prelims

by MAC-3

  Between points H and I of the interview process, the interrogator

  Setting, Location, Intensity, and Approach in the Interview 151

  begins to sell the subject on the idea of telling the truth to “get this thing cleared up.” Having taken this road, the interrogator cannot back down—unless he or she becomes convinced that it’s the wrong direction.

  Don’t rush to use intensity level 3 with interviewees as soon as you notice inconsistencies. Make it a general rule to tune in to inconsistencies during the primary phase without pouncing on interviewees because of them. Throughout the interview, gradually focus attention on the inconsistencies and become more assertive in pointing out gaps in the interviewee’s story. Become less accepting of excuses while you begin to challenge the patterns of deception. Sell the interviewee on the idea of willingly divulging the truth.

  Level 4

  This level, used between points I and K on the flowchart, represents a greater intensity of specific review and persistent encouragement than level 3. Sometimes even the victim is found to be lying and is then interrogated. Most interviewees never reach this level of interaction, however, because the investigator decides that they are being truthful. Remember that it is a mistake to interrogate everyone as though they were guilty or deceptive. Level 4 reaches its greatest intensity between points J and K as the interrogator attempts to gain an admission or a confession. (A confession includes several significant incriminatory statements, whereas an admission is one or more incriminatory statements of a more minor nature.) This level of intensity includes greater efforts to help the subject rationalize and save face while he or she confesses total or partial responsibility for the matter under investigation.

  Level 5

  Level 5 is used between points K and M on the flowchart. It represents about the same intensity of specific review and persistent encouragement as in level 4, however, level 5 represents more

  152

  The Art of Investigative Interviewing

  effort by the investigator in reviewing and encouraging more focus of energy and determination. The interrogator moves closer to the subject while showing a greater degree of certainty that the subject committed the crime. More persuasion is used in level 5 to sell the subject on the idea to confess. By this point in the interrogation, the interrogatee may have provided an admission but not a complete confession. At point L, the investigator decides whether to ask the subject to undergo a detection-of-deception examination to confirm the supposedly limited nature of his or her involvement.

  APPROACHES

  The interview process outlined in this book involves three approaches built around the kinds of questions asked. These three approaches—the structured, semistructured, and nonstructured approaches—are illustrated in the polyphasic flowchart in Chapter 9 (see Figure 9.1).

  The Structured Approach

  The structured approach is used at the beginning of the interview and forms the baseline for the investigator’s direct observation, evaluation, and assessment of the interviewee. This approach begins at point Aof the flowchart and ends between points C and D.

  In this portion of the interview, the investigator asks basic fact-finding questions without accusation or intimidation. These questions require less deep thought from the interviewee than those asked during the semistructured and nonstructured modes. To encourage the interviewee to respond, ask questions that he or she can answer easily. I use routine questions for this purpose, such as the spelling of the interviewee’s name, the number of years of schooling, and the type of work done in the past.

  The questions asked in the structured approach are not directly related to solving the investigative problem. Instead, they give the interviewee an opportunity to evaluate the investigator

  Setting, Location, Intensity, and Approach in the Interview 153

  and to determine whether he or she will be treated fairly.

  Everything the investigator does sends a signal to the interviewee.

  Every part of the investigator’s presentation encourages or discourages cooperation. Certainly, if the interviewee is hostile by nature to everyone in authority or is determined to lie, little of what you do and say during the interview will make any difference.

  Often, however, you can nudge reluctant interviewees into a more compliant stance and eventually even nurture the guilty party into a position to admit or confess.

  At first, you can expect some delay in the interviewee’s responses. Do not automatically consider this to be a significant indication of potential deception. Note how clearly the interviewee answers the question; this will help you determine the interviewee’s ability to handle more complex questions later in the interview. The structured portion of the interview is the time to begin building rapport with the interviewee. The structured approach can help establish the relative status of the interview participants and assists in creating a secure feeling for both.

  The Semistructured Approach

  The semistructured approach begins at about point C of the flowchart. The use of this approach implies your desire to receive information from interviewees in an immediate way—that is, promptly and without rambling. However, it does not imply the use of coercion, abuse, or intimidation. Accusation and confrontation toward interviewees is not appropriate in this mode.

  With the semistructured approach, try to tune in to what is happening moment by moment. You should be alert for signs that the truth is trying to show itself. Look for patterns signaling deception.

  The formulation of questions in the semistructured mode is not materially altered by the interviewee’s responses. The questions are partly intended to stimulate the interviewee to exhibit verbal and nonverbal behavior that may be indicative of deception. Follow the “bones” described in Chapter 9 when formulating your questions.

  154

  The Art of Investigative Interviewing

  The Nonstructured Approach

  At about point F or G of the interview interaction, you may decide to alter your interview strategy and use specific review and persistent encouragement to resolve inconsistencies in the interviewee’s story. You will usually reach a strategic deduction while attempting to resolve inconsistencies. The interviewee’s hostility or reluctance to provide truthful information might be the basis for a greater intensity of review and encouragement.

  This turning point requires delicate handling. If you decide prematurely that the interviewee is being deceptive and change your strategy abruptly, you might spark greater reluctance on the part of the interviewee. Between points F and H, after attempting to resolve inconsistencies, you may decide to proclaim clearly your belief in the interviewee’s culpability and to begin an interrogation. Proficient interrogators move smoothly and cleverly to help the interrogatee reveal the truth.

  PUT TING IT ALL TOGETHER

  There is a clear relationship between the levels of intensity, the participant locations, and the three approaches used during the interview process. During the first part of the interview, the investigator simultaneously uses the structured approach and level 1

  intensity. As he or she begins to use the semistructured approach, the intensity increases to level 2. Finally, as the investigator attempts to resolve inconsistencies in the interviewee’s story, he or she employs the nonstructured approach and intensity levels 3, 4, and 5.

  When the participants are in the conversation location, the approach ranges from structured to semistructured. Touching does not occur. The intensity of review and encouragement stays in the general and minimal ranges.

  In the moderate location, intensity levels 1, 2, and 3 are used. The distance between the interview participants varies with the intensity of the interaction. When using levels 1 and 2,

  Setting, Location, Intensity, and Approach in the Interview 155

  the investigator maintains a distance of about four feet from the interviewee. With level 3, the distance between participants is about four feet. From points C to G o
n the polyphasic flowchart (see Figure 9.1), the participants are about four feet apart; from G

  to J, two to four feet; and from J to K, about two feet. Reassuring touch is not used with levels 1 and 2, but it can be employed with level 3 at a distance of about two feet. In the moderate location, the semistructured and nonstructured approaches are used to formulate questions. Between points F and G, the investigator might announce that there appear to be inconsistencies in the information that the interviewee has provided.

  The intimate location is used with intensity level 4. The investigator uses this location to comfort or to confront. Intimate implies a closeness between participants that might strengthen rapport and stimulate greater cooperation. Confrontations about inconsistencies take place in this location, as well as the beginnings of interrogation.

  REVIEW QUESTIONS

  1. What is a key consideration when selecting an interview location?

  2. What is personal space, and what might happen if you invade an interviewee’s personal space?

  3. What is proxemics, and why is it important?

  4. What are the three locations, and how are they used in the interview process?

  5. Name two uses for the intimate locations.

  6. How can you use review and encouragement strategically to uncover the truth?

  7. What is the objective of using the various intensity levels of review and encouragement?

  156

  The Art of Investigative Interviewing

  8. Is it appropriate to use tactics involving bullying or coercion at the highest intensity level?

  9. When should you challenge inconsistencies?

  10. What is the goal of the structured approach, and what types of questions are appropriate?

  11. When is the semistructured approach used?

  12. When does a turning point in strategy occur?

  11

  Questions and

  Questioning

  Interviewing is the task of gathering information (Freeman and Weihofen 1972). It is “a process of dyadic communication with a predetermined and serious purpose designed to interchange behavior and involves the asking and answering of questions”

  (Stewart and Cash 1974, p. 5). Interviewing is best done face to face.

  There is a complex interaction that takes place during an interview in which there are observations made by both participants as they check and recheck each other’s verbal and nonverbal behavior.

  There is a mutual analysis: the interviewee is scrutinizing the investigator for signs of believability while being observed for patterns of deception. Seasoned interviewers know that luck is merely what is left over after careful planning and preparation. They develop a plan for each interview but remain flexible when applying it. They help interviewees rationalize and save face, thus encouraging their cooperation. To become a proficient interviewer, you will need average intelligence and common sense, a keen 157

  158

  The Art of Investigative Interviewing

  power of observation, resourcefulness, persistence, and a tireless capacity for work. Never act in a stern, imperious, or harsh manner.

  Be guided by your intuition, not guesses or speculations, but be sure your intuition is based on your direct observation and immediate experience.

  At a crime scene, locate witnesses and record their identity.

  Without pressure or suggestion, encourage them to provide a narrative account of their observations. When contacting witnesses later, identify yourself, explain the reason for the contact, and ask the witness to recall everything observed during the period of the crime. The greater the amount of time between the incident and the location of witnesses, the less chance they will be able to report accurately what they observed.

  Unobtrusively direct the interview, deciding when to listen, when to talk, what to observe, and so on. In so doing, observe, evaluate, and assess the interviewees, including what they say both verbally and nonverbally, how they say what they say, and what they fail to say. The plausibility of a witness’s observation is critical to the overall investigation; therefore, consider the ability of each interviewee to see and hear what was reportedly observed. With overly talkative interviewees who ramble, or with those who tend to wander from the topic, gently and empathically guide them back, redirecting them through leading questions to a discussion of the issue at hand.

  Information-gathering interviews need to be based upon fact rather than opinions or feelings. Novice interviewers collect more opinions and feelings than facts (Banaka 1971, p. 100).

  “Skillful probing differentiates effective [interviewers] from ineffective ones” (Downs et al. 1980, p. 243). Interviewees provide opinions wherever and whenever they can; it is your job to distinguish true factual data from opinionated, emotional comments. Separate observations from interpretations, facts from feelings. If you notice interviewees interpreting facts rather than presenting observed details, avoid being judgmental and pouncing on them. Without pressure or suggestion, encourage them to provide a narrative of their observations regarding the

  Questions and Questioning 159

  investigative problem. Avoid knowingly bringing into your inquiry any biases or prejudices that might lead to misguided observations and improper evaluation.

  QUESTION FORMULATION

  Interviewers succeed when they convince their subjects to provide truthful information. It’s not a matter of telling, but a matter of selling. Well-crafted questions sell the interviewee on the idea of telling the truth. You need to be a persuader of sorts, using properly phrased questions in a setting and under circumstances that persuade the interviewee to answer honestly. Questions encourage compliance when their design is simple. Make them more specific and complex only after evaluating the interviewee’s responses. Aristotle said, “Think as wise men do, but speak as the common people do.” Ask questions spontaneously to express ideas in a natural and subconscious manner. Trust yourself to ask properly worded questions while encouraging the subject to cooperate. When appropriate, make your questions specific, definite, and concrete. Vague, general questions permit interviewees to wiggle and squirm away from your desired goal.

  Choose your words with care. Words represent partial images, not the total picture. Avoid legal-sounding terms like homi-cide, assault, and embezzlement. Misused, they tend to make interviewees unnecessarily defensive. Interviewees welcome the opportunity to respond to questions for which they know the answers, and they feel more free to talk when the topic is familiar.

  Interview suspects tend to avoid answering questions that make them appear dumb, foolish, or uninformed. When embarrassed or upset over a question, interviewees avoid eye-to-eye contact and may display signs of distress. Some people appear shifty-eyed when they are lying, are planning to lie, or have been asked to reveal private information about themselves.

  160

  The Art of Investigative Interviewing

  QUESTION PRESENTATION

  A question is a direct or implied request for the interviewee to think about a particular matter. Comments based on assumptions can be regarded as questions if they invite the interviewee to respond.

  Rather than rely on many questions, allow the interviewee to speak freely. Some interviewees elaborate more readily when asked fewer questions. Once an interviewee decides to talk, you often need only guide the discussion with timely encouragement. Your assumptions, behavior, and method of questioning will, to some extent, determine the interviewee’s response and willingness to cooperate. Even your vocabulary could cause embarrassment or fright.

  Interviewees who lose face because they don’t understand your words may become disturbed or insulted, they may feel naked and vulnerable, and they may become judgmental and skeptical (Berne 1974; Harris 1973; I Understand, You Understand). Their resentment may cause them to fail to think clearly, to refuse to cooperate, or even to lie. On the other hand, some interviewees will be extremely cooperative in trying to answer all questions even with
an interviewer who asks poorly phrased questions based on crude, biased assumptions. By initiating the question-answer pattern, you tell interviewees as plainly as if put into words that you are the authority, the expert, and that only you know what is important and relevant. This may humiliate some interviewees who regard such a pattern as a third-degree tactic.

  Therefore, phrase your questions carefully, and be sensitive enough to realize when not to ask questions. Noticing the sincerity of your tone of questioning, and how you avoid asking abrasive, leading questions, interviewees will feel less need to be defensive.

  Question objectively. Avoid giving the impression that you have taken sides in the investigation. This may be difficult for interviewers who represent certain organizations, such as law enforcement agencies. It is inappropriate for you to register surprise or shock at any statement that an interviewee makes (Woody and Woody 1972, p. 126).

  Questions and Questioning 161

  Regard the interview as a conversation, not a cross-examination. “Do not grill the interviewee as a prosecuting attorney might do. Ask questions in a conversational manner, because your purpose is to hold a conversation with someone who has knowledge or has experienced something that you want to know about. Holding a conversation implies a certain amount of give-and-take during the interview. Make sure that you are asking questions and not making statements that do not call for answers” (Downs et al. 1980, p. 286).

  Never ask questions in a belligerent, demeaning, or sarcastic manner. Questions that begin “Isn’t it true that you . . .” tend to be abrasive and promote defensiveness. Pushing interviewees into a corner where they will have to defend themselves is self-defeating. Do not embarrass interviewees by asking questions that they cannot answer. This will only make them uneasy and will create unnecessary tension. Similarly, asking questions accusingly, suspiciously, or abruptly or asking “trick questions” may arouse fear and defensiveness and will not promote cooperation. All of these tactics are counterproductive.