Presupposition as investigator certainty in a police interrogation: The case of Lorenzo Montoya’s false confession

Abstract

This article presents an analysis of the use by police investigators of presupposition-bearing questions (PBQs) in interrogation as a process for communicating certainty of guilt. Among the techniques of interrogational maximization employed by police is the communication to the suspect of the interrogators’ certainty of the suspect’s guilt. While social science research notes that such communication of certainty is given directly, for example by statements that they ‘know’ the suspect is guilty or by direct accusations such as ‘you did it’, this analysis shows that certainty of guilt can also be communicated by presuppositions embedded in interrogation questions. Discourse analysis of the complete transcript of the interrogation of a 14-year-old suspect reveals further that through the use of 117 PBQs, interrogators are able to accrue inadvertent admissions to three crucial global ‘facts’ about the suspect’s involvement in the crime – each of which is composed of multiple subsidiary ‘facts’. In addition to identifying the role of PBQs in eliciting inadvertent admissions, the analysis also notes how PBQs serve as ‘a powerful instrument in the implicit assertion of debatable propositions’ as part of the interrogational record.

Keywords

police interrogation false confession presupposition

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Belnap

(1966) Questions, Answers, and Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophy 63(20): 609–611.

Brown

Yule

(1983) Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chilton

(2004) Analysing Political Discourse. Abingdon: Psychology Press.

Davis

(2010) Lies, Damned Lies, and the Path from Police . In: Gonzales

Tavris

Aronson

(eds) The Scientist and the Humanist: A Festschrift in Honor of Elliot Aronson. Abingdon: Psychology Press, pp. 211–247.

Presupposition and Interrogation: The Formation of Yes/No Questions: Some Unexpected Restrictions and What They Can Teach Us’. Working Paper in Linguistics, University of Trondheim.

Ehrlich

Sidnell

(2006) ‘I think that’s not an assumption you ought to make’: Challenging Presuppositions in Inquiry Testimony. Language in Society 35(5): 655–676.

Gudjonsson

(2006) The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions. In: Williamson

(ed.) Investigative Interviewing: Rights, Research and Regulation. London: Willan Publishing, pp. 123–146.

Kassin

(2006) A Critical Appraisal of Modern Police Interrogations. In: Williamson

(ed.) Investigative Interviewing: Rights, Research and Regulation. London: Willan Publishing, pp. 207–228.

Kassin

McNall

(1991) Police Interrogations and Confessions: Communicating Promises and Threats by Pragmatic Implication. Law and Human Behavior 15(3): 233–251.

10.

Leo

(2008) Police Interrogation and American Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

11.

Leo

Drizin

(2010) The Three Errors: Pathways to False Confession and Wrongful Conviction. in: Lassiter

Meissner

(eds) Police Interrogations and False Confessions: Current Research, Practice, and Policy Recommendations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 9–30.

12.

Levinson

(1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Meissner

Russano

(2003) The Psychology of Interrogations and False Confessions: Research and Recommendations. Canadian Journal of Police and Security Services 1(1): 53–63.

14.

Meissner

Horgan

Albrechtsen

(2009) False Confessions. In: Kocsis

(ed.) Applied Criminal Psychology: A Guide to Forensic Behavioral Sciences. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, pp. 199–210.

15.

Stalnaker

(1978) Assertion. In: Cole

(ed.) Linguistics: Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 9: Pragmatics. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, pp. 315–332.

16.

Van Dijk

(1991) Racism and the Press. London: Routledge.