[MUSIC PLAYING]

The video might be shocking, but it's simply a ploy used by US police officers. Filming with their own cameras, they inform this woman, called Dalia, that her husband has just been killed. They want to gauge her reactions as they suspect she may have hired a hitman to murder her spouse.

Is your husband Michael? OK, I'm sorry to tell you ma'am, he's been killed.

[CRYING] He's been killed, ma'am.

No, dear God, no. I want to see him.

I can't let you see him now. We have to do our job.

In fact, no killing has taken place and the police have made up the story to try and confuse Dalia. What they want is her confession. And a few hours later, she will be charged with attempted murder.

In this case, it was the cross-examination of Dalia that led to the truth and then eased the way to her prosecution. Among the police, the interrogation process is considered the key element of the investigation where everything might fall into place, which explains why in the United States this method of investigation has been pushed to its very limits, more than anywhere else in the world.

How does the interrogation take place? Is it an exact science? Can you tell when the suspect is lying? And can you trust the confessions?

[MUSIC PLAYING]

In the United States, everything is aimed at making the suspect crack; from the architecture of the interrogation room, it's a small bare room that disorientates suspects and allows for physical proximity. But does it work? Tiffany Parsonson has definite views on this kind of police procedure.

After a robust session in the interrogation room, she confessed to killing her best friend on the 15th of April, 1997. Tiffany received a life sentence. The memories of when she first stepped into the interrogation room are still vivid.

You know that feeling, you walk into a dentist's office and you smell the dentist smell and you hear "beeeee," and you just know it's going to be a very unpleasant situation. It's kind of like walking into that, except there's not going to be any needle to numb anything. You walk in there and it smells of fear, it smells of sweat.

You pick up that lingering energy of people in there before, of the depression, of the anxiety, of everything. It's just like the atmosphere just clings to it and they sit you in there. It's psychological.

At the time, Tiffany was 23 years old and a prostitute. She's familiar with the police and their tactics. But this time, she's not being picked up for soliciting, but for a murder in which all the clues seem to point to her. To make her confess, the police will use the oldest trick in the book, the good cop, bad cop routine.

I remember the one explicitly well, Madden, and he was tall, approximately 6'2 to 6'4; dark complected, overbearing. He wore jeans a lot, Polo shirts, and had a very cocky attitude. The other one is kind of blurry, my memory of him is blurry. I think he played the good cop. Madden was the bad cop.

Introducing Sergeant Madden, almost seven feet tall in his socks, years of experience, and not the kind of cop that's easily fooled. He makes no bones about his tough questioning methods. It's his hallmark.

There is a certain amount of acting with doing interviews, and especially when you're in that realm, as far as a good cop, bad cop. So for the most part, one is consoling, caring, almost even putting off the other detective to the suspect, saying he's a very mean guy, he's a bad guy or whatever the case is. Trying to get closer with that suspect so hopefully the suspect confides in quote unquote, the good cop.

But Tiffany is tough and for three days, her constant lying drives the interrogators to distraction. She makes up stories about her movements, shifts the blame onto others, and dismisses the evidence. But the police don't give up.

You get defensive. And when you get defensive, the detectives seem to jump on that. Why are you defensive then? Do you think you need an attorney? Only innocent people need an attorney.

You think you need an attorney? So if I say yes, I need an attorney, then you're saying, oh, you're guilty so you need an attorney. Is that what you're saying? So it's very, very difficult.

The last interview kind of switched where I was very direct, I was very accusatory, and I even stormed out of the room. Once again, some theater if you will, to try to create a better atmosphere for the other detective.

He was very tall and very over you all the time, overbearing. And I can remember trying to like get in my chair. And he'd be like, I'm sick of this liar, and he'd be this far away from my face and I'd be like, well, um, um, what I, and I'd just start saying anything else I could say.

Tiffany claims she acted in self defense, but it's an admission that Lieutenant Madden finds doubtful.

She never told the truth. That's basically the sum of it. She never told the truth, even in the end.

I've never told the truth.

Tiffany played down her part in the murder. The fact she doesn't break down under the questioning of an experienced policeman shows the limitations of the good cop, bad cop method. So a far less theatrical technique is being adopted that has found favor with many American police. It's an approach Lieutenant Dolman fervently supports.

In July 2006, a murder rocks the usually quiet town of Dover, New Hampshire. Laura Perkins is shot dead by Heather Stone, the woman with whom she lives. From the start, Heather Stone claims it was self-defense after Laura stabbed her in the leg. Lieutenant Dolman is put in charge of the questioning.

Heather Stone and Laura Perkins lived in the downstairs apartment. Heather had two children, Laura had basically an adopted child from a previous relationship that would sometimes stay with her there, too. On the night in question, they'd been arguing since 3 or 4 o'clock in the afternoon until 2:00 in the morning. Just constant arguing while constantly drinking.

Everybody knew that Heather had shot Laura. The question was always going to be what are the circumstances? Was this a case of an abused woman protecting herself? Or was this a case of an angry woman killing her girlfriend?

Heather Stone's interrogation begins at 6:00 in the morning, just a few hours after the murder. Lieutenant Dolman takes Heather Stone to the room set aside for the purpose. A cold, stark room which meets police standards.

So this is the interview room that we spoke to Heather Stone that morning. Heather was seated here, our camera was behind this window right here.

Heather Stone is today behind bars. Seven years on with short hair and looking tired, she's barely recognizable. She was handed a 30 year sentence after finally admitting she had not acted in self-defense.

Remarkably, video of the interrogation was made available, something that in most European countries would be unthinkable. From the very start, Heather Stone had lied to the police about acting in self-defense.

She scared me. She comes at me with a knife and just she cut me [INAUDIBLE]. I got scared, but I was just trying to get her to just behave for a little while. She [INAUDIBLE].

The police patiently let Heather present her version of events.

And it went on.

She was vulnerable for a couple of reasons. One, she really had an obligation to provide an explanation as to why her girlfriend is dead on the floor, so she has a motivation to tell us something, even if it's a lie she has a motivation to talk to us. She's vulnerable because she's tired.

She's vulnerable because she's emotional, she really is upset that this happened. She's not a stone cold killer by any stretch.

I don't really even know what I was trying when I was lying. Part of me, part of me thought that they believed me, and part of me said no, they won't.

The police believe there are certain facts that don't add up. They then turn to a proven tactic of gaining the trust of the suspect, softening her up by taking advantage of one of her vices, cigarettes.

Do you have cigarettes with you?

Yes.

Do you have them with you right now?

Uh-huh.

You can smoke one right now.

Are you kidding? In here?

Yeah, go ahead.

What about her? How does she feel about that?

If you need to smoke one, smoke it.

I don't know if I feel comfortable doing that though.

Well, if you want to wait a little while, wait a little while. If you gotta have one now, go ahead.

No, this ain't no little while. Alright. Well, I will do as you command, go ahead.

She was surprised. She was surprised that we were going to let her smoke in here because it's a no smoking building and a no smoking facility. Well, whatever. You're more than welcome to smoke in here. If you're going to talk to us about this murder that just occurred, I'm going to let you smoke in here.

They let her smoke in return for information. Heather, however, tries to evade the questions, something that intrigues the police.

Like I said, usually just if you go step by step, remembering as much as you can. That's how we just try to figure things out. OK.

She couldn't really explain where she was and where Laura was during this whole violent struggle that apparently had ensued, so they were skeptical. They were also skeptical because the injuries she had were minor scratches to her leg, not stab wounds or big slashes, but just minor cuts to the leg.

Heather claims Laura made these wounds when she stabbed her. In fact, it's a story suggested by Joyce, a friend she called just after the shooting. Joyce also helps Heather change the location of the crime to add weight to her assertion she acted in self-defense.

She put rings on and punched me in the face and then I cut my leg. We thought that would get me so I wouldn't go to jail.

There's some things we need to know.

I wasn't being held like I'm shooting [INAUDIBLE].

The police urge Heather to provide more details and she falls into the trap when she tries to act out the scene.

It wasn't even intended to go off. It was just like up in the air a little bit. I'm short, so I'm standing like this. I'm up like this.

OK. Where's she?

I'm just holding it.

Is she standing here?

No, actually. I'm standing right here.

OK, and she's standing here?

Go over there more.

The police want to force Heather into providing the exact details, something they know full well is a nightmare for those who are lying.

At least.

OK. So where's the gun?

In my hand.

How? I mean like this?

No.

OK, so how is it? How are you holding it?

Just [INAUDIBLE].

OK, so you've got it like low?

Yeah, but the barrel is high.

OK, so you got it at an angle? That's what I'm saying, is the--

I was so emotional that I couldn't even really grasp their questions or even answer them.

I was trying to, but I was lying at first. So they knew this so they were trying to get it out to me and I was so emotional that even their questions were like Spanish to me.

I know but is she standing and just saying go ahead and do it, just like this, go ahead and do it. That's what we need to know.

Well, with a knife in her hand.

So how is she over there?

She was daring me to because she knew I wouldn't do it. See, this is the weird thing about it. She knew that I wouldn't do it.

The fact that she's tired probably made it easier for us because it's hard to keep up a lie. It's very easy to tell the truth over and over and over again. The truth is the truth. You just tell the story about what happened. If it's the truth, all you have to do is tell the truth over and over.

If you tell lies, you have to work to tell lies. You have to work to construct something that didn't happen.

But after two hours of questioning, the detectives know they're getting nowhere and move on to Plan B. They pretend that Joyce, the friend who suggested the self-defense ploy, has confessed to everything.

Detective Watkinson says, listen, Joyce has already talked to us, we already know everything that Joyce has told us. Well, we didn't know that. I had talked to Joyce. She'd lied me.

Now, while we're talking to Heather, we are re-interviewing Joyce. Detective Harrington, who had been in here, is now interviewing Joyce. But we don't know what she said. We're stuck in here with Heather. So that's, quite frankly, a lie.

Exhausted and betrayed by her own lying, Heather finally caves in after three hours.

--what happened. Believe it or not, you're going to feel better if you tell us the entire truth.

[INAUDIBLE].

I understand that. I understand that.

One of things I kept saying to her is, she would talk about her children and she was afraid she would never see her children again, her children would grow up without a mother. And my point to her was, what's going to look better, what's going to work out better for you, if you come in here and lie to us about the death of your girlfriend or you tell us the truth.

[INAUDIBLE].

And in the long run it'll look better.

If I lose my kids my life is over.

Heather.

I just figured this is it. I might as well just tell the truth.

What else did Joyce say to do?

Cut myself.

You did that afterwards right, when you were sitting on the couch?

I wasn't sitting on the couch, this was on the floor.

Alright.

[CRYING]

[INAUDIBLE]. She said that it'll look good and that you'll put me in prison if I don't do something. I loved Laura.

And at some point, you went in and got the shotgun and loaded it and came back out and when she saw you with the gun, she's yelling at you, go ahead, do it, do it.

Yeah, but I thought [INAUDIBLE] to my knees and it was like freaking out. I went, oh my God, what did I do, what did I do? You should have seen the way she [INAUDIBLE].

They went through a lot to get the truth, I went through a lot to tell them the truth. I told them exactly-- I told them how I remembered it. But I wasn't in the right state of mind, so I don't even remember what I told them.

Heather says she has no regrets about having finally admitted the truth. She still has 24 years of her sentence to serve. It's every investigators dream to get the suspect to confess after questioning. The quest for the truth is a holy grail for every policeman and investigator.

And since the 1930s, scientists have tried to create an infallible lie detector machine or polygraph. It detects human reaction through captors placed on the arms, the chest, the fingers, and under the buttocks.

Now Danny remember, a yes or no answer to each question. Were you born in the month of May?

Yes.

Did you steal that watch from the post exchange?

No.

Any abnormal physical reaction can be interpreted as a sign of lying. To find out more about polygraphs, which were considered to be a form of truth serum for so many years, we seek the opinion of Dave Bryant, a Florida-based policeman who specializes in their use.

One of the people who did research on polygraph was the guy who is better known for creating the comic books Wonder Woman. His name was Marston. He was a physician and he wrote comic books on the side.

And what's interesting if you know anything about Wonder Woman, one of the tools that Wonder Woman had was called the Lasso of Truth where she would put a rope around the bad guy and that caused him to have to tell the truth. Well, the Lasso of Truth that he uses is literally this, the blood pressure cuff that we use today that goes around the subject's arm. Sort of a misnomer.

The instrument is a polygraph instrument. It's recording physiological data. It doesn't detect lies anymore than a cardiogram detects heart attacks. It's up to me to analyze the data that I record with a polygraph instrument to determine if a person's being truthful or deceptive.

As you see it rise to the line, that's an increasing blood pressure, OK. So on this question here, for example, this was a controlled question, this is a lie. The subject answered no, which is why there's a minus sign there, and you'll see there's a rise in blood pressure, very subtle rise in blood pressure, but it's there. It's clear to see when I put the line there there's certainly an amplitude change here.

And also, you'll see his breathing change. From the normal respiration out here, at this point, he actually stopped breathing slightly during that question. That's a controlled question that we know was a lie.

Dave Bryant defends the tool he uses for his work, adding the majority of police departments and even the CIA use the polygraph. In Europe, however, it's banned because of it's unreliable results.

Steve Driesen is a law professor in Chicago. He's an expert in interrogation techniques and has been able to obtain the freedom of several suspects on death row or serving life sentences after their alleged confessions. He's one of the polygraphs fiercest critics.

They hook the person up to this machine. They tell them that this machine is infallible, that it's objective, that it's neutral. It doesn't know you, this machine. It doesn't have any stake in whether or not you're innocent or guilty.

And when they fail that polygraph test, or better yet when they're told they failed that polygraph test, it brings them down to a place of hopelessness where it's easier to get them to confess. And we have numerous cases where police officers lie about polygraph results and get innocent people to confess.

Knowing the polygraph is not always dependable, scientists have been urgently researching brain, eye and voice patterns instead; so far, without much success. The human spirit seems capable of resisting even the most determined efforts to extract the truth.

Enter Reid, a private company based in Chicago that has set up a method based largely on human psychology. Today, it's the largest company in the world dealing with interrogation techniques. Staffed by former detectives, it has trained almost 350,000 police officers. The company uses videos to show the 1,001 ways to make a suspect talk.

Let me ask you, did you force her to have sex with you?

No. Absolutely not.

Did you take the money from the man?

Hey man, I've told you. I had nothing to do with this thing, OK.

Did you sell any drugs last Saturday night?

No, huh-uh. None at all.

Reid claims that after its training programs, police officers will be able to spot lies in almost 85% of cases. It's a remarkable claim. But despite its apparent success rate, the company has turned down all requests to be interviewed. It might be because of Steve Driesen and other experts who severely condemn its theories as simplistic and its methods as overly coercive.

All the studies show that people can't detect deception at rates better than a coin flip. Maybe slightly better than 50%, OK. They are leaving these trainings thinking that they can detect deception at 85%. That's just hogwash, but it drives the interrogation in a way that it makes it much more likely that they're going to obtain false confessions.

Reliable conclusions.

But Reid has taken note of such criticism and has improved its methodology by asking instructors to be more prudent when it comes to the signals that could be interpreted as lying. Nevertheless, the videos still teach the same controversial process of recognizing lies through body language.

A deceptive suspect may orient his body away from the interviewer in a non-frontally aligned position. Deceptive posture is the rigid posture. The suspect is so preoccupied with his deception that he appears frozen in the chair and even unable to move.

The purpose of an interrogation, unfortunately, all too often is not about getting the truth. It's about getting a confession. So innocence is taken off the table.

And then over time, the interrogator will give the suspect two choices. One in which the crime that the suspect committed portrays the suspect as a monster, and another path that the crime is accidental. And over time after his denials are rejected over and over again, the suspect will choose one of those two paths, because one of those paths leads to leniency and the other one leads to greater punishment.

It's a choice that allows no room for the innocent, and one that Frank Sterling had to make more than 20 years ago.

I used to like coming down here and see tracks once in awhile, deer, and just come down and just enjoy a nice walk in the nature. Exactly what happened that day, I don't know. But a woman got killed that was 74 years old, and back then, that was big news in Hilton. Two and a half years later is when I got arrested for it.

How old were you?

28 years old.

And how long did you spend in jail for that?

18 and a half years in prison for a crime I did not do.

The crime is that of Viola Manville, a 74-year-old woman found dead on the 29th of November, 1988, along this dirt track. Dozens of suspects will be questioned and all will be released, including Frank Sterling, seen in this photograph. Two years later, detectives trained by Reid reopen the case and are convinced Frank is guilty.

A few years earlier, his brother had been sentenced to prison for raping Viola Manning and Frank Sterling is thought to have wanted revenge. The police are relentless and press Sterling until he cracks. On the 11th of July, 1991, an exhausted Frank Sterling admits to the murder. His confession is recorded.

Many years later, the murderer of a four-year-old girl is arrested. He also confesses to the murder of Viola Manning and traces of his DNA confirm the fact. Frank Sterling is released on the 28th of April, 2010, after serving 19 years.

Now age 54, Frank has become frail and anxious and finds it hard to talk about his feelings.

Good. How are you?

Doing good.

Good.

April 28, 2010, the day I got released.

Do you remember this day?

Oh, yeah.

What do you remember?

Freedom.

Frank Sterling obtained his freedom largely due to the vigorous efforts of his lawyer, Donald Thompson. But the question remains, why did he ever confess to a crime he never committed?

Now, police officers don't beat people anymore. I mean it just doesn't happen really in the course of interrogation. Why? Because there's been this enlightenment?

No. Because the psychological techniques are more effective in obtaining confessions than physical abuse.

Would you like some coffee?

Yes.

In the case of Frank Sterling, only his confession was filmed, but the video speaks for itself. The two policeman had applied the Reid method, as well as some of their own making. Here, they're offering coffee and doughnuts to prepare Frank Sterling for his final declaration of guilt. But what had gone on before?

Those are my favorite kind.

I like those, too.

I remember the back rubs and massaging the shoulders and just trying to be all buddy buddy. We're here for you, just let your anger out. And I was sitting there basically saying to myself, well, I try to let my anger out and let you know that I didn't do it. You're not listening to me over and over. And it's like, OK, I'll give you what you want.

Well, and they had this weird interrogation technique in your case that I've never seen before or since where their rubbing his feet and rubbing his back and having him lie on the floor and put his feet up on a chair, and whispering in his ear, picture yourself out at the crime scene. Now picture the victim, here she comes. What do you do? All this kind of really hypnotic kind of suggestion.

The video of the confession is just the acceptable face of what had happened during the interrogation. To help Frank admit to the crime he didn't commit, one of the officers is rubbing his shoulders while the other is holding his hand.

As best as you can, and I know it's tough for you, but as best as you can, what happened? It's OK to cry. You're going to have to speak up for me though, OK Frank?

[INAUDIBLE].

It felt like you're floating. You'd be sitting in the chair, but you don't actually feel like you're sitting in a chair. No weight on your shoulders. No sorrows, no aches.

It felt like an out of body kind of thing?

Yeah.

Why does someone confess a crime that he didn't do?

Out of pure exhaustion. You know, plus being so tired. I only had like four hours sleep for the three days, and it's like I just wanted to go home and go to sleep.

That's when she fell down?

Yes.

And then I started kicking her.

Frank, as best as you can remember, and I know this is difficult for you, OK, did something happen with that BB gun?

Yeah, I started hitting with her.

OK.

What else?

[INAUDIBLE].

Fired shots.

Do you remember where you put it in?

No.

OK. Can you be specific, Frank? Can you try? Did you [INAUDIBLE].

Yes. What else happened? OK.

We understand it's difficult.

We understand it's difficult, Frank. In a rage, did you take her pants off?

Yes.

OK.

I can't hear you.

I can't hear you.

Yes.

This form of questioning shows how an innocent man can be made to confess with no recourse whatsoever to violence. Psychology has thus become a powerful weapon in the hands of the police and Frank was one of its deliberate victims. To prevent any possible excesses has given rise to a new kind of specialist, the lie expert. It's even inspired Hollywood and its popular series Lie To Me.

Oblique eyebrows. An upturned lip. The smallest--

The psychologist helps resolve crimes by observing body language and facial expressions.

It may be human nature to lie, but the truth is written all over your face.

Stan Walters has been a lie expert for the past 25 years.

I like to say I'm taking a little trip inside the swamp of their brain and I'm wandering around that swamp and I'm finding the rotten stuff and trying to drag it out for deceptive people.

Walters criss-crosses the United States to spread the basics of good interrogation techniques to the police. His unique methods upset many other theories online, including those of his peers.

Here in Texas, they did a study on interrogation training and they tested the officer's ability to spot deception and then they sent them to the two training courses. Then they brought them back and testing them again. What they found in 190 officers, none of them got better. They didn't improve after two courses. So they looked at the content of the courses and found those courses were perpetuating the myths.

Stan Walters campaigns against preconceptions and received ideas.

Very little of body language has anything to do with deception. Crossing arms, what else.

Twiddling the thumbs.

Twiddling the thumbs because the hands are locked, yeah. Folding their hands together, crossing legs, sitting on hands, wrapping feet around a chair, holding on, crossing the ankles under the chair, no correlation to deception. None. And possibly stress, but there is no difference whatsoever in the amount of eye contact liars make compared to truth tellers. There's no connection.

And now the myth of eye movement, looking left, looking right. I know I'm swimming against the tide and I've got academies that hate me for this. They can kiss my ass. Because they're doing a disservice teaching this shit again and again and again. Trained officers who thought they were great at spotting lying performed worse than the civilian population that had no training in deception, which tells you what about training?

[INAUDIBLE]

Teaching the wrong crap. Rubbing the back of the neck.

His method is together a bundle of clues based on behavior and language, which could indicate a suspect may be lying beyond any stress he may be feeling. He uses well-known people such as Bill Clinton, here seen lying to the entire nation when he claims he never had sexual relations with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

I never told anybody to lie.

There wasn't so much a deception here with President Clinton other than there were some symptoms that told us he wouldn't be totally open. One, he refers to Monica Lewinsky as that woman. That's a very typical depersonalization. It's a way of separating oneself and being above or outside the realm, or better than that.

The other one is his emotion. And you see again his appearance, facial expression is of hostility, of anger, then in a split second when he turns to walk away, watch for the smile.

Not a single time, never. These allegations are false and I need to go back to work for the American people.

Switch from anger to a smile.

Another is Courtney Love, suspected of being a drug addict.

--now. You're on nothing today?

No. No.

No heroin.

My God.

I'm going to ask you all of the questions that people think. No more heroin?

No.

You finished?

No, no, no, no, no.

With Courtney Love, you'll see shock when she's asked about the heroin question, which is a good stress marker. You'll see her aversion of body away, get multiple no answers. And she gives a good, strong cluster behaviors we believe is consistent with somebody being deceptive. And later we know that she has had a long history of drug abuse.

You are on nothing?

No.

So the first question is very general. You're on nothing today? No. And then Barbara is going to ask a more pointed question, now you see her react. No more heroin and you see her body jump.

You're on nothing today?

No. No.

No heroin.

You see her exaggerated facial expression, the large eyes from a shocked response at the question. This one stuns her. So if I were the interviewer, that means I would follow up on heroin questions. That's a signal to me of incriminating potential.

My God.

I'm going to ask you all of the questions that people think. No more heroin?

No.

Now watch her body back and away from Barbara and multiple no answers.

No, no, no, no, no.

Prescription drugs?

Didn't work. The Prozac didn't work.

You notice we haven't really answered a heroin question, she goes back to Prozac. Then she'll ask her very pointedly, have you ever done drugs in front of your children. And watch the huge reaction again of an apparent cluster of behaviors of deception.

Ever do drugs in front of your child?

My God, what a question.

Now, to make sure that I'm not looking for myth, again body language has got a large margin of error, so I'm looking at groupings. I'm looking for it to be consistent. So each time the heroin issue comes up, do I keep getting these powerful responses. Do I keep getting similar cluster behaviors of dynamic stress or cluster behaviors that we think are in some point consistent with deception.

What Stan Walters criticizes the most is the obsession the police have with obtaining a confession at the cost of the investigation. This is what happened in the town of Camden in Arkansas in early August 2006, when the body of 11-year-old Kaylee was found in this small house. She had been suffocated using a plastic bag.

After a botched investigation, detectives determined the murderer had to have been inside the house. In fact, only Kaylee's mother, Melody, and 12-year-old brother, Thomas, were inside. When the police arrived, Melody was hysterical while Thomas seemed quite calm. Dorcy Corbin, Thomas' lawyer, believes the police became fixated with his behavior, which they judged as too calm and convinced them that Thomas had killed his sister.

The first thing that went wrong is that as soon as the police got to the house, they decided Thomas had committed this crime. That was their first error. And then everything they did after that just compounded the error.

Thomas was 12 years old at the time. Today, he is 19. Under police pressure, he confessed to everything and was sent to prison. The Supreme Court would overturn the sentence two years later after details of his interrogation were revealed. The video recording of the interview is appalling. The pictures caused the worst police scandal in the history of the state of Arkansas.

I'm [INAUDIBLE].

Nice to meet you.

What's your name?

Thomas Cogdell.

Thomas?

Yeah.

Thomas, I'm with the state police--

Yes, sir.

--and I've been kind of listening to some of the story that you've been telling and I'm going to tell it to you just like it is, you're an intelligent boy, aren't you?

Yeah.

Well, we're pretty intelligent too.

OK.

And the bottom line is nobody broke in that house last night. There's no indication of any break in.

OK.

So your sister died and there was only two people in the house that could've killed her.

OK.

You or your mother.

OK.

That's the only way it can be, boy. There ain't no other way.

OK.

You understand that?

Yes, sir.

OK.

The tone is set right from the start. The police never question Thomas about his movements or the facts, but are relentless, convinced of his guilt. A basic error which should never happen during questioning.

I was scared, didn't know what was going on. I didn't know what to do. Everything was moving so fast. We just sat there for hours not knowing what was going to happen. It's just I was lost.

It's no longer an interrogation, but a never-ending series of accusations.

That would leave a man of normal intelligence to think what happened.

Mm-hm.

What?

That I killed her.

That's correct.

Mm-hm.

Now, all I want to know-- I really want to know why.

Why what?

Why you would kill your sister?

I wouldn't.

But you had to have. If your mother didn't, that just leaves you.

Well, I didn't kill her. I know I didn't.

You know you didn't.

Yes. I know I didn't.

Well, then how did see wind up like that?

I don't know. I seriously don't know. I didn't kill her.

You killed your sister.

I didn't kill her. I didn't.

It'll feel a whole lot better if you just tell me.

I didn't kill her. I didn't kill her! I did not.

Then who killed her? It had to have been you, son.

I didn't do it.

Thomas will deny killing his sister 36 times.

I wouldn't kill her. I didn't! I didn't kill my sister. Is there anyway I can prove that to you?

It's going to be difficult.

Well, I didn't do it.

They told me it was either me or my mom, and I had complete trust in my mother to protect me and my sister at all times. So she couldn't have done it and the only way it could happened is if I had done it, so I thought the police were telling me the truth so I just thought I did it and I don't remember doing it. But it just got so confusing I just couldn't take the pressure anymore.

The police used the smallest details of the boy's life to further incriminate him.

Do you have a problem with anger?

Yes. I'm on medication for it.

You're what?

I'm on medication for it.

OK. OK. What do you take? Do you know off-hand?

No.

OK. Did you have a problem with anger last night?

No, I was perfectly under control. I was having fun playing my games.

But I really think that to help you you're going to have to help yourself. And to help yourself, you're going to have to get rid of this guilt.

I didn't kill her. [INAUDIBLE].

Why are you crying for?

Because you're accusing me of something I didn't do. You're accusing me of killing my sister. [INAUDIBLE].

Most kids would have confessed to this crime a lot sooner. It's absolutely amazing that he was able to withstand their badgering of him as long as he did.

And you just need to cut all this other crap out.

The constant harassment has a name. The police call it quote, "cooking over a small fire." The officers leave the room and leave Thomas to stew on his own. There's no need for physical pressure, as the suspect's imagination runs wild as to what would happen if he doesn't confess. The tactic works inside the mind of the 12-year-old kid.

I was shaking, nervous, sweating, crying. I was just having an emotional breakdown.

Confused by the accusations, Thomas begins to break down.

For a while there, I thought maybe I blacked out because the cops-- I didn't think the cops could lie to me.

I didn't do it. I didn't know I'd be so nervous. It's a fact, I know I didn't do it. Well, who did? I know mom wouldn't The only explanation is somebody broke in, but their saying nobody came in. I didn't do it. [INAUDIBLE] why she wanted to do it. Why? She loves her daughter, doesn't she?

After more than one hour's cross-examination, the police have still been unable to make Thomas confess, so they turn on his mother, Melody. She's bipolar and hasn't taken her medicines for six months, but the police focus their questions on getting her to point the finger of blame at her own son.

When we went in the room, he hollered and then he went and he got the phone like I asked him.

What did he do for her?

He just screamed.

OK.

And then he went to get the phone and I was talking on the phone and he's telling me calm down, you need to come out of here, and you know. I didn't want to go out.

Did he act like it was a big shock to him?

I don't remember, but I don't think so.

No.

Because it was just-- I wasn't--

It was a big shock to you.

Yeah.

But you don't think it was a big shock to him?

If it was, I didn't notice.

I thought she was going to protect me because she was my mother. I thought she was there to help me, but she betrayed me. She betrayed my trust and just pretty much threw me to the cops and said he did it,

Then when he [INAUDIBLE], he broke my windshield on my car because he was mad because I wouldn't let him play his PS2. I just don't think he is [INAUDIBLE] because he scares me sometimes, when he does that little thing [INAUDIBLE].

As his mother condemns him, Thomas' interrogation continues, this time off camera.

After a while, Thomas finally says, I'm hungry. I haven't had anything to eat all day. And then they turn off the tape and they take him in the other room. For the next 3 and 1/2 hours, they interrogated Thomas just like they had been doing on tape, but now they were off tape. They could do what they wanted, they could say what they wanted, and there was no evidence of what they did or what they said.

An attorney entered the room and he started talking to me telling me that it was only me who could have done it, that if I did not confess before he left, he was going to give me the death penalty. So he left and I got scared. I called him back in there and by then I realized there was no way I was going to leave without telling them I did it. They were sitting there telling me if I had just told them the truth of what they wanted to hear, I could go home. So I gave them the story I made up. They said that didn't fit so they added bits and pieces for me to add into my story to fit what they wanted it to and that's when they took me back on camera.

That's like chapter 3 of the second book.

Half an hour later, he's like an automaton that repeats everything the police have told him to confess.

Went into her room. She was asleep with the TV still on, so I put the trash bags over her head and I held them there for a few minutes. She--

What are you calling a trash bag?

The Wal-Mart bag. The Wal-Mart bag over her head then she jumped a little bit, so I [INAUDIBLE]. I turned off the TV, went in the living room and got things, ties to slow her down so she don't try to kill me. I tied her wrists and her feet after pulling her arms out from under her. Then I went back in the room.

OK. And when you're mom found her that morning, did you realize then that she was dead?

Yes.

And how did that make you feel?

Shocked, scared.

You didn't think she would die?

No.

Recently, the national chief of police contacted me and asked me to contact Thomas regarding his interview, and they want to use it as an example of how not to interview a child. And I think that's very telling.

After his admission, the police leave Thomas on his own to confront his mother.

You want to tell her with me here?

He whispers in her ear that he didn't kill his sister, before declaring his guilt out loud.

Mom?

Mm-hm.

[INAUDIBLE]. OK, you understand? I did it. I'm the one who did that to Kaylee.

Why?

It was an accident. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

Then he consoles her. To this day, the investigation into the murder of young Kaylee remains unresolved.

The reason the questioning of Thomas went so badly is that the police are still focusing on confessions rather than evidence. Of the 301 prisoners on death row or serving life sentences in the United States that were later proved innocent, about 90 had made false confessions during interrogations that had been wrongly conducted.