Saul Kassin, one of America’s leading and most renowned experts on false confessions, analyzed the police interrogations

Saul Kassin is one of the founding fathers in this field of study. An expert on police interrogation tactics (Reid Technique), Saul Kassin’s work on false confessions has been validated by the many DNA exonerations of those who falsely confessed to crimes they didn’t commit due to police coercion. From his official biography: Saul Kassin is the lead author on the Official APA (American Psychological Association) White Paper on false confessions. His work is cited all over the world–including by the Supreme Courts of the U.S., Canada, and Israel.

Saul Kassin outlines many troubling issues with how the police conducted their interrogations with Kimberly Renee Poole. Here’s an excerpt from his full analysis of the Kimberly Renee Poole police interrogations (read Part 1 here):

Over the years, numerous cases have been documented in which innocent men and women had confessed to crimes they did not commit. Research has shown that three different types of false confessions can be distinguished (voluntary, coerced-compliant, and coerced-internalized) and that certain psychologically oriented interrogation techniques (notably, the combined uses of maximization and minimization) increase the risk of their occurrence.

In reviewing the Defendant’s statement, it is necessary to consider the conditions under which she made it–and the ways in which these conditions impacted upon her motives, expectations, and other behavior-relevant states of mind. Toward this end, the following aspects of Ms. Poole’s interrogation experience raise serious cause for concern:

There are at least two interrogations conducted, totaling seven hours on consecutive days, and both late at night (6/12-13, 9:43p-1:53a; 6/13-14, 10:30p-12:48a). The first session was conducted in the presence of two detectives and a defense attorney, the second in the presence of two detectives and a police lieutenant. In light of the successive nights of interrogation, Ms. Poole may well have been sleep-deprived, a state that renders ordinary people compliant and suggestible. Indeed, in a stunning admission made during the 6/13 interrogation, Ms. Poole indicates that she is losing track of time, to which Det. Altman replies, “We’ve been up for 24 hours.”

On 6/12 and 6/13, the defendant was subjected to a dogged and relentless series of accusations. Yet the late night questionings persisted despite her repeated and adamant denials. This continues late into the 6/13 interrogation, even after Ms. Poole emphatically states that, “I swear to God, get me a bible I will swear to God I did not know he was at that beach.”

On 6/13, both implicit and explicit threats were made, some merely by innuendo (e.g., “Right now this is your only chance because once we leave Winston-Salem tonight that’s it, the solicitors are not going to be willing to listen anymore…”), others more direct and forceful (e.g., “I don’t want to see you go to jail for life or possibly the death penalty…”; “Listen to me, this is it, this is your last chance”; Renee, you’re going to get yourself into some deep deep water…”).

Apparently false or exaggerated evidence was presented to reinforce the implied and actual threats (e.g., “Because I’m telling you he’s saying it’s all your idea”; “We’ve talked to him, we know the whole deal…”; We got people, different two witnesses, that saw him walking up the beach toward you guys…”; “He was sitting in the parking lot at Wings when you got out of there”).

It is clear that Ms. Poole was highly fearful of losing her daughter. At one point, she says, “OK, I want to tell you about it, I really don’t want to lose my daughter.” A moment later, she begs, “Please don’t take my daughter.” In a most telling exchange, Lt. Frontz threatens her that “You can’t go on any longer like this”, to which Ms. Poole pointedly replies, “I do not want to lose my daughter.” Then despite a quick on-tape reassurance, he then makes the threat contingency abundantly clear: “You’re not going to lose her if you’re honest.” Indeed, just a moment later, she succumbs to the pressure and answers “yes” to questions concerning her involvement.

Minimization techniques were used to imply to Ms. Poole that her involvement was minimal, perhaps even excusable. In fact, at one point, Det. Altman explicitly stated that he would report to the solicitor’s office that, “John’s trying to bring her down for it but he pushed her to it…that he twisted her mind so much that she didn’t know what she was doing.” Det. Altman later offers additional moral justification, telling Ms. Poole that “the only reason you did it was because you didn’t know what you were doing.” Still later, he reinforces this mitigation theme most strongly, indicating that “You couldn’t get out, he’s pushing you, he’s threatening you.” As research clearly shows, statements like these function as explicit promises of leniency, as they lead people to infer that confessing will result in leniency if not immunity from prosecution.

To make matters worse, it is abundantly clear that off-tape conversations were held that were not tape recorded (between 6/9 and 6/12/98 and between 6/12 and 6/13/98), which impairs our ability to know all that was said and done to her. For example, on 6/12/98, p. 4, Det. Altman refers to “one of the interviews you did…” and on p. 58, Ms. Poole stated openly that the detectives were “being kind of hard on me”. On 6/13/98, Ms. Poole says, “I’ve been briefed in on that.” The tape recorder is also turned off at 12:20a and back on again at 12:35a.