Analysis of MKULTRA, 1977 Joint Hearing (Part 9)

by Dr. Jeffrey Russell, PhD

[Report on Truth Serums from Admiral Turner at the request of Senator Wallop]
“Truth” Drugs in Interrogation

The search for effective aids to interrogation seeks to obtain information from a subject who does not
provide it voluntarily. Direct physical coercion has at times been substituted by police in the belief that
quick results could be obtained. More recently, police in some countries have resorted to drugs for
extracting confessions from the accused subject. These drugs work by relaxing the person’s defenses to
the point that he unknowingly reveals the truths he was trying to conceal. This technique, which is more
humanitarian than physical torture, still raised serious questions of individual rights and liberties. In this
country, drugs have only gained marginal acceptance with police due to their controversial nature.
The use of “truth” drugs in police work is similar to the accepted psychiatric practice of narco-analysis. The
difference between the two lies in their objectives. The investigator is interested in empirical truth which
may be used against the suspect, this being probative truth. The psychiatrist is primarily concerned with
psychological truth, which may be real for the subject only. The term “truth serum” is a double misnomer in
that it is not a sera or serum and it does not necessarily lead to the probative truth.
Even if the Western countries prohibit the use of narco-interrogation, the agencies must at least be
prepared for their use by an adversary. An understanding of these drugs along with their actions and
possible negative or positive effects in eliciting useful information is fundamental to an adequate defense
against them. The following discussion is based mainly on criminal investigative practices and drug
psychotherapy.

Scopolamine as “Truth Serum”

In the early part of the 20th century, physicians began using scopolamine as an aide in child birth, along
with morphine and chloroform. It was known to produce sedation and drowsiness, confusion and
disorientation, incoordination, and amnesia for events experienced under the drug. Physicians noted that
women under the drug answered questions accurately and volunteered information readily.
In 1922, Robert House (a Dallas obstetrician) got the idea to use the drug on suspected criminals to get a
confession. He arranged to interrogate two prisoners accused of a crime and both men affirmed their
innocence, not guilt. Later, in a court trial they were found not guilty. House reasoned that under the
influence of the drug, “the subject cannot create a lie and there is no power to think or reason.” Publicity of
his findings attracted wide attention and the idea of a “truth” drug was launched.
The phrase “truth serum” was first used in the Los Angeles Record in 1922 describing House’s experiment.
He published 11 articles on scopolamine between 1921 and 1929. Only a handful of cases in which the
drug was used in police interrogations came to public notice. The threat of a scopolamine interrogation
was enough to make some criminals confess a priori.
Because of a number of undesirable side effects, it was shortly disqualified as a “truth” drug. The side
effects include hallucinations, disturbed perception, somnolence, headaches, blurred vision, and rapid
pulse.
The Barbiturates

By the 1930s, many psychiatrists were experimenting with drugs in coordination with the regular therapy. At
about this time police officials began looking at barbiturates as an aide in interrogations. This work was
hampered by court’s reluctance to admit the testimony of drugged suspects. At the time of this report, over
2,500 different barbiturates had been synthesized and about two dozen had won an important place in
accepted medical practices. In the mid-1070s, there were 3 to 4 billion doses of these drugs prescribed in
the US annually. Three of these drugs have been used as “truth” drugs which are amobarbital, thiopental,
and secobarbital.
The drug effects have been divided into different stages from sedation to death (overdose). The later part of
the sedative phase is called the “work phase”, which may only last a few minutes.
Clinical and Experimental Studies

There is a general abhorrence in Western countries for the use of chemical agents to make a person do
things against their will. [Note: This is an obvious blatant violation of free will.] This belief has dampened
systematic studies of the potentialities of drugs for interrogation. Gerson and Victoroff conducted amytal
interviews with 17 soldiers who had charges against them at Fort Dix. The technique was to first put the
subject completely under and when they began to regain consciousness begin the
interrogation/questioning. The doctor would continue short injections of the drug to keep the subject in a
twilight state. They found that their methods sometimes were successful, but more often than not mostly
unreliable. Other studies reflected the same problem of reliability. One study used stimulants which would
make the subject very talkative, but reliability was still an issue.

Observations from Practice

Dr. MacDonald, a Denver Courts psychiatrist has had extensive experience with narcoanalysis states that
drug interrogation is of doubtful value in obtaining criminal confessions. Other practitioners claim that drugs
are only effective on suspects that would have revealed their crime anyway under normal interrogation
methods. In summary, the professionals all agree that drug-induced confessions are of doubtful validity as
empirical truth.
 Application to CI Interrogation

CI is the acronym for counterintelligence. The spotty nature of studies and practices of using “truth” drugs
require that extrapolations to intelligence operations be made with care. It should be clear from previous
data that at best a drug can only serve as an aid to an interrogator who understands the psychology and
techniques of normal interrogation. One fact that comes out of previous work with these drugs is that a
subject in narcosis is extremely suggestible. Most of the previous studies/practices are between a trusted
professional and the subject. Rarely has a drug interrogation involved “normal” individuals in a hostile or
threatening setting. Usually, the rapport between the interrogator and the subject is of high importance in
getting a satisfactory result. But, there remains one facet of drug action eminently exploitable in
interrogation—the fact that subjects emerge from narcosis feeling they have revealed a great deal, even if
they did not. This is a major opening for a skilled interrogator in extracting genuine confessions.

Possible Variations
One variation of narco-interrogation is to administer a placebo instead of the actual drug in stressful
situations, it has been shown to be somewhat effective. Another possibility is the combination of drugs and
hypnosis for interrogation. Other tests have shown that the use of sodium pentothal as an aid to hypnosis
is sometimes effective in deepening the hypnosis for a better response from the subject.

Defensive Measures

The only full safeguard against narco-interrogation is to prevent the administration of the drug. The next
best defense is for the subject to deny everything regardless. Another effective way would be to do a “dry
run” of narco-interrogation in a controlled environment where the subject’s responses are recorded so they
can watch them later and devise a detailed defense. Also, these drugs have least effect on well-adjusted
individuals with good defenses and emotional control. The essential resources for resistance appear to lie
within the individual.

Conclusions

No magic brew of the popular “truth serum” exists. Barbiturates may be helpful in interrogation but they do
elicit an output contaminated by deception, fantasy, garbled speech, etc. One major vulnerability they
produce in the subject is a tendency to believe he has revealed more that he really has. It is possible for
anyone to resist narco-interrogation. It seems that anyone that can resist a normal interrogation can also
resist a narco-interrogation. The best aid to defend against narco-interrogation is foreknowledge of the
process and its limitations. There is still an acute need for controlled experiments on these drugs and
combinations of other drugs.
[End of Report on Truth Serums]