The headline is a corruption of the repeated lyrics of a catchy 80’s song by Fun Boy Three and Bananarama.Their song had the line “It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it, THAT’S what gets results” As interviewers we all should know The WAY you communicate is as vital and important as the WHAT you communicate.
There has been much research illustrating that a confession may not be always what it seems. Without audio or video recordings as a record of what actually was said, misinterpretations can lead to injustice. In the interview portrayed in My Cousin Vinny, Ralph Macchio's character, Bill, responds to a question from Sheriff Farley containing a presupposition with a repeated question “I shot the clerk? I shot the clerk?”The Sheriff conveniently removes the question marks and believes he has received a confession! Without a recording, who would be believed? The film, apart from being very entertaining, accurately portrays some very real issues in the criminal justice system.
I recently listened to a podcast entitled Writing Wrongsby forensic linguists from Aston University. Forensic linguistics is a branch of applied linguistics in which knowledge about language is applied to various forensic contexts. Understanding how language works can help in a criminal investigation or civil dispute.
In the world of investigative interviewing, the case of Darnell Rusan offers a stark warning about the dangers of confession driven interrogation tactics. This case, analyzed in detail by forensic linguists, highlighted how flawed strategies, combined with poor understanding of language dynamics, can lead to false confessions with potentially life-changing consequences.
The case involves the murder of Dante Parker in St. Louis. It was reported by KSDK Channel 5 as follows:
A man has been charged with murder in connection with a shooting in south St. Louis last year. Darnell Rusan, 32, was charged with first-degree murder and armed criminal action. Just before 1 p.m. on Dec. 9, 2019, St. Louis police were called to the 3000 block of Osage Street for a report of a shooting. When officers arrived, they found Donte Parker suffering from gunshot wounds. He was taken to the hospital where he was pronounced dead. According to the probable cause statement, Rusan shot Parker multiple times with a revolver, hitting him in the legs, buttocks and back. Surveillance video from a home on Osage shows Rusan and Parker near the scene of the shooting. During an interview with police, Rusan admitted to shooting Parker, according to the statement.
Initially, the police had almost nothing just a couple of seconds of footage captured by a ring door camera which showed a man walking towards the scene of a crime and then quickly walking away. Essentially, a two second clip of really grainy ring camera footage. Where you could barely make out a figure. After a whole year, Darnell Rusan is pulled over in a routine traffic stop. Because someone thought he kind of resembled the figure in that tiny video clip, suddenly he became the prime suspect in Parker's murder. He was then subjected to a 3.5-hour recorded interrogation resulting in an apparent series of confessions, yet a forensic linguistic analysis later revealed these were deeply flawed.
In summary the findings of the expert indicated;
The detective employed a confession-driven interrogation, not an investigative interview aimed at gathering facts. The linguistic expert Dr. Marlon Hurt stated “from the outset, the detective had in mind that he had the perpetrator of this murder, and by Jove, he was going to get a confession. And that fits the textbook definition of an interrogation”.
The flawed nature of the interview was apparent right from the start. Rusan was placed under emotional pressure to waive his rights without fully understanding them. He was told that agreeing to Miranda rights was merely a “formality” and the detective told him that he would have to agree that he understood his Miranda rights before the detective would tell him why he was there. A tactic that exploited his confusion.
Pragmatics of language is the study of how context contributes to meaning, focusing on how people use language in social situations to convey meaning and interact with others. It goes beyond the literal meaning of words and sentences, considering factors like speaker intention, context, and nonverbal cues. Essentially, it's about understanding what people mean by what they say, not just the words themselves. Rousan is trying to achieve an answer to the question of why am I here?
But the detective is saying, "I can't fulfill your agenda until you agree that you understand your Miranda rights. Rousan indicates he does not understand but instead of explaining using different words or paraphrasing the detective repeats the Miranda warning verbatim, after which Rusan agrees that he now understands miraculously the thing that he did not understand before.
Rusan also disclosed some mental health issues during the interview and in fact deferred to the detective to provide the name of his disorder. The issue is then described simply as “mental disorders”
Semantics, in the context of language, refers to the study of meaning in language. It explores how words, phrases, and sentences convey meaning and how context influences interpretation. A cat may describe many variations of the species from Lion or Tiger to any of the varieties of house cats. “Mental disorders” fails to indicate the nature of any issue of comprehension, vulnerability or suggestibility. Although noted, this was apparently disregarded during the interview.
The detective repeatedly seeded information through presuppositions and scripting. In linguistics, a presupposition is an implicit assumption about the world. Essentially, it's something the speaker assumes the listener already knows or accepts as true. A classic example, might be where the interviewer states “when did you stop beating your wife?” There's no right answer to that question, you can say, well, yesterday, or I haven't? The presupposition is that you arebeating your wife.
Almost all the details in Rusan’s “confessions” were first introduced by the detective and later echoed back by the suspect, including facts about the weapon, victim, and crime scene. There was one item of information not introduced by the detective and if verifiable it might have been very damaging to the case. Rusan describes the gun involved as a revolver. However, at various points, he says he just squeezes the trigger resulting in multiple shots, which is not how revolvers work. So, one piece of information that unequivocally comes from Rusan himself is unverifiable and potentially contradictory to other things that he has said elsewhere in the interrogation. A good interviewer would have ABC"d (assume nothing, believe nothing, check everything) this information and potentially have Rusan describe the firearm to clarify this inconsistency.
In a tactic often ascribed to coercive interview techniques, the detective interrupted or blocked Rusan’s attempts to explain or deny involvement, steering him back toward guilt-focused narratives and limiting his ability to provide alternative accounts.
The report prepared by the forensic linguist prepared for the court mapped the conversation, identifying where every fact originated. It Indicated over 99% of the factual content in Rusan’s statements came directly from the detective, not the suspect. The content of the conversation contained presuppositions, topic control, and blocking behaviors that shaped the suspect’s responses. It was also noted how the information repeated by Rusan can create a false impression that both parties contributed equally to the narrative, a phenomenon known as “contamination” in forensic linguistics.
Although Dr Hurt was not allowed to provide expert testimony (the judge deemed the coercive tactics self-evident), his analysis was instrumental in supporting the defense’s strategy. Ultimately, Rusan was acquitted.
Critical Lessons for Interviewers
Prioritize Information, Not Confessions: Effective interviews seek accurate, reliable information not admissions of guilt at all costs.
Avoid Leading Language: Introducing facts through leading questions or presuppositions contaminates the interview.
Respect Vulnerabilities: Mental health concerns, language comprehension, and cognitive impairments require tailored interview strategies.
Understand Power Imbalance: Interviewers must recognize their role in shaping responses, whether intentionally or inadvertently.
Record Every Interview: Without a recording, this case would likely have led to a wrongful conviction. Recording protects both interviewees and interviewers.
This case underscores the importance of ethical, evidence-based interviewing practices such as the PEACE framework, which emphasizes preparation, engagement, and open-ended information gathering. It also shows how linguistic expertise can reveal hidden patterns in interviews offering lessons far beyond this single case.
