by MAC-3
Move with compassion, and continue to use the hidden persuaders throughout the primary phase. Without being obvious, try to imply that you are seeking the interviewee’s permission to ask the questions as you proceed. Avoid hasty conclusions and accusations. Don’t abruptly stop interviewing and begin trying to gain an admission or confession. Remember that culpable individuals hesitate to reveal a truth that brings shame, embarrassment, and possible punishment. As a lead-in to using the bones, you might say, “As I mentioned before, I’m trying to determine how the loss occurred.
So, let me ask you a few questions.” Then proceed with the following series of questions, remembering to remain flexible and keeping in mind the value of the floating-point strategy.
The Narration Question
At some logical point during the primary phase, ask the interviewee to tell you what happened—what he or she knows of the incident under investigation. Truthful interviewees tend to provide smooth-flowing narratives that have been clearly thought out. They may offer suggestions to help you solve the matter. Untruthful interviewees will weigh everything they say, causing awkward pauses in their narration. Once the narrative is complete, review and summa-rize details to ensure that the report is complete. Allow the interviewee unrestricted recall, then ask specific questions to uncover details. All the while, take notes to show that you are attentive.
128
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
The “You” Question
Address the interviewee by name, and begin this question by saying, “It’s important to get this matter cleared up.” Briefly review the reported incident, and explain that you are asking these questions in an effort to determine what happened. The “You” question might take several forms. Here are a few examples:
“If you’re the one who did it, it’s important to get it cleared up. How do you stand on this? Did you steal the traveler’s checks?”
“The report claims that you spoke with Rita just before the fire broke out. If you did, it’s important to get this straightened out and clear things up. Jim, let me ask, did you have any contact with Rita just before the fire broke out?”
An interviewee who has a high level of shame and remorse and cannot stand the stress of the investigation may provide a full confession at this point. This is a rare occurrence, however.
Do not ask the “You” question accusingly, and do nothing to suggest that the interviewee is responsible for the incident or is lying. Instead, adopt a positive tone of open curiosity. “If the interviewee is hiding something, your genuine curiosity will provoke unease and evasion exhibited by such outward signs as squirming and preening. Such signs of evasion and possible deception may take place in about a hundredth of a second. You should be attentive and notice these signals without being obvious (Yeschke 1993, p. 93).
The “Who” Question
You might begin the “Who” question with a preamble, such as,
“Knowing for sure who did set the fire in the warehouse is one thing, but having suspicions is something else. Do you know for sure who set the fire?” The interviewee will probably answer negatively, which leads easily into the next question.
Overview of the Interview Process 129
The “Suspicion” Question
Then you might say, “Okay, you don’t know for sure who did it.
But let me ask: Do you have any suspicions of who might have set the fire?” Quickly add the caveat, “Keep in mind that I’m not asking you to be malicious, to arbitrarily point a finger at anyone or anything like that, because that wouldn’t be fair. I’m just wondering if anyone has done anything or said anything to cause you to think they might have set the fire. Can you think of anyone who might have been involved?” Typical responses from nonculpable interviewees include these: “I can’t imagine who did it or why.”
“I can’t believe it even happened here.” “If one of my coworkers did it, he would have to be a Jekyll-and-Hyde personality.”
The “Trust” Question
This question usually takes the form, “Who comes to mind that you trust? Who, do you think, could not possibly have stolen the computer equipment?” or “Of all the people who had the opportunity, who, do you think, would not have taken the money?”
The “Verification” Question
“After considering the situation, do you think the money was really stolen, or do you think the theft report is false?” The culpable may say they don’t think the loss was caused by theft. “It must have been a mistake or misplaced in some way.” The blameless tend to acknowledge the report as correct, saying the theft was real.
The “Approach” Question
“Life presents many temptations for all of us. Let me ask you this: Have any of the truckers ever asked you to divert a cargo?” The blameless interviewee acknowledges that there was some discussion but never took it seriously enough to mention. The culpable ones latch on to such discussions as an opportunity to cast blame on others and report that discussions took place.
130
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
The “Thoughts” Question
“There are so many demands and pressures on people in their daily lives that they occasionally fantasize about doing things.
Now, as far as you’re concerned, do you recall ever thinking of having sex with Mary Sue even though you never actually did?”
To report a fantasy of having sex with Mary Sue tell me that the culpable interviewee considers the thinking meaningful, memo-rable enough to recall. “Well, there have been times when she rubs herself against me and I think she really wants me to touch her sexually.” The innocent do not consider such fleeting moments significant and deny involvement.
The “Instruction” Question
This question is useful when investigating charges of child sexual abuse. “Many people teach their kids about sex as they’re growing up. After all, it’s the responsibility of the parent to teach their children about things like health. You certainly don’t want anyone taking advantage of them. What comes to mind about telling your kids things about sex?”
The “Willingness” Question
“If the investigation shows that you actually did leave the store with groceries you didn’t pay for, would you be willing to explain it and get this matter straightened out? Would you be willing to pay for those missing things?”
The “Consequences” Questions
The next few questions ask the interviewee about the consequences for certain actions. For example, you might ask, “Let’s assume that we find out the report was not true. What should happen to Jane for her false accusation?” Then, give time for the response and do not rush to ask the second question: “If we find
Overview of the Interview Process 131
out who took Jane’s purse, what should happen to that person?”
The culpable will want to give the thief a break, while the nonculpable will want to see the culpable caught.
If the interviewee does not suggest jail for the guilty party, ask,
“How about jail for that person?” Innocent interviewees usually respond, “I should think so! That pervert!” or something to that effect. They answer smoothly, giving their judgment without hesitation. The deceptive, on the other hand, tend to be lenient toward the guilty party or evasive in their responses. They might say, for example, “Well, jail seems a little harsh,” or “It really depends on the circumstances. Maybe the person was under a lot of stress.”
Stress, then later, could be the basis of an interrogative approach.
The “Kind to Do It” Question
Your next question might be, “What kind of person do you think would do something like this?” Nonculpable people quickly provide an appropriate response, such as, “Some sick person!”
or “Someone who doesn’t care about making us go through this.” The deceptive will tend to rationalize or evade the question, responding, “Someone who is under a lot of pressure!” or
<
br /> “I’m not that kind of person! I’m not a pervert!”
The “Why It Happened” Question
Then you might ask, “Why do you think a person would do this sort of thing?” You might expect the nonculpable to respond quickly and clearly, “I have no idea,” whereas the culpable might respond, “No reason!” or “There’s a divorce case!” or “The people here aren’t paid enough!” The culpable often try to give the thief an excuse or rationalization.
The “They Say You Did It” Question
When you ask, “Is there any reason for anyone to say you broke into the storeroom?” innocent interviewees might respond, “No, I don’t think so. I didn’t do it.” They will appear to consider
132
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
whether they could have given anyone a reason to suspect them.
Rather than squirm and look guilty, they may furrow their brow, squint, or look contemplative. This body language is fleeting and difficult to fake convincingly.
The “They Say They Saw You” Question
Follow up the preceding question with, “Is there any reason that anyone might say they saw you breaking into the storeroom?”
The innocent might say, “No, because I didn’t do it!” They will respond quickly and without contemplation because they don’t need deep thought to know what they did. The culpable party might say, “Well, let me see. . . . Uh, no, I don’t think so.”
The “What Would You Say” Question
This question asks the interviewee to think about the person responsible for the incident. Ask something like this: “Let’s assume the ring was actually stolen. If the guilty person were here standing before you, what would you say to him or her?”
Interviewees with nothing to hide often respond, “What you did was wrong!” or “That was a stupid thing to do!” The response will come quickly and smoothly, often as an angry blast of indignation and condemnation. Deceptive interviewees will often be hard-pressed to find words of condemnation.
The “Expanding Inquiry” Question
“Do you mind having the investigation extend beyond your family to your neighbors and coworkers?” The culpable may hesitate to have an inquiry go out of the immediate work area. If it is brought to the attention of friends and neighbors, someone may comment on what seemed like suspicious behavior, such as a recent vacation or large purchase. The nonculpable ones don’t mind the extended inquiry because they generally don’t have anything to hide.
Overview of the Interview Process 133
THE TERMINAL PHASE
Between points E and F of the polyphasic flowchart (see Figure 9.1) lies the terminal phase, a turning point in the interview. During this phase, the investigator draws a conclusion about the interviewee’s veracity. He or she synthesizes all of the interviewee’s verbal and nonverbal responses into a significant pattern indicating one of the following:
●
Truthfulness
●
Probable truthfulness
●
Possible truthfulness
●
Possible deception
●
Probable deception
●
Deception
The first step in the terminal phase is to determine whether the interviewee has answered your questions fully and truthfully.
The second step involves planning what to do next.
Step 1
By the beginning of the terminal phase, you will have had the opportunity to observe, evaluate, and assess the interviewee, noting how the pattern of his or her responses compares to the totality of the evidence. You will have had enough time to become confident in your conclusion. Generally, one interview will offer sufficient indicators to guide your conclusions, but not always. There are certainly no absolutes in such assessments, but I’m convinced that nonverbal signals are meaningful indicators of deception. I think it’s fair to say, based on my experience, that certain behavior signals characterize deceptive individuals while other behavior signals characterize the truthful. When interviewees are inconsistent or deceptive, it is as though they are trying to force a blue puzzle piece into a space intended for a
134
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
brown piece. Differences become evident when the investigator considers the totality of the circumstances.
Even cooperative interviewees might show some indications of holding back information. Victims may hide some of the details of an incident because they are embarrassed over their victimization. Witnesses may appear to be holding back information because they feel self-conscious about not having done more to aid the victim or stop the thief. On the other hand, inconsistencies in a victim’s or witness’s story may indicate that he or she fabricated the crime. Perhaps the interviewee actually stole the money herself or arranged for a buddy to steal it in a mock holdup. A witness who was a co-conspirator in the crime has good reason to feel uneasy over being questioned about the details of the incident. And of course, the perpetrator will try to hold back information. Criminals with little practice tend to stumble over routine investigative questions, showing telltale signs of involvement.
For a variety of reasons, investigators sometimes enter the terminal phase of an interview without having reached a conclusion about the interviewee’s truthfulness. If this occurs, you might try one of the following:
●
Comment that it looks as if the interviewee has more information to provide.
●
Tell the interviewee that a second interview will be set up in the near future to review a few things.
●
Give the impression that you suspect that the interviewee is hiding or holding back important information.
Step 2
By the end of the terminal phase, after using both the structured and semistructured approaches, evaluate whether there is a need for further interviewing using the nonstructured approach or whether it would be appropriate to seek an admission or a confession through interrogation.
Overview of the Interview Process 135
If this is to be the end of the interview, leave your business card and ask the interviewee to contact you if he or she remembers anything new. If there are inconsistencies that you wish to clarify, you might decide to continue the interview or to schedule another. To verify information that the interviewee has supplied, you might try to schedule a detection-of-deception examination.
No matter what course you choose, maintain rapport. This is not a time to put on the nasty-guy hat.
THE FOLLOW-UP PHASE
The last phase of the interview process is the follow-up phase, which occurs between points F and M on the polyphasic flowchart (see Figure 9.1). During this final phase of the interview process, inconsistencies are resolved, confrontation may take place, and confessions may be obtained. At this point, you have considerable flexibility in applying the floating-point strategy.
Maintain rapport, continue to listen actively, and avoid radical direction (changes of a sweeping or extreme nature) or any use of abuse, coercion, harassment, or intimidation.
Between flowchart points F and G, you might decide to review the interviewee’s responses, point out inconsistencies, and hint at the interviewee’s deception. Seek the truth using increased review and encouragement at this turning point.
Proceed cautiously. A premature announcement of your suspicions may only encourage the interviewee to do a better job of covering the truth.
Step 3
Depending on the circumstances of the investigation, you may decide to pursue one of the following courses:
●
Arrange for the interviewee to take a detection-of-deception examination.
136
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
●
Schedule a new interview with the interviewee, allowing yourself time to prepare for a second interview and possible interrogation.
/>
●
Begin an attempt to gain an admission or confession from the subject.
Once interviewees claim that the information they are providing is truthful, you can ask if they would be willing to undergo a detection-of-deception (polygraph) examination. This suggestion might be made at several places during the process: between points G and H, between points H and I, or about point L on the flowchart.
The timing depends on the situation and on how the suggestion fits into the overall process. Some people will not agree to undergo a polygraph examination no matter how helpful you tell them it will be. Others will be reluctant but will eventually submit to it.
There are two important things to consider before requesting an interviewee to undergo a polygraph examination. First, it is important to be convinced that the polygraph is a practical, functional, and trustworthy investigative tool. Second, you should ensure that the forensic psychophysiologist chosen to administer the examination will provide high-quality, professional service.
Although polygraph examinations are not 100 percent accurate, they have proved to be highly reliable (Yeschke 1993).
Step 4
After attempting to resolve inconsistencies in the interviewee’s story between points F and H, you may decide to take further action. If you are convinced that the interviewee is involved, directly or indirectly, in the matter under investigation, you will reveal this between points H and I. If you are ready to point out inconsistencies in the interviewee’s story, the next thing to do is to announce your conclusion to the interviewee. To begin the interrogation, you might confront the subject by saying, for example,
●
“It looks as if you haven’t told me the whole truth.”
●
“It seems to me that you are holding something back.”
