Interrogation techniques - from my notes

The below is the interrogation techniques. I think this is better explanation than the past models and shows the concept of interrogation by speeches.

/////////////////
Interrogation techniques

• Techniques 1:

  • 2 people speaking in lower voice/lower volume.

  • It is like one person explaining things to other(s) who are listening to get the information & responding but remains as a passive listener.
  • The subject would start hearing the explanation.
  • -> This technique would be used to catch attention of others to join listening the information. It could be good for advertisement.
  • If the subject joins the conversation as the passive listener, the person explaining will start give negative information about the subject. If the subject tries to argue, he person explaining will still try to keep one's view point about the matter and the listener remains to listen the one.
  • -> Countermeasure (most likely the subject do) – the subject to speak up the concrete evidence. By doing so in public speaking up loud, the one would be looked like a mentally ill.
  • If this is done through V2K, the subject may not able to find a way to stop hearing the connection criticizing the subject.
  • -> Real countermeasure – understand the strategy and their intention.

  Roles:

  • - Explainer – keep the dominance of the conversation; shows what is the “acceptable statements”
  • - Listener – supports the explainer.
  • - Subject – tries to argue in the debate yet the subject will never get approval.
  • => Basic form of how to set up a conversation to break down the statement of the subject.
  • -> There are explainer(s) + listener(s) can used with more numbers in both side.

• Technique 2:

- 2 + persons speaking. One main speaker start to explain or ask the subject about things. The speaker(s) will then confirm/support the main speakers statement or to adjust the statement of the subject to keep it agreeable for the main speaker's. The sub speaker will then show one's doubt cleared by the conversation as if the main speaker's speech is confirmed.

- This is a basic interrogation style – and the main speaker has supporter(s) to show the pressure of who has the power in the discussion.

JP-Style interrogation:

1. The use of announcer's reporting style to explain things about the subject's personal information. This is like the reports of who aftermath of scandal on mass media do. This tactics can intimidate the subject. -> The subject is treated as a person of interest by the third person.

2. Talking style that to produce regret or to look back one's past. i.e. Talking about something different then start to move to the subject that is related with something to blame the subject. Because of the specific reasoning that is backed up by the explanation abut how the subject was reckless/careless /neglectful etc. The subject is suggested to have time to think back.

3. -> This technique only work with Japanese because of the reasoning rooted in the culture, the foreigners or the ones who do not share much JP culture will feel strange about the specific reasoning style.
4. Questioning to feel the reason inside of the subject. i.e. “Why did you become target?”
5. -> Inductive/suggestive thought inside of oneself. Is a form of a normal interrogation but the way how to cause the subject to look back one's reasoning is only to push to blame the subject and not to find others' responsible. This is pretty much like how persuasion/interrogation done in cop and the suspect style. If this method adds sleep depreciation and continuous interrogation, it is much like the normal interrogation.
6. Hypnosis(sleepiness/lack of sleep) to repeat the words the speaker says. When the subject is put to sleepiness or drugged to be sleepy, the one would be easy to speak up something without evaluating the meaning or the value of the information. Such technique may be used for making up something for a investigation. (i.e. Microwave voice hearing to cause the one without sleep due to the noise, then the one is asked to repeat the words the speaker say or think about what the speaker says - if the sentence is recorded in the form of brainwave like NSA is doing, then creating the subject to have the same brainwave simulating the state the one came out a crime or something would make the one to speak up the crime that the one is innocent about it. I am not sure how much value of such coming out due to the "inner voice" recording through the brainwave monitoring. But this might be used for creating the situation that the agents are able to continue the investigation on the indivisual or to get the budget for the pottential threat they made up. To know about NSA's brainwave reading, check out Akwai VS NSA case)