Anybody here know about police suspect interview techniques?

[PiccoloTrumpet]

I have made a formal statement detailing horrendous historic abuse I suffered. The accused is about to be interviewed. Is anyone able to tell me how they do this? Do they use clever techniques to trip the suspect up? Or do they just rely on the suspects good nature to own up? Does it make any difference in court if the suspect just answers 'no comment' to each thing? I really wish I was a fly on the wall...

I'm going through this process, not with historic abuse but recent. I am further along (in the massive gap between interview and charging decision) and I too got a bit obsessional about what they were going to say to him, what he would say in response etc

It's futile. One of the things that can be good about reporting it to the police is that you are handing over all of the poison inside you for the police to carry and investigate and if necessary for the cps to prosecute.

The down side of that is you also give over all control to them. I think you have to let it be really. Obsessing over this stuff will drive you mad, you won't get real answers and you don't have any control. Just try to accept that really.

In my case I only know that the police had emails and questioned him on the content as part of the questions and that he denied everything and they felt he was being obstructive and non-compliant.

You should get an ISVA and IMO this can be really helpful for all these kinds of things.

Oh and when I was upset that he had denied everything the detective said to me that suspects accused of sexual offences always deny it and I shouldn't read anything into that.

The police will ask him for his version of events first. He can reply no comment, or give an account, or give a prepared statement (written down, usually advised by a solicitor).
If he gives an account, they will ask him loads of questions, to test his account. They then may bail him while they check out his version of events (speak to witnesses he mentions/cctv etc that may support his case).
Then they will put to him the evidence they have (your statement, forensics,cctv etc) and challenge his account.

Sometimes this is done over a series of interviews, depending on the case.

And tripping a suspect up is all about getting them to tell their version of events, if they are lying it's hard to lie in detail. So they often contradict themselves, as well as contradict the evidence the police have. The police will put to him those contradictions and evidence and point out that his story does not add up etc.
To be honest it all depends how good the interviewers are.
If it's CID they should be used to this format of interview and have had extra training.

They'll be looking for inconsistencies in their story of events. They will watch for body language and areas of questioning that increase stress. They will wait till they trip themselves up them start asking for clarification of why they said one thing but changed their mind etc. If this person has a solicitor they will most likely to told to answer everything with "no comment" that way there is nothing said to trip themselves up.

It's actually a very subtle difficult process.

I'm sorry you're going through this.

They won't use techniques to trip him up as such but they will ask lots of questions to give him as much opportunity to talk about what happened as they can. They will ask both broader questions and more direct, specific questions. If he answers 'no comment' he will be warned that inferences can be drawn from his silence and they will still continue to question him until they've covered every point.

And if he answers no comment, then comes up with an explanation at court the jury can draw an inference, e.g., why didn't he tell the police that in the interview? Is it because he is lying? And once he knows the evidence is making up a story to fit?
Hope all goes ok x

I expect to be going through this too. Still waiting to make a video statement, but at least have heard from the police officer dealing with it. I have also at last heard from WA. My husband threatened me today with stories which will come out in the family court. I am only in the civil process of asking nicely for a divorce. I have had no choice in this since my husband got a solicitor to write a letter to me threatening Non Mol and Occupation Order to leave my home within a week. Today he told me I was obstructing him by not letting him have the marriage certificate. He asked me again and again where it was although he knows perfectly well it is with my solicitor. He then demanded again and again that I give him my solicitor's details. Had he spoken to his solicitor, he would know that mine had been in touch with his. Had he actually spoken to his solicitor he would know that he could easily get another marriage certificate.

I expect my husband will respond with a lot of No Comments. He had me arrested for 'punching' him. When I told the duty solicitor that I don't think it happened how he said, the duty solicitor told me that they wanted me out of the system, and that common assault could be anything from an unwanted prod. I know that my husband lied to his solicitor saying I kicked him. It is a horrible situation to be in, and it's pretty grim that the cuts are so harsh that there's nobody there.