"Okay, so what did you do the day before?" the detective asked. He didn't have any notes, but he sure remembered a lot of details and stuck to the narrative he was driving home.
"That day, during the day, I was at the base and doing what was standard. Again, I don't remember the specifics. I went out in the evening after spending all my day at the base, there were no flights, though." Standard response. He didn't remember specific things. It was just a normal day.
"Do you remember what time you left the base?"
"Make note that the method of gathering pretext will be focused on the murder of the woman," Sebastian added quickly. We turned back to the video and watched closely.
"I want to take you back to the day of the death of Miss Wright. Do you remember how you came to find out about the incident?"
"Yes, I do," he said confidently. The detective had put the question out in such a way that there was no suspicion in his voice and he was giving the suspect a leeway to make an alternative answer, to make an alibi which the detective could pick apart later on. "I remember receiving an email about the cruel incident and everyone was talking about it."
'The cruel incident,' he had said. This was a common technique to distance himself from the crime and subliminally say that 'he' was not capable of such a heinous act.
"How do you know her?"
"I remember once that she was on the same crew as me. We exchanged pleasantries." Richard went on to explain the encounter, giving details that he shouldn't have remembered from the single encounter they had.
It struck me. He was overcompensating for the answers he didn't have by giving too many details for something he did remember. But the only thing he was doing was establishing that the single passing meeting with the victim had left a mark on him and he vividly remembered it even though it had been months since it had actually happened.
"Do you remember roughly when that happened?"
"It was soon after I got to the base, so five or six months?" The number of months the break-ins and sexual assaults had been taking place in that region. How very convenient.
"Now, you received an email. Do you recall if there was anything scheduled that week? What was happening in your life?" The detective brought Richard back to the timeline of the crime.
"I can't remember in detail..." he repeated a few times. He sounded apologetic. In contrast to the vivid detail of the meeting, this paled in comparison. "I can't even remember the day of the week." He sighed. "There was a whole bunch of activities going on..." he said at last.
In quick succession, he had stated that he couldn't remember the answer to the question. The normal conversation between individuals would usually posit the person asking the question to reassure the individual it was directed at. Usually, they would say, 'don't worry if you can't remember. We'll move on,' or 'it was a long ago, it must be difficult to recollect' would be awarded as a form of consolation and to also break the uncomfortable silence. Even during some witness testimonials, some form of emotional assistance and encouragement will be given, especially to someone recollecting a disturbing event from the past. On this occasion, the detective provides no assurance, he only stoically gazes at the suspect and doesn't shift even a little bit during the moment of silence. The detective was clearly playing into the game theory of interaction. Very basic tactics in interrogation and conversation situations.
The detective was trying to break into what little comfort Richard had left.
"So if we were to investigate into your background, is there anything you can think of that someone might have misinterpreted and say that you did this?"
"Absolutely not!" Richard answered immediately.
"Okay..." the detective replied dispassionately.
"It would be very boring..." The words were mumbled but I could hear it as clear as day.
"Excuse me?" the detective asked.
"I said, that would be boring." There was a little reassurance in his voice, unfounded and hopefully soon to be broken down again.
"You seem like a very intelligent person and I know you can see that there are some alarm bells in the investigation..." The suspect nodded. "The next thing we need to ask… given the types of crimes we are investigating… do you watch any crime shows?"
"I have watched a little."
"So you have an idea of the forensic capabilities out there. What would you be willing to give me today to help me move past you in this investigation?"
"What do you need?" Richard stammered.
"Do you want to supply fingerprints, blood samples?" The fact that the detective was letting the suspect decide gave the suspect a sense of power, a choice that he has to make for himself to either prove his innocence or to re-evaluate how he can dupe the system into thinking he was innocent.
"Sure."
"Wait, this actually worked? Shouldn't a man in the military know more about this and know that he can deny taking a test under many pretexts that doesn't look suspicious?" I asked, clearly confused.
"Though he is in the military, the information out there that is true about the forensic procedure is little. People don't know that there are other ways. But Richard wants everyone to believe he is innocent so he will concede to everything." Sebastian explained.
"This is known both in psychology and philosophy as a cross-road, a moment in your life when a single instantaneous choice will take you to multiple exceedingly different outcomes. The only two pieces of evidence acquired at the time were the tire-track and footprints. The DNA found on the body was not admissible as the body was highly decomposed at the time and genetic analysis was not possible because the outcomes could be wildly different from the truth. Remember that this was before the advent of the new DNA testing method known as next-generation sequencing."