After watching Scenes of a Crime, the acclaimed documentary from Grover Babcock and Blue Hadaegh about police interrogation techniques eliciting a false confession, I was struck by how simple and obvious the methods are, yet how utterly effective. If you’ve ever watched more than an episode of the original Law & Order, the Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation should be familiar to you–and no doubt, we think securely, if ever falsely accused of a crime, we’d never fall for them.
Don’t be so sure, says Richard Ofshe, a U.S. expert witness on false confessions, who appears in Scenes of a Crime.
As Scenes of a Crime shows, the Reid Technique and its nine steps are so effective at producing false confessions–the second highest cause for wrongful convictions of innocent people–that even an innocent man, accused of killing one of his children, will confess to the crime. And on the basis of that coerced confession, despite expert evidence to the contrary, a jury will convict him.
In 2008, Adrian Thomas, a former high school football player, a huge man, unemployed with seven children, was brought into the Troy, New York police department for questioning after one of his 4 month-old twin boys was rushed, first, to the local hospital, and then to the Albany Medical Center. There police cornered the rushed, overworked ER doctor about the baby’s condition, and the doctor (who declined to be interviewed for Scenes of a Crime) claimed it was murder.
The police didn’t arrest Thomas. Instead they questioned him–he had waived the right to have an attorney present–for ten hours. During that time the detectives lied to him, manipulating him, coercing him. After ten hours of interrogation (plus a 16-hour stay in a mental ward) without a lawyer present, a detective tells Thomas:
I’m not going to arrest you…I don’t want to arrest you
and that if Thomas, a giant of a man, just shows them how he threw his baby on the bed, he can then go see his wife and dying son in the hospital. Thomas demonstrates how he slammed his four-month old down on the bed three times, after watching demonstrations by the detective. By this time, Thomas’ son is already dead. Based on his confession, written up by the police, the Rensselaer County District Attorney is fired up to prosecute.
During his videotaped interrogation–which was admitted as evidence–when the police say that only one of the two adults in the house could have caused the baby’s injuries, Thomas states that he’s only admitting to the crime to protect his wife from being a suspect and going to jail. But there were no acute injuries, as an autopsy and an expert witnesses later prove.
Rather, Pneumococcal Sepsis was the cause of the baby’s death, not the (non-existent) skull fracture and the (non-existent) subdural hemorrhage that the ER doctor thought he saw. But the police are convinced Thomas shook his child or slammed the baby against something hard. One of the reasons? Thomas never calls his child by name throughout the interrogation, instead referring to the baby as
my son.
The police want a confession. The DA wants a conviction. The judge was on the election ballot, and at least one of the jurors, who admits to filmmakers Babcock and Hadaegh that there’s
always just a little bit of doubt
and that she is not 100% convinced of Thomas’ guilt, she just wants to go play golf after about a month of trial.
On Law & Order, once the autopsy results came in–with no signs of any fractures, past or present, no subdural hemorrhage, no bruising, but plenty of evidence of the fatal infection–the DA would have dismissed the case against Thomas. But this is real life, and now Thomas is serving 25 years to life.
Thanks to his court appointed attorney and continued efforts by his supporters, Thomas’s case will be heard by the New York Court of Appeals this year. Hopefully he’ll be released. Scenes of a Crime clearly shows, without advocating, the flaws in our criminal justice system, especially with regards to the use of the Reid Technique. John E. Reid and Associates, which holds the copyright on the interrogation method and teaches it in seminars, maintains that
It’s not the technique that causes false or coerced confessions but police detectives who apply improper interrogation procedures.
But whether it’s the method or its application, Adrian Thomas has been behind bars since 2008.



86 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Grover, Blue, Welcome to the Lake.
Hello, we’re very excited to be part of FDL Movie Night!
Before we start, just a couple quick notes:
Make sure you are logged in to comment. Please refresh your browser every minute or so to see new comments, questions and answers.
Please be respectful of each other and our guests.
To reply to specific comment, hit the reply button underneath it and then type away. Always hit “send comment.” Thanks!
Please stay on topic/s–in this case tonight’s film Scenes of a Crime, coerced confessions, the Reid Technique, Adrian Thomas’ case, filmmakers Blue Hadaegh and Grover Babcock …If you’d like to discuss today’s newsworthy matters, please find a post elsewhere on FDL to do so.
Thank you. And yeah, I tpye badly…
Welcome to Firedoglake Movie Night, Grover and Blue, and thank you for being here tonight!
Thank you for making this film. How did you learn about the Adrian Thomas case?
Thank you both for an amazing film. What brought the subject of false confessions to you, and when did you meet Adrian Thomas?
We were interested in the general topic of police interrogation, and the stories we’d read about false confessions that sometimes result.
So we wanted to learn more about what actually happens during long interrogations, and started talking with experts in the field.
We looked at dozens – really hundreds of cases, very few of which were videotaped.
When we learned about the Adrian Thomas case, which was fully recorded, we contacted the parties involved, and realized this was a great story thru which to approach the topic.
This is such a depressing story. You’d think someone in the prosecuting office would at least be having trouble sleeping – it’s a horror and a nightmare
You should have seen our last film! A Certain Kind of Death
But keep in mind Elliott that we don’t write the ending!
thank you for making it. It’s shocking to learn how many police and/or prosecutors are satisfied with an arrest/conviction, rather than getting the actual perp -if there even is one. Like this case where there was no crime.
Scenes of a Crime – website
And the police were so convinced. I can’t help feel that race and income played a part in this. If it had been a white baby from oome of the wealthier areas around Albany, the original hospital’s diagnosis would have been paid more attention at the Albany hospital…
true, true – at least you report it in your film
Did you get to interview the Reid Company for the film? You have examples of their training in your film – the interrogation techniques.
We would LOVE to have it and you on. Death and the issues around it are vital, and one of my favorite discussions–I tell peopel here in CA, write out your wishes by hand, date it and leave it someplace easy to find. I do that before I travel (literally writing people out of my will, too!)
The Reid Technique and their nine steps are so transparent, yet I guess they are effective to some extent. But are there are methods–how did Reid get the lock on the interrogation training seminars?
I will seek that out.
I think the film reminds us that our system of justice is adversarial by design: the contending parties often feel personally the win or loss in court. I think the film makes clear that our current system’s way of handling the complexities of psychological interrogation isn’t yet resolved.
I didn’t realize it was a specific technique, one more thing I learned here
We have heard that very comment from our audiences many times when we travel with the film. I have to say though, there are a lot white people who have come under suspicion or perhaps wrongfully convicted
(everyone: trying to keep up with your typing…)
A Certain Kind of Death – website
How is the rest of the family holding up? – so many years for the father to be behind bars – in the prime of life
Scenes of a Crime – Screenings
Regarding Reid:
The detectives in the film mention that they received interrogation training, though not specifically from Reid. However, Reid is the most widely used training system in the US – it was even cited in the Miranda case that reformed police interrogation.
It certainly seems to provide the outline for many police interrogations – whether or not the officers realize they’ve received this influence.
The Reid company feels that correct application of their method reduces the chance of false confession, but there are many that doubt this.
You are doing fine, interesting responses. Thank you.
Like many other cases we learned about, criminal cases tend to break families apart. Sadly, it happend for Adrian too. He is divorced now and his wife has full custody of children now. Based on original conviction, he is not allowed to see or contact his children for 99 years. His own family though are extremely supportive of him.
Well, I watched a LOT of Law & Order with my ex-husband and recognized where the show got their interrogation methods immediately…I didn’t know there was a specific copyrighted method. I just thought it was standard cop shop/police academy training, not a weekend seminar!
It seems pretty based in basic psychology–and very similar to methods used in terrorist interrogation (build affinity, lie,, rewards or progress toward law enforcement’s goal of getting info/confessions)
One more note about “Reid” – there’s a long history to the method’s development – fascinating stuff. It actually began in the pre-Miranda era, and seemed to offer a more “humane” approach… But it does allow for a level of manipulation that we might now question.
What was his wife’s testimony? And kudos getting that juror to say she wasn’t 100% convinced!
I agree Lisa, for Adrian, it eventually seemed like an almost a transactional process. He told us that he understood that if he said what they wanted to hear, he will go home. Very simple.
RE: “watched a LOT of Law & Order”
One of the toughest things we’ve heard from audiences is that we ruined “Law & Order – and many other shows – for them!
Did you get to interview the original doctor (who made the wrong diagnosis)? Were there other doctors involved in the original diagnosis?
Kind of like the “CSI” effect?
Why didn’t he ask for a lawyer to be present (I usuallly take that as a sign of being innocent–if I didn’t do anything worng, why do I need a lawyer, but this has proven to me that Pollyannish view is waaay off base. ANd my friend in the LA County Public Defenders Officer would agree–GET A LAWYER as soon as you are brought in for questioning)
His wife testified for the prosecution. We read the full transcript of her testimony. She never said that she saw Adrian doing anything harmful to their son. But testified that he was stressed out for being out of job for a few months. All together, it shed very little light on what happend in the house. She did confirm the child had been ill for a few days.
Nah, not at all, it’s not ruined for me by Scenes of a Crime! Improved in fact.
RE: “juror … wasn’t 100% convinced”
I have respect for the juror sharing the tough experience she had with the case… It’s worth remembering she didn’t get to hear the defense Adrian & his lawyers wanted to mount: namely, bringing Richard Ofshe’s experience into the courtroom.
There’s some extremely interesting research about what “beyond a reasonable doubt” means to juries… Some indications are the threshold for conviction (in jurors’ minds) is about 70% certainty!
We really tried very hard to reach ALL of the doctors who testified for the prosecution. For months we were making the case with each one of them to participate. They all rejected us. I remember sitting across from the two prosecutors, telling them the defense witnesses are more than happy to get involved with our documentary because they feel passionately about what happend. I mentioned we have no means of subpoenaing anyone but it would help if they stood by what they contributed to the prosecution case against Adrian.
As mentioned just now by Blue, we received no cooperation from Dr. Edge – or others brought in by the prosecution… A real frustration. They did speak in court, and we feature their words in transcript.
The autopsy and experts would have convinced me–in fact they did in your film!
What exactly was the judge’s reasoning/ruling to deny the defense’s witness Richard Ofshe?
The detectives that interrogated Adrian, appeared open during your interviews. Did they still believe Adrian was guilty, after all the information came out?
Defense lawyers will tell you that in fact it is very common for people to waive their rights to have an attorney. They believe they have nothing to lose by cooperating with the police especially if they’re innocent. In Adrian’s case, one child was in the hospital, six others were taken away hours earlier. He said he really wanted to sit down and get things over with and clear things up.
Do you have any statistics about the number of people convicted with false confessions? On the east coast here there is a local county that has been investigated for the high number of false confessions, no audio / video of the sessions, suspect handcuffed to the walls for many hours / days.
Yes, both detectives were convinced of Adrian’s guilt. They were very proud of the job they had done to convict a man they believed was guilty and actually that seemed to be the reason they participated with our project. They also felt somewhat vindicated after the guilty verdict despite the methods they had used because the guilty verdict meant they did everything legally.
If I’m arrested, I will resolutely keep my mouth shut. Let them lock me up, but I won’t answer any questions. Remember Miranda: “You have the right to remain silent.” That’s also true BEFORE any arrest is made. Make them try to prove (suspected) guilt.
DVD for Educational and Libraries
Have a Group Screening
20 to 25 percent of DNA exoneration cases of the Innocence Project were false confession cases. At some point we had a specific number for the cases in the state of NY but honestly don’t remember it now!
That is a great suggestion for everyone.
Expert witnesses are a big challenge for courts. Indiv. judges have a lot of authority about which to admit, etc. The standards they use are somewhat open to interpretation, for instance: 1. Does the expert know something not known to the average juror? 2. Is his expertise widely acknowledged?
Only recently have experts in “eyewitness testimony” been allowed into some courts, to describe how “cross race” IDs are prone to mistakes. And the courts have made room for psychology experts to explain why battered spouses may deny their abuse / lie to help their abusers.
The issue of admitting interrogation experts may be a big part of the upcoming appeal for Adrian Thomas in New York state.
The instant the Miranda rights are read, you know you need a lawyer. And “are you arresting me? No, then I’m going” can be handy too. We had a great film on a while back 10 Rules for Death with the Police Very helpful.
Was Adrain under arrest during the interrogation? or did he just come in to answer questions? Could he have just walked out? (NY law question)
Adrian asked to be taken/was pressured to go to a mental health hospital for 16 hours during the interrogation. Was that used against Adrian in the conviction? And how creepy the cops were waiting for him outside to continue the interrogation. The police were totally sure he was responsible for the baby’s death.
BTW, one of frustrations for interrogation experts is being asked “Just how many people are falsely convicted due to false confessions” because, right now, there is no “brain scanner” to absolutely test whether or not someone lied! There are people using some very clever methods to sift data .
The blogger below tried to outline a variety of methods, used over the years… Not an absolute answer, but many of these methods suggest a surprisingly high number of wrongful convictions:
Skeptical Juror – Wrongful Convictions
In the film, I believe you indicated that Adrian’s wife had to distance herself from him in order to keep her children. In many of the wrongful convictions of child abuse that I have seen, this seems to be a common tactic. The police purposely try to pit the mother against the father. Do you know specifically, were there any threats of removing her children from her if she stood beside him?
A detail that never made it to the film: At some point Adrian did ask for a lawyer, but the detective understood it as (or pretended to understand it as) Adrian asking for assistance for a child custody hearing. Adrian didn’t continue asking after that. I believe this is one of the issues brought up by the defense in the subsequent appeals filings.
Bottom line, ask for a lawyer and don’t say anything. (Though honestly, sometimes lawyers will tell you the evidence isn’t gonna go your way and you’d better off pleading down, which SUCKS if you are innocent)
Adrian voluntarily went to the local mental hospital with the detectives after saying he was suicidal. But once they got there, one of the detectives filled out the paperwork and requested that police would be notified before Adrian was released. So he couldn’t leave without them knowing about it. There was a huge clash in the court between the two sides – and especially when that detective was testifying about why he had done that. But it went nowhere for the defense. And again, when the police showed up the next day at the hospital and asked him to go the station with him, Adrian complied. Adrian and his defense say that he was never given a choice and rather was ordered to go.
re: “Was Adrain under arrest” etc.
Adrian was not been booked before, or handcuffed during either interrogation, but Miranda and the surrounding decisions put a lot of focus on whether a person is “in custody” of police – in other words, isn’t free to leave.
Prosecutors and police argue Adrian was free to leave at any time.
Adrian and his lawyers assert that officers flashed guns or badges at times when asking him to come for questioning. They also claim Adrian told before entering the room for the 2nd interrogation that either he or his wife would be arrested if he tried to leave. (Recalling this without checking our notes – apologies for any small details I’m fuzzy about.)
Current case law makes it clear that some psychological pressures are enough to strip a person of their “voluntary” participation in an interrogation – and invalid any confession statements… true or false.
For instance, a recent case in NY indicates that telling a suspect he must describe drug activity so doctors can save hi gravely ill wife / girlfriend who is suffering from drug poisoining – that crosses the line of “voluntariness.”
“We’re here to take you home.” (Or something similar) I’d have to watch again, but I believe they made other comments along the lines of “letting him go.” If he was free to leave, then why would they need to take him anywhere? Just a comment, not really a question.
Jeremy, it took his wife months to get the full custody of all of their children back. She was actually going through that process while the trial started. As one of Adrian’s lawyers says in the film, you can imagine it doesn’t look good for you if you’re helping your husband in a murder trial while you try to get your kids back. The prosecutor also acknowledged in the film that his wife had 2 interests: getting her children, and justice. I do believe that it makes a difference in court for a defendant when a spouse stands behind him.
How long did you work on this film? interviews, editing? How long after the final verdict was your work?
And lying, saying that if he’d just tell them how he’d done it, he could see his some and wife…all the while the cops knew the baby was dead.
ANd he didn’t get to see them…that’s messed up.
I think it’s very difficult to resist the requests of police – and very easy to imagine that places you under greater suspicion.
WHat has the festival and screening response been like? And what are your next projects?
Can people arrange for group showings?
Next week’s film is Black Tulip:
.
We learned about the case shortly after Adrian was convicted. We were in the pre-production phase for about a year just trying to research and find a case that had a full video recording of the interrogation – and looking at many other topics too. Once we settled on the case and the story it took us another year to produce, shoot, and edit. But getting an independent film out into the world – that’s a long march all its own!
For sure, there’s a lot of nuance in the conversation between Adrian and the police – much more than we could capture in a 90 min. film!
One of the most interesting things for me was watching how both the police and Adrian joust indirectly over the word “accident” and “accidental.” I’m not sure a jury, after one viewing of all the video, could really get the layers of this – it took me months!
One thing I’ve learned watching cop shows
they can lie lie lie
YOu can view the trailer for Black Tulip here http://youtu.be/ApfLMPvOcdc
Nowadays interrogations should have to be recorded – for both sides’ benefit
The website offers many ways to see the film http://www.scenesofacrime.com:
Home viewers can see it on iTunes, Distrify.com, and soon Amazon.com
Educational institutions can buy the DVD for class screenings.
We arrange group screenings on a case-by-case basis – there’s a tab on our site for GROUPS, and you can send us an email on the contact form… That starts the process!
Thank you both for opening up more eyes in the name of Justice.
Thanks for all of that! I hope that public defenders offices across the country screen this. Adrian’s court-attorney was sooo dedicated!
I’m happy to say that the film has been received very well in the festival circuit and won multiple awards. We had our theatrical run as well, and always receive amazing responses from the audience. The film also received recognition from the American Bar Association which meant a lot to us given the topic. As for the next project, we’re at the beginning of something we’re very excited about but I’m afraid it’s too soon to be specific!
Thank you guys.
And thank you so much for being here tonight and delving into this with us!
Many groups are pursuing universal video-recording of felony interrogations – including some police agencies. But after this project, I also feel it’s essential to have jurors educated about the psychological dynamics of police interrogation – and we hope the film is doing some of that.
And please come back with A Certain Kind of Death–and your new one when it’s done!
Very happy to take part – thanks for offering this forum: there are so many films that deserve the attention!
And thanks firepups and firebaggers for another great evenings!
Thank you so much for your wonderful film! It has meant a great deal to myself and many of my friends. Adrian’s case is far from unique, unfortunately.
as Mr. Kiriakou can attest
,…because the guilty verdict meant they did everything legally.
well yeah, because everyone knows that all juries are made up of experienced trial attorneys and appellate judges. I would call that conclusion some interesting logic,. if there was any logic involved in it…
Also,. too:
,… the contending parties often feel personally the win or loss in court.
Oh hell yeah – you better believe it,..,.