Criminal Behaviour in interviews- how are Venables and Thompson similar and different to it?

 What source have I used?

I have used the paper "Guilty and innocent suspects' strategies during interrogations", from Psychology Crime and Law (2007). This source is a research paper, using 3 professors form different universities. The professors are Hartwig, Granhag, Stromwell. This source is reliable because it talks through different projects that have gone on before, however they attempted to apply and prove these previous theories. I have also used the source of the short film Detainment. this was based off of the police interview tapes of Venables and Thompson. This source is reliable for the verbal signs that a guilty person might display, however not for the non-verbal due to the fact that we cannot access that footage due to the offenders being children. This source was written and directed by Vincent Lambe, who has done multiple films of a similar nature. He was not directly involved in the case, which reduces his reliability slightly. 

How do guilty suspects behave in interviews?

• Previous studies have shown that guilty suspects are more likely to reveal less and be more short and sharp with answers (DePaulo et al,2003)
• Guilty suspects are more likely to fidget less, as they are aware of all non-verbal communications they might be giving away, so will try and control these. (Stromwell, Hartwig and Granhag, 2006)
• Guilty suspects avoid longer answers to: a) avoid getting disproved and found to be liars (Vrij, 2000), b) due to the cognative demand of producing a false story (DePaulo et al, 2003) c) in order to try and limit the risk of contradicting themselves later on (Granghag and Stromwell, 1999). 
• Guilty suspects are likely to provide a vague and less detailed 

How do innocent suspects behave in interviews?

• Innocent suspects are more likely to give a detailed story, and believe that the truth will prevail. 
• Innocent suspects are more likely to waiver their constitutional rights and agree to the interrogated as they believe they have nothing to fear if they had nothing to hide (Kassin and Norwick, 2004)

What is the Strategic Use of Evidence?

• The Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) is the tactic that the police use in order to disprove guilty suspects and find out the truth of the events that happened.
• The general order of the tactic is:

1. Get the suspect to recall events as they occurred
2. question the suspect's recollection of events 
3. use evidence to disprove the certain aspects of the suspects story that are inaccurate or lies
4. keep disproving the suspects recollection until there is a confession

• The strategic use of Evidence is a good method of disclosing evidence in a controlled and concise way
• However, this is only effective if used hand in hand with the verbal and non-verbal communications that suspects can show. 

Notes from the Film Detainment:

• 2:36- "It wasn't me. I never went to Bootle Strand"- Venables- this is an early sign of a guilty verbal behaviour, which is constant denial of their involvement in the crime or the circumstances leading up to it. 
• 2.43:- "Do you know what truth is Jon?"- Interviewer- this shows that the film is accurate as the police needed to establish that both offenders knew what was right and wrong and what a truth and a lie is, showing that the film is accurate to the order interviews went in. They continue to check that Venables understands what a lie is for the next 40 seconds. 
• 4.02: "Yeah it isn't me. Cause I didn't take him"- Thompson- this is the same verbal guilty sign, as he is denying any guilt without being asked if he took James Bulger, showing that he has something to hide/ is lying. 
• 4.23- "Yeah. I was there, I saw him but I didn't take him"- Thompson- this is another guilty sign, as he has slowly released evidence that he was in Bootle Strand the day of James' abduction, however is still denying his involvement. His tone is also aggressive, which shows guilt and also as to how he is unable to control his emotions. This can be expected as Thompson is a child, however it is a sign of guilt in previous studies. 
• 4.31- "He was just with his mum"- Thompson- this is another sign of guilt, as he is sticking to his story, which is a common factor. He is attempting not to be disproved, so by sticking to the same story he is revealing nothing but sticking to something he clearly pre-prepared. 
• 5.07- "I never went to the Bootle Strand"- Venables- He is sticking to his story again, and completely denying his involvement. However, when confronted with evidence that Thompson was telling a different story, Venables turns emotional showing that a) he is still a child and not in control of his emotions; and b) that he is emotional due to his story unravelling and his guilt will be shown. 
• 5.34- "Yeah we was"- Venables- after a short 25 second spell of Venables getting more emotional and his mother attempting to place the blame on Thompson, Venables admits that he and Thompson were in Bootle Strand the day of James' abduction. This is crucial as it shows Venables was lying about his original story but more importantly, he admitted earlier that he does know the difference between right and wrong, and his admission shows that he knows the difference, and still continued to lie anyway. 
• 5.57- "We never Mum"- Venables- Before this, Venables has said "never" approximately 15 times. This continued repeating of never shows that he is showing guilty behaviour as a sign is repeated denial of their part in the crime. However, as Venables has previously lied about where he was on the day, we cannot take this as the truth, as we know he understands a truth and a lie but continued to lie. 
• 10.58- "Because you keep telling us stories"- Interviewer- After a spell of flashbacks, the interviewers question Thompson who denies taking James away, and instead blaming Venables. Venables denies this, so the interviewer reminds him to tell the truth. This reminder just hints at the fact that Venables and Thompson knew the difference between truth and a lie, however continued to lie, showing guilty behaviour. ]
• 11.15- Venables runs and hugs interviewer- while this is not a sign of guilty behaviour and dialogue, it does highlight the source's reliability as I know from research that Venables did run into the arms of the interviewer, showing that the source is reliable as it included that otherwise overlooked piece of information. 
• 11.47- "But I took him and left the canal"- Venables- the police and interviewers have been unable to use the SUE technique with Venables as he is being dramatic and hysteric, however here we see a vital moment. Whereas Venables has previously denied taking James and blamed Thompson, he now admits to taking him. This means that Venables was previously lying about blaming Thompson and indeed does know the difference between a truth and a lie, however still chose to tell a lie indicating guilt. 
• 11.58- "I never killed him Mum, I never killed him Mum"- Venables- Venables is continuing to deny his guilt. While this is to be expected, he is repeatedly denying it, which is a behaviour most commonly attributed to a guilty suspect. 
• 12.53- "I was told he got chopped in half"- Thompson- this is a sign of guilty behaviour as that information wasn't disclosed to Thompson prior to the interview. This linked to the SUE technique as police now know that Thompson was there at the point of the murder of James, as he has given away a piece of evidence only the killers would know. 
• 13.04- "If I was bleeding"- Thompson- This is a sign of guilty behaviour as Thompson is attempting to make it seem as though he is co-operating, however he is only saying this after police disclose that they could trace James' blood back to the killers. Through this, Thompson is choosing to attempt to avoid conviction of murder if he confesses that his blood was on James as he was bleeding, however would later try and pin the murder onto Venables. 
• 13.22- "Ask Jon, I never touched him"- Thompson- this is an example of attempting to make it seem as though they both have the same story, however in context the quote is accusing the police of not questioning Venables the same way they have been accusing Thompson. This is an example of guilty behaviour as Thompson is attempting to victimise himself and to make it seem as though he is the victim of a pre-cognitive bias, and that his family is always in the wrong in the eyes of the police and society. 
• 14.14- "We love you, very very much" Venables' Mother- While this is not related to the criminal behaviour of Venables and Thompson, it is instrumental in the facts of the case as this quote is what got Venables to confess. This shows that the film is a reliable source as it has managed to capture the smallest details as to how the boys confessed, but also the order in which the interviews took place. 
• 14.47- "But you've got to tell the truth"- Venables' Mother- Again, while not related to the interviews, it is crucial that even his own mother knows that Venables and Thompson committed the crime, however Venables still continued to stick to his story, showing a common sign of guilty behaviour. 
• 14.58- "Mum I wanted to tell you"- Venables- This is second to none apart from a full confession. Venables here is confessing to the crime or confessing to his involvement in it, showing guilt, 
• 15.05- "I did kill him"- Venables- This is a confession from Venables to committing the crime,  showing that the stories he had been saying in interviews were false. 
• 15.35- "Will you tell her I'm sorry?"- Venables- This could be shown to be a sign of remorse, which could lower his sentence. However, as he had been repeatedly lying about his involvement in the crime, so the lower sentence would be unlikely. 
• 18.50- "Well, I didn't kill them"- Thompson- After Venables has been confessing to the crime and the details including his own involvement, Thompson is still denying the crime in the same aggressive tone he has been so far. This is a sign of guilty behaviour as a guilty suspect is more likely to become aggressive over time, including when they have been found out to be a liar. 
• 19.04- "Well I'm going to get all the blame, cause I've got blood on me"- Thompson- This is guilty behaviour as Thompson is victimising himself once again, making it seem as though he is always guilty in the eyes of society. 
• 20.02- "And you were there like, you seen me?"- Thompson- This is once again aggressive by Thompson, indicating his guilt and unwillingness to confess and rather to put the blame on Venables. 
• 20.15- "So do I, I was there."- Thompson- Aggressive once more by Thompson, however he has now admitted to being there when the crime was committed. 
• 20.51- "No, because I never touched him"- Thompson- at this point the police are 99% certain that Thompson was one of the killers, however still need a confession from Thompson. Thompson is still denying his involvement, but reluctantly giving information. 
• 22.08- "because he was laughing his head off"- Venables- Venables is describing Thompson here, saying that he was the driving force in the injuries caused onto James Bulger. 
• 24.54- "Why were the batteries there?"- Interviewer- This is a crucial piece of evidence that someone who would not be completely aware of all the case facts would miss, however they identified it.
• 25.00- "Robbie just threw them there- It was a little bit more than throwing them"- Venables then Interviewer- this is referring to the batteries inserted into James' anus. Venables is denying his involvement, and the interviewer is trying to say that Venables' account isn't wholly factual. However, looking at recent events we can take an educated guess and say that it was Venables rather than Thompson who inserted the battery. 
• 25.00-25.55- a series of questions to Venables about what was going off with the batteries, he gets emotional and starts attacking his dad. The last lines said are "make it stop", repeated about 10 times. The film then goes onto talk about the crime and interview, in a black screen with white writing. They then go in a car and question the boys about the route they took, which is something I haven't heard of before. 

Where next?

As this post has taken me roughly 6 weeks to complete, I will struggle to get the deadline of Christmas. It has taken me this long because I needed to find a good source to study behaviour, and then watch the film the first time and then again making notes on key points.  Therefore I am extending it to February half term, to complete the whole project. I will now look at the judicial report regarding Venables and Thompson.