Respond to the post below.

Handling John Doe carefully involves being considerate when he indicates he is done talking and tries to leave. He seems defensive and believes he has been truthful, so pushing too hard might shut him down completely. According to Reid's Nine Steps of Interrogation, this is a classic Step 7 scenarioposing an alternative question that allows him to save face. Instead of accusing him directly, I would present two scenarios: "John, it seems like either you got caught up in something you did not plan, or this is just a misunderstanding. Maybe it was just a spur-of-the-moment thing, and you did not think it through, right?" This approach keeps the conversation open and shows I am trying to understand his side without jumping straight to accusations. It is a strategy that respects his narrative while gently nudging him toward reconsideration (Inbau et al., 2013). Legally, this method does not cross ethical lines because I am not promising anything or coercing him; I am simply offering a way for him to explain without feeling cornered. This aligns with Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which emphasized that suspects must be allowed to speak freely without undue pressure.

Handling Joe Slick is different. He appears open and nods, positioning himself towards me, so I lean into Reid's Step 7 by suggesting an alternative that fits the facts from Officer Oberg's report. I might say, "Joe, maybe this happened because you were in a rough spot. You needed cash for, let's say, something personal, like getting drugs. I get it. People do things they would not normally do when they are desperate." By framing it this way, I am not accusing him outright but giving him a plausible reason to admit guilt without feeling like a criminal mastermind (Inbau et al., 2013).

Moving to Step 8, which involves having the suspect confirm details of their actions, I would use the information from the police report prepared by Officer Oberg to reinforce Joe's admission. I would guide Joe in describing what happened in his own words, asking questions like, "So, you pulled up to the Seven Eleven in your Camry, right? Furthermore, you were wearing that Yankees cap like the video shows. Tell me about what you were thinking when you walked in." This method helps solidify the confession by getting Joe to recount specific details, strengthening his admission's credibility, and ensuring his story aligns with the evidence (Inbau et al., 2013).

Once Joe admits to the crime and confirms the details, we move into Step 9, which involves turning that verbal confession into a written one. To do this, I would calmly encourage Joe by saying, "All right, Joe, you have been upfront with me, and that is good. Now, we need to get this down on paper just like you told me to ensure your side of the story is clear." This step is not about pressuring him but making the transition from a spoken to a written statement as seamless as possible, ensuring Joe understands his writing and why it is crucial. It is critical not to make false promises of leniency, which could undermine the confession's validity (Inbau et al., 2013).Ethically, throughout these steps, it's essential to maintain a balance: getting to the truth without resorting to manipulation. The Reid Technique, a method we can trust, is designed to draw out honest admissions. It's our job to ensure these confessions remain voluntary and within legal boundaries, respecting each suspect's rights at every step.