What Common Habits Do Interrogators Examine, and What Strategies Do They Employ to Determine if a Suspect Is Guilty?

Introduction

Many people assume that an interrogator's job consists simply of asking questions and listening to a suspect's answers. In reality, successful interrogations involve much more than conversation alone. Investigators carefully observe both verbal and nonverbal behaviors, evaluate inconsistencies in a suspect's statements, and use psychological interviewing techniques to gather information. Rather than relying on a single behavior to determine whether someone is being deceptive, interrogators look for patterns that emerge throughout an interview.

Several well-known criminal investigations demonstrate how these techniques are applied in practice. Cases involving Chris Watts, Sherri Papini, and Scott Peterson have been extensively analyzed by investigators, psychologists, and body language experts because each suspect displayed behaviors that attracted attention during questioning and media interviews. These cases provide an opportunity to examine how investigators interpret eye movements, word choice, speech patterns, and interview responses while also considering the strategies used to encourage suspects to reveal inconsistencies or provide additional information.

Drawing from scholarly articles, documentaries, and expert psychological analyses, this paper explores the common behaviors interrogators examine and the investigative strategies they employ when evaluating whether a suspect may be withholding information or providing deceptive statements. While no single behavior can definitively determine guilt, the combination of behavioral observations and effective interviewing techniques can help investigators identify areas that warrant further examination.

Eye Movements and Nonverbal Behavior

To begin with, one of the first nonverbal behaviors interrogators pay attention to is eye movement. Contrary to popular belief, investigators are not simply looking for whether someone looks to the left or the right. Instead, they observe changes in blinking patterns, eye closure, and other facial behaviors that may indicate increased stress or cognitive effort during questioning. While these behaviors alone cannot determine whether a person is lying, they can help investigators identify moments that deserve closer attention.

One well-known example is the case of Chris Watts, who murdered his wife and two daughters in Colorado in 2018. In Body Language & Emotional Intelligence, body language expert Dr. Jack Brown analyzed Watts' television interview and noted that when the reporter began asking more difficult questions about his missing family, "his rate of blinking increases dramatically. While this blinking dynamic alone does not indicate deception, it does demonstrate significant anxiety" (Brown). Throughout the interview, Watts repeatedly displayed increased blinking whenever the conversation shifted toward his family or the investigation. Whether caused by guilt, fear, or emotional pressure, these noticeable changes in behavior gave investigators another reason to examine his statements more closely.

Chris Watts was not the only suspect whose eye behavior attracted attention. In the case of Sherri Papini, who admitted to staging her own kidnapping in 2016, body language analyst Logan Portenier observed that she frequently lowered her head and closed her eyes while describing the events of her alleged abduction. As Portenier explains, avoiding direct eye contact can make deception psychologically easier because it creates a sense of emotional distance from the person asking the questions (00:17:40–00:17:46). As questioning became more direct, Papini's eye closure and downward gaze became increasingly noticeable. These behaviors suggested rising discomfort as she attempted to maintain a fabricated account.

A similar pattern appeared during interviews with Scott Peterson following the disappearance of his wife, Laci Peterson. In Flashback Forensics: Psychologist Analyzes Scott Peterson's Body Language, forensic psychologist Dr. John Paul Garrison points to a moment when interviewer Diane Sawyer mentions Peterson's relationship with another woman. As she raises the topic, Peterson briefly closes his eyes before responding. According to Garrison, this reaction may represent a psychological response to a particularly stressful or emotionally sensitive topic (00:15:20–00:15:26). While this behavior does not independently prove deception, it highlights how investigators pay close attention to changes in a suspect's nonverbal behavior when discussing subjects that may carry emotional significance.

Across the cases of Watts, Papini, and Peterson, similar patterns of blinking, eye closure, and gaze avoidance emerge during moments of increased pressure. These behaviors are not reliable indicators of guilt on their own, but when they occur alongside inconsistencies in statements and other investigative evidence, they may provide useful context for interrogators attempting to understand a suspect's emotional state during questioning.

Word Choice and Verbal Indicators

In addition to nonverbal behavior, interrogators carefully examine the words a suspect chooses during questioning. The way someone tells a story can reveal just as much as their body language. Investigators often pay attention to changes in tense, pronoun use, distancing language, and hesitation because these patterns may reflect how a person is processing stressful questions. Like nonverbal cues, however, verbal indicators are not proof of deception on their own. Instead, they are evaluated alongside physical evidence and inconsistencies in a suspect's account.

Chris Watts provides one example of how language can become psychologically revealing. In the study Language Deception: Analysis of Conversation of Male and Female Criminals, researchers found that Watts repeatedly used words such as "hasn't," "doesn't," "isn't," and "don't," noting that he "employed negation to divert attention from the actual events and instead emphasized what did not happen or what they did not do" (Rahim & Ariffin 4). Rather than focusing on what actually occurred, Watts frequently emphasized what had not happened. This pattern created emotional distance from the events while allowing him to avoid directly discussing the actions that investigators were attempting to uncover. His responses appeared carefully controlled, suggesting an effort to manage how others interpreted his statements.

Sherri Papini also demonstrated how subtle word choices can become significant during an investigation. In an analysis titled Was Sherri Papini Kidnapped or Was It a Hoax?, statement analyst Mark McClish examined Papini's description of the moment she claimed to have been abducted. She stated, "That's when I realized it was James and my cellphone fell." McClish pointed out that describing the phone as having "fell" shifts responsibility away from the speaker because a cellphone cannot perform an action on its own. He argued that saying "I dropped my phone" would have placed responsibility directly on herself, whereas her wording created emotional and psychological distance from what investigators later believed had actually occurred (McClish). Combined with FBI evidence that the phone appeared intentionally placed rather than dropped, her language raised additional questions about the credibility of her account.

Scott Peterson's interviews demonstrate another interesting aspect of deceptive speech. In Use of "Um" in the Deceptive Speech of a Convicted Murderer, researchers examined Peterson's conversations and found that he actually used the filler word "um" less frequently during deceptive speech than during truthful conversations (Villar et al. 91). This finding challenges the common assumption that frequent hesitation automatically signals dishonesty. Instead, the researchers suggested that deceptive speakers may become more deliberate in choosing their words because they are carefully monitoring what they say. Peterson's speech appeared more controlled, illustrating that deception is sometimes reflected through unusually polished language rather than obvious nervousness.

Taken together, these cases demonstrate why interrogators pay close attention to language during interviews. Word choice, sentence structure, and speech patterns can provide valuable insight into how a suspect is responding under pressure. Although no single verbal behavior can establish guilt, consistent linguistic patterns may help investigators identify statements that deserve further scrutiny as they compare interviews with forensic evidence and witness testimony.

Interrogation Strategies Used to Evaluate Suspects

While body language and speech patterns can provide valuable clues, interrogators also rely on carefully planned interviewing strategies to encourage suspects to reveal inconsistencies or admit to information they may initially withhold. Rather than simply asking direct questions, investigators often build rapport, introduce alternative explanations, and gradually increase pressure throughout an interview. These techniques are designed to encourage conversation while allowing investigators to compare a suspect's responses with the evidence already collected.

One example appears in the Netflix documentary American Murder: The Family Next Door, during Chris Watts' interrogation. Investigator Tammy Lee asks Watts, "Did Shanann do something to them?... Chicks are crazy" (00:31:51–00:31:56). Although Lee did not believe this scenario actually occurred, presenting it gave Watts an opportunity to explain the deaths in a way that might seem more acceptable to him. By appearing understanding rather than immediately confrontational, she encouraged him to continue talking instead of shutting down the conversation. This strategy illustrates how rapport-building can sometimes be more effective than direct accusations.

A similar approach can be seen in the investigation of Sherri Papini. In the Hulu documentary Perfect Wife: The Mysterious Disappearance of Sherri Papini, investigators questioned Papini about her marriage, asking, "Were there issues between you and Keith? Is that why you left?" (00:37:19–00:37:21). Rather than immediately accusing her of staging the kidnapping, investigators offered an alternative explanation that gave her an opportunity to admit to leaving voluntarily. At other points in the interview, investigators confronted Papini with DNA evidence connecting her to her former boyfriend while continuing to encourage her to explain the situation. This combination of evidence and open-ended questioning placed pressure on Papini while still allowing her the opportunity to tell the truth.

Scott Peterson's interrogation demonstrates another widely discussed interviewing strategy. According to In the Hot Seat: Analyzing Effective Police Interrogation Methods, investigators balanced pressure with rapport, encouraging Peterson to continue talking while carefully comparing his statements for inconsistencies (Grant). This reflects principles commonly associated with cognitive interviewing and relationship-building, where investigators seek to gather as much information as possible before directly challenging contradictions. By allowing suspects to speak freely, investigators may identify details that conflict with physical evidence or previous statements.

Interrogators also emphasize the seriousness of the investigation to remind suspects that evidence is being carefully reviewed. Kaplan and Cutler describe investigators telling suspects that prosecutors and specialized law enforcement teams would closely examine every detail of the case, reinforcing that inconsistencies would likely be discovered. Similarly, King and Snook found that investigators frequently changed questioning strategies when one approach was unsuccessful, revisiting earlier parts of a suspect's story or introducing new themes to encourage additional information. These techniques demonstrate that effective interrogations require flexibility rather than relying on a single method throughout an interview.

Across the cases of Chris Watts, Sherri Papini, and Scott Peterson, investigators consistently combined rapport-building, strategic questioning, evidence presentation, and psychological pressure to evaluate the credibility of each suspect's statements. Rather than depending on one technique alone, successful interrogations involve adapting to the suspect's responses while carefully comparing behavior, language, and evidence to develop a more complete understanding of the case.

Conclusion

In high-profile criminal investigations, interrogators do much more than simply ask questions. They are trained to carefully observe both verbal and nonverbal behaviors while using strategic interviewing techniques to evaluate the credibility of a suspect's statements. Throughout the cases of Chris Watts, Sherri Papini, and Scott Peterson, investigators relied on a combination of body language, eye movements, speech patterns, and psychological interviewing strategies to identify inconsistencies and encourage suspects to provide additional information.

These cases demonstrate that behaviors such as prolonged blinking, eye closure, distancing language, and changes in speech may provide valuable insight into a suspect's emotional state during questioning. At the same time, no single behavior can determine whether a person is guilty or deceptive. Stress, anxiety, fear, and personality differences may all influence how someone behaves during an interrogation. For this reason, investigators must consider behavioral observations alongside physical evidence, witness testimony, and other investigative findings rather than relying on body language or speech patterns alone.

The strategies used by interrogators are equally important. Building rapport, presenting alternative scenarios, carefully confronting suspects with evidence, and adjusting questioning techniques throughout an interview can all help investigators gather more reliable information. As demonstrated in the cases examined throughout this paper, effective interrogations rely on psychology, communication, and critical thinking just as much as they rely on direct questioning.

Ultimately, determining guilt is rarely based on one statement or one behavior. Instead, investigators piece together multiple verbal cues, nonverbal behaviors, interview responses, and forensic evidence to develop a complete understanding of a case. By combining behavioral analysis with careful investigative techniques, interrogators are better equipped to distinguish between truthful and deceptive statements while pursuing an accurate and fair investigation.

Works Cited

About the Author

Suggested Citation

Related Articles

Continue Reading