We all know someone whom we respect and admire. It may be a teacher, coach, pastor, scout master, friend or parent. Assume that we committed a crime of some sort and this admired individual sat down and said:
"We both know you made a mistake and we also both know that theright thing to do is to tell the truth. For everyone concerned let people know why this thing happened. Did you plan this out, or did it just happen on the spur of the moment? I don't' think that you would ever plan something like this out, it was just the spur of the moment, wasn't it?"
Because of the established trust and respect felt toward this individual, we would very likely listen to his statements, nod our head in agreement, and confess that what we did happened on the spur of the moment.
On the other hand, if the person who said these words was a stranger whom we believed was just out to punish us and did not care about our well being, reputation or self-image, we would likely challenge the individual to prove our guilt and continue to deny involvement in the offense. The difference between these two situations is that in the first the communicator has an established rapport with the suspect.
In most professional interactions (physician, attorney, therapists, investigator) rapport is defined as "a relationship marked by trust and conformity." In other words, if my doctor recommends that I get a particular medical test I will schedule the test because I trust the advice of my physician and perceive her/him as looking out for my best interests and acting as an advocate for me.
For obvious legal reasons, an investigator should not make statements designed to convince a suspect that he or she is acting as an advocate for the suspect. However, to be effective the investigator must try to legally convince the suspect that he is someone who can be trusted and is a fair and objective person.