by MAC-3
There are times when it is useful to ask a mild, modified version of an emotionally loaded question before asking the main question. This warns the interviewee of the emotional question to follow, helping the interviewee prepare for it. At other times, it is necessary to spring emotion-laden questions on the interviewee to reveal any hidden tension.
Questions and Questioning 171
Never demand an answer to a question. Don’t point out that the interviewee failed to answer. Instead, reword your question, and try again. Some interviewees will try to provoke you into challenging them so they will feel justified in storming out of the interview room. Even victims and witnesses of a crime may feel insulted if challenged by a demand to answer a question.
By calmly repeating your questions, you signal persistence, patience, and humanity, which strengthen the bonds of interpersonal communication.
Identifying and Challenging Deception
Although we cannot all claim King Solomon’s special wisdom, we can at least use our talents as observers to uncover the truth. We can watch for behavioral patterns that indicate possible deception.
A lead-in that introduces a change of topic—for example,
“Now I’m going to ask you a few questions about the day the money was missing”—causes some interviewees to nonverbally signal their intent to deceive. They may fidget in their chair, cross their legs or arms, or break eye contact. Any such sign of uneasiness should cause you to question mentally the truthfulness of the answers that follow.
Do not immediately confront or challenge interviewees who display signs of uneasiness prior to or while answering announced questions. To challenge indicates that you have concluded that the topic of the question is bothersome or that the interviewee intends to lie. Instead, ask your question, and note the interviewee’s uneasiness for review later. Look for patterns of evasiveness that may indicate deception. When a clear pattern of evasiveness becomes evident, gradually challenge the interviewee. Isolated signs of evasiveness, although important, are not enough to warrant a challenge.
Some degree of unprovoked anxiety may be useful in an interview. Unprovoked anxiety means an uneasiness possibly brought to the interview and not caused by the investigator as some planned effort. That anxiety may be caused by the interviewee’s
172
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
knowledge of someone’s personal responsibility. When sensed, that anxiety can be used as the basis of you displaying your humanness and showing you are okay to talk to. You can enhance tension through your use of questions or by commenting about the interviewee’s defense mechanisms or sensitivity to certain events.
However, insensitive confrontation over conflicting details in the interviewee’s story could cause undue tension, evasiveness, and defensiveness, resulting in an unproductive interview.
Handling Trial Balloons
Interviewees sometimes ask “trial balloon” questions. For example, a subject might ask, “Just say I did take the money—what would happen to me?” or “What usually happens to a person who steals merchandise?” These what-if questions may indicate that the interviewee is on the brink of reporting some significant fact.
When the interviewee floats a trial balloon, avoid pouncing on it as an admission of guilt. Instead, calmly respond to the inquiry, and subtly ask questions that encourage the interviewee to tell the truth. What-if questions are used to test the water, so to speak, to see if it is safe. They signal the need for continued patience and persistence; they do not indicate that it is time to charge ahead destructively.
Terminating the Interview
Always assume that more information is forthcoming and that you need only ask appropriate questions and give adequate encouragement. Even when it seems you have reached the termination point—when it seems as though all questions have been asked and answered—continue to assume that the interviewee has more to tell you. You might ask, “What else can you tell me about what happened?” or “What else should I know about this matter?”
At some point, of course, you will need to terminate the interview. You can do this several ways. Even if you have no
Questions and Questioning 173
intention of questioning the subject again, you might announce that a second interview is possible. Or you might make arrangements for a second interview and give yourself time to prepare further. Finally, you might lead into a confrontation by announcing that you believe there are inconsistencies that must be resolved or by specifically accusing the interviewee of the crime.
Your next step would be to attempt to gain a confession or an admission of guilt. In most instances, you will probably end the interview and not need to speak with that person again.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What is the objective of interviewing?
2. How can leading questions help you with overly talkative interviewees?
3. How should you respond when the interviewee provides opinions instead of facts?
4. Why shouldn’t you ask vague questions?
5. What is a question?
6. Why is it important to ask questions objectively?
7. Is the interview a conversation or a cross-examination?
Explain.
8. Give two examples of closed questions.
9. How do most open questions begin?
10. What are two things that open questions can help you do?
11. Name three types of open questions, and give an example of each.
12. How are pointed questions based on the self-fulfilling prophecy?
13. What type of question can help you develop and strengthen rapport?
174
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
14. What is one advantage of using leading questions?
15. How do polite social conversations differ from investigative interviews?
16. How does your expectation play a role in gaining truthful information?
17. Why isn’t it a good idea to ignore unanswered questions and go on with the interview?
18. How might your questions trigger emotions that block the interviewee’s thought process?
19. What is a trial balloon question, and how should you respond to it?
20. Why should you assume that the interviewee has more to tell you even at the end of the interview?
12
Three Case Studies
THE CASE OF THE IMPATIENT GUARDIAN
“You’ve done some work for us before,” the man on the phone said. He identified himself as Investigator Baker, corporation security officer for a large bank. “Could you assist us on a theft case? It involves a loss of $6,000.”
“I’d be glad to help,” I said. “When do you need me there?”
“Well, tomorrow if you can. We’ve been working on this for several days and can’t figure out what happened to the money.”
“Tell me more about the loss.”
“He told me that about a week earlier, $6,000 was found to be missing from a shipment of $25,000 between the main bank and a branch office.”
“Could the loss be a mistake?” I asked.
”Probably not!”
Investigator Able got on the line and explained that he was a security officer at the bank. He also mentioned that the two men had worked on the theft together for several days before calling me.
175
176
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
The Initial Phase: Precontact
Investigator Able told me that the loss was thought to have taken place in or near the mailroom of the main bank. The money was temporarily stored in a locked drawer before it was taken to be sent via a public courier to a bank branch office. The branch office reported the loss when the shipment of money arrived there and was counted. Inquiries at the branch office and the mailing service convinced investigators Able and Baker that the money must have been stolen from the main office before the shipment was sent. The focus was on se
ven employees who, because of their knowledge, access, and opportunity, were considered suspects.
After reviewing the case, I identified eight people I wanted to interview. All but one had access to the shipment of money prior to the theft. The other interviewee, Violet, was engaged to marry Sam, another of the bank employees. I did not suspect her in the theft but thought of her as a possible source of useful information. Able and Baker had not interviewed Violet, but they had spoken with each of the others twice.
Based on their interviews with the seven employees, both Able and Baker concluded that most were totally cooperative; Pete and Gary were the exceptions. I had no way to determine how cooperative Violet would be, but I expected that all of the others except Pete and Gary would agree to help with the investigation.
The Initial Phase: Strategic Planning
As an outsider, I often have some advantage over in-house investigators in evaluating the evidence because I’m less affected by emotional power struggles within the organization. In-house investigators, because they are so close to the problem, frequently cannot or do not perceive meaningful details and signals. I suspected that this might be the case in this investigation.
Three Case Studies
177
Evaluating Potential Interviewees
Gary and Pete were identified as the prime suspects because of verbal and nonverbal signals noted by the investigators—not so much by what they said, but by how they said it. Investigator Able selected Gary as the probable thief because he was abrupt and overly resistant in answering questions. Investigator Baker, on the other hand, suspected Pete because he saw him as a self-centered wise guy, using a sarcastic manner to deliver pleasant-sounding words. Both were depicted as overly confident and defiant in their actions. These two employees were unshakably convinced that neither they nor anyone they knew had stolen the missing money. One employee seemed to be above suspicion.
Investigator Able was convinced that Sam could not have committed the theft. The investigator may have felt that way because he trusted Sam with extra responsibility. As the armed guard, Sam routinely accompanied the bank messenger to deliver shipments of money to be mailed to the branch office.
I evaluated the interviewees, sight unseen, based on information provided by Investigators Able and Baker. By assigning numerical values to particular characteristics, I calculated the chances of gaining truthful testimonial evidence from each interviewee.
Creating an Interview Strategy
Investigators Able and Baker were reluctant to have me interview Violet. They couldn’t see the benefit of talking to her.
Logically, even though I did not consider Violet a suspect, I knew that because of her relationship with Sam, my interaction with her laid the foundation for my interaction with all other interviewees. But more than that, I used her interview as a symbolic show of my intention to use whatever means necessary to get to the truth of the matter. I wanted to show them, the band of three buddies who trusted each other and would not say anything bad about each other (identified later), that no one was out of bounds
178
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
with me. I wanted to show everyone the boldness of my pursuit.
In addition, I hoped that Violet would be my messenger to the other employees who might ask her about me and the questions I ask.
I didn’t completely reveal my thoughts to the investigators because I didn’t think they would understand where I was headed.
This chess game was difficult enough for me to comprehend, let alone explain it to someone else. In addition, their minds were obviously already made up.
Preparing Psychologically for the Interview
I planned to enter the interviews with an open mind, even though I was told that Pete and Gary were the prime suspects. Determined to put possible misinformation aside, I used positive expectancy in all efforts to gather truthful information.
The Initial Phase: Contact
Introduction and Greeting
Investigator Able accompanied each individual to the interview room but did not enter the room. He knocked, and I opened the door to admit the interviewee. Investigator Able introduced each person to me by their first and last name while using the more formal “Mister” to refer to me. Thus Investigator Able acknowledged a certain status for me that the interviewees tended to maintain throughout the interaction. The formal introduction helped me appear to be more than a mere associate of Investigator Able. It was important for me to be separated from everything that occurred earlier in the investigation.
Seating
Investigator Able made arrangements for me to conduct the interviews in a quiet, comfortable, private room where the inter-
Three Case Studies
179
viewees and I would not be disturbed by interruptions or noise. I positioned the chairs in the interview room so that I would face the interviewee and there would be an uncluttered wall behind me. We would be seated about six to eight feet apart at the beginning of the interview. As the interview progressed, I would move my chair to within about four feet of the interviewee, as is typical of most interview situations. The chairs I selected were of similar design and comfort.
Announcing My Objective
Within the first few minutes of each interview, I told each interviewee that the basic objective of the interaction was to find out how the money went missing from the bank and how we might get it back. I did not mention apprehension or prosecution. I mentioned several reasons why, in my experience, people take money.
I tried to convey the idea that the person who took the money was probably trying to solve personal financial problems. My experience is that if there is a time to open the door to the truth, it is at this point of discussion, in the first four minutes, when the interviewee is trying to determine whether it is safe to confide in me.
I reviewed the basic facts of the reported loss of $6,000 with each interviewee to ensure each person understood the specific issue under investigation. Interviewees sometimes suspect that an investigation concerns more than the announced issue; they may think the organization is sweeping their house clean, looking for every loss—no matter how small or remote.
Setting the Tone
I consider it vital to set a positive tone within the first four minutes of the interview. My efforts to establish a positive tone in each interview paid off in this case because my image was communicated among interviewees. I have found that if interviewees are treated badly, others learn of it and become reluctant to be interviewed, resentful, or uncooperative.
180
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
I saw no justification to treat anyone as though they had stolen the money, even though one or more of them might have been responsible. Certainly, to treat Violet in any way other than as a witness would have been improper.
Using the Structured Approach
During those critical first four minutes of the interaction, after announcing the objective of the interview, I asked the interviewees questions that would be easy for them to answer: spelling of name, date of birth, number of years of employment, current position, education, marital status. These questions gave the interviewees the opportunity to vent some emotional energy and to become more comfortable with the interview. Sometimes I can perceive evasiveness and lack of cooperation in this stage of an investigation. During each interview, I used a couple of dozen hidden persuaders, such as active listening and empathy.
The Primary Phase—Day 1
Violet (10:31 A.M–10:50 A.M.)
Age 24, divorced, employed at the bank for a number of years, good worker. Character good, reputation good, loyalty good, no financial problems known. Girlfriend of Sam. No access to missing money. Her only interview.
After the first four minutes of the interview, I engaged Violet in a conversation designed to determine what, if anything, she knew of the missing money. I asked her whom she thought had stolen the $6,000,
and she responded that she didn’t know anything about the theft. The bits and pieces of information she had were based on organization gossip. It seems that she didn’t learn any details of the theft, not even from her boyfriend, Sam, who was the armed guard who handled the money shipment.
Violet’s nonverbal communication indicated that she was cautious in her discussion of what she knew of the bank’s loss.
Three Case Studies
181
Her actions were stiff and controlled. She seemed to be withholding information, although she claimed to know few details.
She appeared hesitant to answer more than she thought was required, as though she were apprehensive about revealing something.
Me: What’s your status with Sam?
Violet: “We’re engaged.” Without being asked, she offered, “Sam is acting the same as always.” Her comment seemed rehearsed.
Me: Do you know of anyone who is having problems and might need money?
Violet: No.
Sherrie (10:59 A.M.–11:36 A.M.)
Age 24, married, employed at the bank for a number of years, good worker. Character good, reputation good, loyalty good, no financial problems known. Had access to missing money; she packed the money shipment of $25,000; did not have keys to drawer in which shipment was stored prior to it being mailed. Cooperative.
As the vault teller who bundled the $25,000, Sherrie affirmed that the shipment was assembled correctly. Beyond what she said, her nonverbal messages indicated that she was thinking clearly, and her movements were smooth flowing as she expressed herself. She recalled details about how the shipment was handled. She told me that Al had probably hand-carried the shipment from the vault to the mailroom, where he locked it in a drawer. She thought Bill could also have been in the area near the money.
