick the mind - the “45 different” sticks in your head and as you’re speaking about knives, and where are all these knives? You may automatically think of forty-five different knives not people. They continued with their lies and trickery.
DC: “It’s your DNA, Luke, from sperm, on her bra…so how did that get there? We’ve got a partial sample and that’s your DNA, we’re telling you that’s your DNA”.
Luke: “You know how DNA works, right? Our individual genetic codes are unique, so if it’s a partial sample, it’s no mine.”
The officers move onto “what about the German army shirt, Luke? We’ve got dozens of witnesses telling us you were wearing it that night, dozens, of witnesses, describing you, Luke - you, to a T, so where’s that German army shirt now Luke, eh? Where is it?”
Luke replied: “You’ve got it. I didn’t even have an army shirt before - my mum bought it after you took all my stuff the first time. You’ve got the receipt as well?”
The Reid technique, in a nutshell, is lying about evidence they claim to have, when they don’t, just to attempt to get the “cave in” answer they want. They move onto a totally unrelated question {to create confusion} then circle back to the original question…on and on, all in the hope their target will slip up somewhere. They “won” on one count – when they had bombarded him with a million questions on all sorts of different subjects, then circled back around to what Jodi was wearing.
Luke said, “I think she was wearing her baggy cords – or maybe her sister’s baggy cords – that night…. I mean that day at school.”
To this day, people claim Luke “knew” what Jodi was wearing ’that night’, so he must have seen her after school. Every single question, prior to the circling back to what Jodi was wearing, was about ‘that night’ – no surprise at all that he used their phraseology – it was exactly what they were driving at – but even then, he corrected himself immediately. The interrogating officers never move from their stance of “we know you did it and we’ve got the evidence and witnesses to prove it” {even though they are lying}. Their target has no access to the outside world, no way of checking what they are saying. No matter how much you, as a person know ‘the truth’, every time something confusing or contrary to what you know is introduced, your mind automatically tries to make sense of it, but it can’t because it doesn’t make any logical sense, but while your mind is distracted with that, they’re chucking in a whole raft of new information and questions, knowing you’re not paying full attention to it, because you’re still trying to work out the first bit. Subconsciously, your mind registers things like “that night” or “in the woods” or whatever, so you’re far more likely to either repeat those phrases…or worse, agree with them, because they’ve deliberately diverted your attention elsewhere in advance. The more aggressive or threatening they are, the more “urgent” your mind thinks it is to work out the “logic” in questions where there is no logic, but you don’t know that, because you’re frantically trying to work out how they can say {for example},” it’s your DNA” when you know it can’t possibly be.
The Reid technique was not only used to try trick and manipulate Luke during the interrogation, they actually used the persuasion part of the technique that they adapted on potential witnesses, by playing with the mind psychologically. It’s highly inappropriate and controversial, yet aspects of the Reid technique are still used today.
#justiceforlukemitchell — with Barbara Bacon.
Is this 👆🏽 from gouger Sandra Leans second book ?
