Case: Domestic Assault – s. 266 CC Suspect: [Male – 34] (Referred to as "Mark" for this script) Victim: [Female – 27] (Referred to as "Sarah") Interviewer: Cst. Clarke #1234 Strategy: Normalization of Escalation + Identity Preservation (Good Partner vs. Bad Moment)
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
START TIME: 21:45 hrs LOCATION: District Facility – Interview Room 2 PRESENT: Cst. Clarke, Suspect (Mark)
(SCENE SETTING: The room is arranged according to the book's guidelines. No barriers between the officer and Mark. Cst. Clarke sits at a 45-degree angle. Mark is seated in the corner, looking down, smelling slightly of alcohol but coherent. His body language is closed and defensive.)
CST. CLARKE: Hey Mark. Thanks for sitting down with me. I know it’s been a chaotic couple of hours. Are you warm enough in here?
MARK: (Arms crossed, staring at the table) I’m fine.
CST. CLARKE: Okay. Before we get into anything, I want to make sure you’re comfortable. Can I get you some water or a coffee?
MARK: Just water.
CST. CLARKE: (Nods) I can do that. Give me one second.
(Cst. Clarke steps out, returns with a cup of water, and places it gently on the table near Mark, not forcing it on him.)
CST. CLARKE: There you go. Take your time.
MARK: Thanks.
CST. CLARKE: Mark, before we talk about what happened tonight, we need to handle the legal side of things properly. I know I read you your rights at the house, but I’m going to do it again here so it’s on audio and video. I want to be 100% sure you understand everything.
MARK: I already talked to the lawyer.
CST. CLARKE: I know, and that’s good. But I need to confirm a few things for the record. You understand that you do not have to say anything to me? You have the right to remain silent.
MARK: Yeah.
CST. CLARKE: And you understand that you have the right to speak to a lawyer again if you feel you need to?
MARK: I’m good with what he said.
CST. CLARKE: Okay. And just so we are clear: Are you choosing to talk to me voluntarily right now?
MARK: I guess so. I just want to clear this up.
CST. CLARKE: (Operating Mind Check) I know you had a few drinks earlier tonight. I can smell it a little bit. Are you feeling clear-headed enough to have this conversation? Can you tell me in your own words what you’re charged with?
MARK: Assault. For hitting Sarah. Which I didn't do.
CST. CLARKE: Okay. We will get to that. But you understand the charge and where you are?
MARK: Yeah.
PHASE 1: RAPPORT & BASELINE
(Cst. Clarke leans back, adopting a low, non-judgmental tone. He does not open the file folder yet.)
CST. CLARKE: Look, Mark, I’m not here to lecture you. I’ve been doing this job a long time, and I know that by the time police get called to a house, usually a thousand things have gone wrong before that moment. Nobody plans for their Tuesday night to end up in a police station. How are you holding up right now? Honestly.
MARK: This is bullshit. I shouldn’t be here. She’s overreacting.
CST. CLARKE: I hear you. It’s frustrating when you feel like the story is one-sided. It feels unfair.
MARK: It is unfair.
CST. CLARKE: Tell me a bit about you guys. How long have you been together?
MARK: About four years. Living together for two.
CST. CLARKE: Four years is a decent amount of time. You guys built a life together. You working right now?
MARK: Yeah, construction. Framing.
CST. CLARKE: That’s hard work on the body. Long days?
MARK: Yeah, we’re pushing to finish a site before the snow really hits. I’m doing like ten, twelve hours.
CST. CLARKE: Man, that’s heavy. So you’re working twelve-hour days, busting your back, coming home tired... that puts a lot of pressure on a guy. You’re trying to provide, keep the house going. That’s a lot of stress to carry.
MARK: Yeah, well, somebody has to pay the bills.
CST. CLARKE: Exactly. You sound like a guy who takes that responsibility seriously. You want to make sure the home is taken care of.
MARK: I try.
(NOTE: Rapport is established using "Identity Reinforcement." Clarke frames Mark as a hardworking provider, not a criminal. This lowers Mark's defensiveness.)
PHASE 2: ESTABLISHING EMOTIONAL CONTEXT (THEME: JEALOUSY & INSECURITY)
CST. CLARKE: So you come home today, you’re tired from the site. You crack a drink to unwind. That’s pretty standard for a lot of guys. Walk me through the vibe in the house when you got home. Was it tense right away, or did it build up?
MARK: It was fine at first. Then she started talking about her day.
CST. CLARKE: Okay. And what part of that conversation started to shift the mood?
MARK: She said she had lunch with this guy, Dave. Some guy from high school she hasn’t seen in years.
CST. CLARKE: Ah. Okay. I get that. Look, Mark, I’m a guy too. You’re working twelve hours a day to pay the bills, you come home, and you hear she’s out having lunch with an old boyfriend or guy friend... that’s going to sting. Anyone would feel a certain way about that.
MARK: exactly. Why does she need to see him?
CST. CLARKE: It brings up questions, right? It makes you wonder where you stand. It’s not about being controlling; it’s about feeling respected in your own relationship. So that starts eating at you. You’re having a few drinks, thinking about it... does that sound about right?
MARK: Yeah. I asked her why she didn’t tell me before she went. She got defensive.
CST. CLARKE: And when one person gets defensive, usually the other person gets louder to be heard. It’s a cycle. So you guys are arguing. It starts verbal. Where are you in the house when it really starts heating up?
MARK: In the living room.
(NOTE: Clarke has successfully deployed the "Normalization of Jealousy" theme. Instead of judging Mark for being jealous (which creates shame), he validates the feeling to keep Mark talking.)
PHASE 3: THE DENIAL & SOFT CONFRONTATION
CST. CLARKE: So you’re in the living room. Voices are raised. You’re frustrated because you feel disrespected. She’s defensive. Mark, I spoke to Sarah. I saw her face. She has a pretty significant bruise coming up under her left eye. There’s swelling there. I need to understand how we got from an argument about Dave to her having a black eye.
MARK: (Immediately tense) I didn’t punch her. I don’t know what she told you, but I didn’t punch her.
CST. CLARKE: (Calm, doesn’t argue) Okay. You didn’t punch her. Here is the problem I have, Mark. I was at the house. I saw the injury myself. It’s fresh. It’s red. It’s right there. And there’s nobody else in the house. Just you and her. Now, if I put that in front of a judge—you, her, an argument about another guy, alcohol, and a fresh black eye—they are going to assume the worst. They are going to assume you lost your temper and unloaded on her. I don’t want them to assume that if it’s not true. If you didn’t walk up and cold-clock her like a stranger, then something else happened in that chaos.
MARK: Maybe she bumped into something. She fell on the couch.
CST. CLARKE: (Soft Confrontation) Mark, look at me. You work construction. You know physics. People don’t get a focused, round bruise under their eye from falling on a soft couch cushion. That injury comes from impact. I don’t think you’re a guy who beats his wife. I think you’re a guy who was exhausted, had a few drinks, got hit with some heavy jealousy news, and things spiraled out of control fast. There is a big difference between a guy who beats women for fun, and a good guy who had a really, really bad split-second reaction. Which one are you?
MARK: I’m not a wife-beater.
CST. CLARKE: I believe you. I really do. But the only way we show that is by explaining how that contact happened. Because right now, the injury says "contact." Did she get in your face?
MARK: Yeah. She was yelling right in my face. Telling me I’m crazy.
CST. CLARKE: That’s hard to handle. She’s in your space. You’ve had a few drinks. Your adrenaline is spiking. When people are in that state—yelling, close proximity, hands flying—accidents happen. Reactions happen faster than we can think. Is it possible, Mark, that while you were trying to make your point, or trying to get her out of your face, your hand connected with her?
MARK: (Hesitates, looks down) I just... I wanted her to back off.
(NOTE: The Pivot Point. Clarke offered the "Accidental/Reactionary Contact" theme. Mark is moving away from total denial.)
PHASE 4: THEME DEVELOPMENT (INTENT VS. ACTION)
CST. CLARKE: Exactly. You wanted space. You weren't trying to hurt her; you were trying to stop the arguing. When you say you wanted her to back off... did you push her? Did you swing your arm to gesture? Walk me through that motion.
MARK: I swung my arm. Like, "Get away from me."
CST. CLARKE: Okay. That makes sense. You’re frustrated. You swing your arm to create distance. And because you guys were so close, and maybe the alcohol threw off the coordination a bit... that’s when it happened?
MARK: Yeah. I think my hand caught her.
CST. CLARKE: (Actus Reus Confirmation) Okay. So your hand made contact with her face?
MARK: Yeah.
CST. CLARKE: And it was your right hand?
MARK: Yeah.
CST. CLARKE: (Reframing for Intent) But here is the key, Mark. Did you wind up and try to knock her out? Or was this a reaction to the heat of the moment?
MARK: It was a reaction! I didn’t mean to give her a shiner. I felt bad right away.
CST. CLARKE: I believe you. That’s why you stopped, right? You didn’t keep going. You went to the bedroom.
MARK: Yeah. I just wanted it to stop.
CST. CLARKE: See, that tells me a lot. A violent guy keeps going. A good guy who makes a mistake realizes it immediately and stops. So, just to be clear for my notes, so I can explain this properly: You guys were arguing. It got heated. She was in your face. You swung your right arm to get space, and you hit her in the face. But you didn’t intend to cause that injury.
MARK: Yeah. That’s what happened.
(NOTE: Full admission of the act obtained. Mark has admitted to the assault but preserved his dignity by framing it as a "reaction" rather than malice. This is sufficient for the charge but increases the likelihood of a guilty plea later because he feels "heard.")
PHASE 5: LEGAL ELEMENTS & CONSOLIDATION
CST. CLARKE: Mark, I appreciate you being honest. It takes guts to own that. I have to ask a couple of technical questions just to be thorough. You weren’t defending yourself, right? She didn’t hit you first?
MARK: No, she didn’t hit me. She was just yelling.
CST. CLARKE: Okay. So there was no physical threat to you, just the emotional heat.
MARK: Yeah.
CST. CLARKE: And you know that even if she’s yelling, you can’t strike her. You know that’s against the law.
MARK: I know. I messed up.
CST. CLARKE: Okay. We are going to move forward from here. You’re going to be held for a hearing tonight because of the domestic nature of this. I can’t promise you what the Justice of the Peace will decide about release. I can’t promise what the judge will do down the road. But what I can do is write down exactly what you told me: that this wasn’t a malicious attack, it was a reaction during a heated argument that you regret. Does that sound like a fair summary?
MARK: Yeah. Thanks.
CST. CLARKE: (Oickle Firewall) Just so we are crystal clear: I am not making you any deals here. I’m just taking your statement. The court decides the rest. You understand that?
MARK: I get it.
CST. CLARKE: Okay. I’m going to type up that summary. We’re done here for now.
END TIME: 22:18 hrs
CASE ANALYSIS: WHY THIS SCRIPT WORKS
Preparation (The Funnel): The officer identified jealousy and alcohol as the drivers. He anticipated the denial ("I didn't punch her") and prepared a minimization theme ("It was a reaction, not an attack").
Rapport: The officer validated Mark's hard work and stress before discussing the crime. This built a bank of trust.
The Pivot: When Mark denied the punch, the officer didn't argue facts ("Yes you did!"). He argued logic ("Bruises don't come from couches") and offered a face-saving alternative ("Accidental/Reactionary Contact").
Identity Preservation: The officer constantly reinforced that Mark is a "provider" and a "good guy," allowing Mark to admit the act without admitting to being a "wife-beater."
Legal Safety:
Operating Mind: Checked immediately due to alcohol consumption.
Voluntariness: Re-confirmed at the start.
Oickle Firewall: Used at the end to ensure Mark didn't think his confession bought him a "deal."
This interview moves from Resistance -> Reluctance -> Explanation -> Admission in a smooth, legally defensible arc.
Based on the case file for Domestic Assault (s. 266 CC) involving Mark (34) and Sarah (27), here is a second, distinct interview script.
Strategic Pivot:
While the first interview used a "Supportive/Identity" approach (treating Mark as a good guy who had an accident), this interview uses a "Rational/Control the Narrative" approach. This strategy targets a suspect who is angry, feels victimized by the situation, and is motivated by a desire to "set the record straight."
Key Theme: Provocation & The "Empty Chair" (If you don't speak, her version becomes the only version).
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
CASE: Domestic Assault (s. 266 CC)
DATE: 14 November 2025
TIME: 22:10 hrs
INTERVIEWER: Sgt. A. Tremblay (Adopted Persona: The Pragmatic Veteran)
SUSPECT: Mark [Last Name]
(SCENE SETTING: Sgt. Tremblay enters the room holding a single file folder. He does not sit immediately. He places the folder on the table, pours two glasses of water, places one near Mark, and takes a slow sip from his own. He is establishing a calm, deliberate pace to counter Mark’s agitation.)
SGT. TREMBLAY: Alright, Mark. I’m Sergeant Tremblay. I’m going to be handling this file from here on out. I know you’ve already spoken to the arresting officer, but I like to hear things directly. I don’t like playing telephone.
MARK: (Aggitated, knee bouncing) I already told the other cop I didn’t do anything.
SGT. TREMBLAY: I see that in the notes. And we’ll get to that. But first, we do this by the book. No shortcuts.
I know you were read your rights at the scene. I know you talked to a lawyer.
I need to confirm for the video: Do you understand that you have the right to remain silent?
MARK: Yes.
SGT. TREMBLAY: Do you understand you have the right to speak to counsel again if you need to?
MARK: I’m good.
SGT. TREMBLAY: (Operating Mind Assessment) I can smell the alcohol, Mark. It’s been a few hours since the call came in, but I need to be sure. Do you know where you are? Do you know why you’re here?
MARK: I’m at the station. Because Sarah called the cops and made up a story.
SGT. TREMBLAY: Okay. So you’re tracking everything fine. You’re choosing to talk to me voluntarily?
MARK: Whatever. Yeah. I just want to go home.
SGT. TREMBLAY: I get that. Let’s see if we can make sense of this.
PHASE 1: RAPPORT (THE "TWO SIDES" APPROACH)
SGT. TREMBLAY: Mark, here is the reality of my job. I get dispatched to a house. I have two people. Usually, both of them are upset. Usually, both of them have had a few drinks. And usually, their stories are completely different.
Right now, I have Sarah’s story. It’s written down. It’s detailed.
And then I have you saying "I didn't do anything."
The problem is, "I didn't do anything" isn't a story. It’s a wall. And walls don’t help me understand what actually happened in that living room.
MARK: Because nothing happened! We argued. That’s it. Since when is arguing a crime?
SGT. TREMBLAY: It isn’t. You’re absolutely right. Couples argue. I’ve been married fifteen years; I know what an argument looks like.
But arguments have context. They have triggers.
You guys have been together, what? Four years?
MARK: Yeah.
SGT. TREMBLAY: That’s a real relationship. That’s not a fling. You’ve invested time, money, and emotion into this woman.
You strike me as a guy who doesn’t get worked up over nothing. You work construction, right?
MARK: Yeah.
SGT. TREMBLAY: So you deal with stress all day. You deal with deadlines, safety issues, physical labor. You know how to keep your cool on a job site.
So for things to pop off at home tonight, something specific must have happened. You didn’t just walk in the door and start yelling for fun.
MARK: No. She started it.
SGT. TREMBLAY: (Nods) Okay. Now we’re getting somewhere. Tell me about that. How did she start it?
(ANNOTATION: Tremblay uses the "Validation of Grievance" technique. By accepting that Mark feels provoked, he lowers the barrier to the narrative. He is not agreeing with the violence, but he is validating the anger.)
PHASE 2: THE NARRATIVE (LOCKING IN THE CONFLICT)
MARK: I came home, I was tired. I just wanted to relax. She starts going on about her day, acting all innocent, and then drops that she was out with Dave.
SGT. TREMBLAY: Dave?
MARK: Some guy from high school. An ex-boyfriend, basically. She says they’re "just friends." Bullshit.
SGT. TREMBLAY: I see. So she goes out with an ex, doesn’t tell you beforehand, and then springs it on you after you’ve worked a twelve-hour shift?
MARK: Exactly! It’s disrespectful.
SGT. TREMBLAY: I agree. That would frustrate a lot of men. It feels like she’s hiding things.
So you confront her about it.
MARK: Yeah. I asked her why she didn’t tell me.
SGT. TREMBLAY: And how did she react? Did she apologize?
MARK: No! She went off. Started calling me controlling. Said I’m jealous and insecure. She knows I hate that.
SGT. TREMBLAY: She knows what buttons to push.
MARK: She presses them on purpose. She likes seeing me get mad.
SGT. TREMBLAY: (Theme Building: Provocation) That’s an important detail, Mark. Some people argue to solve a problem. Some people argue to win. It sounds like she was trying to get a rise out of you.
She’s poking at you, calling you names, dismissing your feelings about this other guy.
You’ve had a few drinks, you’re tired, and she’s just drilling into you.
Where did this happen?
MARK: Living room.
SGT. TREMBLAY: Okay. You’re standing? Sitting?
MARK: Standing. I was trying to walk away, go to the bedroom, but she kept following me.
(ANNOTATION: Mark is now providing the "Provocation" narrative. This is critical. He is admitting to the escalation and the intensity of the event, which makes a total denial of physical contact less plausible later.)
PHASE 3: THE CONFRONTATION (THE EVIDENCE WALL)
SGT. TREMBLAY: So she’s following you. She’s in your space. She’s yelling. You’re feeling cornered in your own house.
Mark, I’m going to show you something. I want you to look at it calmly.
(Tremblay opens the folder and slides a single 8x10 colour photo across the table. It is the photo of Sarah’s face, showing the swelling and bruising starting under her left eye.)
SGT. TREMBLAY: Take a look at that.
MARK: (Looks, then looks away quickly) Yeah. I saw it.
SGT. TREMBLAY: That is a fresh injury. That didn’t happen yesterday. That didn’t happen at work. That happened tonight, in that living room, while she was following you and pushing your buttons.
Now, you told me "nothing happened."
But that photo says something happened.
Physics says something happened.
I need you to help me square these two things. Because right now, "nothing happened" is a lie. And I don’t think you want to be a liar. I think you want to be heard.
MARK: She probably did it to herself. Or she fell.
SGT. TREMBLAY: (Stops. Looks Mark in the eye. Silence for five seconds.)
Mark. Stop.
You’re a smart guy. Do not insult my intelligence.
We checked the house. We checked the couch. There’s nothing sharp she fell on. That is a blunt force impact. That is a strike.
If you stick with "she did it to herself," you are telling the judge that this woman, who you love, is a psychopath who beats her own face in just to frame you.
Is that who she is? Is she crazy?
MARK: She’s... no. She’s not crazy. She’s just dramatic.
SGT. TREMBLAY: Okay. So she didn’t do it to herself.
That leaves you.
But here is the million-dollar question, Mark. This is the only question that matters right now.
Did you punch her because you wanted to hurt her? Because you’re a violent guy who likes beating women?
OR...
Did she push you, and push you, and get in your face, and scream at you about this other guy, until you just snapped and lashed out to make it stop?
Because one of those is a predator. And one of them is a human being who lost control for one second.
(ANNOTATION: This is the "Alternative Question" technique (common in Reid, but adapted here for cognitive interviewing). It offers two choices: a socially unacceptable motive (predator) and a more acceptable motive (loss of control). Suspects almost always choose the latter.)
PHASE 4: THEME DEVELOPMENT (LOSS OF CONTROL)
MARK: I’m not a predator. I work hard. I take care of her.
SGT. TREMBLAY: I know that. That’s why "nothing happened" doesn’t fit.
Tell me about the moment she was in your face. She’s yelling about Dave. She’s calling you insecure. She’s right there.
Your adrenaline is spiking. The alcohol is in your system, lowering your fuse.
You just wanted her to shut up, right? You wanted the noise to stop.
MARK: She wouldn’t stop! She was right in my face, spitting while she yelled.
SGT. TREMBLAY: That’s disrespectful. It’s aggressive.
And in that split second, you didn’t think. You reacted.
It wasn’t a plan. It was a reflex.
Tell me what your hand did.
MARK: (Head in hands) I just swung. I just wanted her to back off.
SGT. TREMBLAY: (Softly) There it is. That’s the truth.
You swung. To create space. To stop the noise.
Did you use your fist or your open hand?
MARK: Fist. I think. It happened fast.
SGT. TREMBLAY: (Actus Reus Confirmation) Okay. You used your fist. And you connected with her face?
MARK: Yeah. I heard it.
SGT. TREMBLAY: And what did you do right after? Did you keep hitting her?
MARK: No! I stopped immediately. She fell on the couch and I freaked out. I went to the bedroom.
SGT. TREMBLAY: See, Mark? That proves my point.
A wife-beater keeps hitting. A predator doesn’t stop.
You stopped. You realized immediately that it went too far.
That tells me that the alcohol and the anger took the wheel for one second, and then the real Mark came back.
(ANNOTATION: Tremblay reinforces the admission by validating Mark's character. This prevents Mark from retracting the confession out of shame. He frames the single punch as proof he ISN'T violent, because he stopped.)
PHASE 5: CLARIFYING INTENT (MENS REA)
SGT. TREMBLAY: I need to clarify something important for the report.
When you swung that fist, were you trying to break her orbital bone? Were you trying to send her to the hospital?
MARK: No. God no.
SGT. TREMBLAY: You just wanted the confrontation to end.
MARK: Yes. I just wanted her away from me.
SGT. TREMBLAY: But you knew, in the back of your mind, that swinging a fist at someone’s face is going to cause damage. You know that’s an assault.
MARK: Yeah. I know. I shouldn’t have done it.
SGT. TREMBLAY: You regret it?
MARK: Of course I do. I love her. I just... I saw red.
PHASE 6: CONSOLIDATION & FUTURE FOCUS
SGT. TREMBLAY: Okay.
Mark, you did the right thing here.
If you had stayed with "I didn't do it," the judge would look at that photo, look at you, and see a liar who takes no responsibility.
Now, the judge sees a guy who was pushed to a breaking point, made a terrible mistake, admitted it, and feels remorse.
That is a massive difference.
MARK: Is she okay?
SGT. TREMBLAY: She’s going to be okay. She’s sore. She’s upset. But she’s safe.
We’re going to have to hold you for a hearing tonight because of the domestic history. You know how that works.
I can’t promise you what the Justice of the Peace will say about bail. I can’t promise you what the sentence will be. That’s out of my hands.
(Oickle Disclaimer) I want to be clear: me taking this statement doesn’t cut you a deal. The charge stands.
But what I can promise is that your explanation—the provocation, the lack of intent to injure, the immediate stop—goes into my report. The context goes in.
MARK: Okay. Thanks, Sarge.
SGT. TREMBLAY: I’m going to write up a summary.
"Mark admits to a verbal argument regarding infidelity accusations. States victim was aggressive and in his face. Admits to swinging a closed fist one time in a moment of frustration, striking her left eye. Stopped immediately. Expresses remorse."
Is that accurate?
MARK: Yeah. That’s it.
SGT. TREMBLAY: Okay. We’re done.
END TIME: 22:45 hrs