prelims

by MAC-3

  It was hard for her to believe that anyone in the bank had stolen the money; she wanted to believe in her coworkers, even though she didn’t know them well.

  Me: What do you think should happen to the person who stole the money?

  182

  The Art of Investigative Interviewing

  Sherrie: I think he should be prosecuted and not just let loose to get away with it. I would like to take a polygraph examination if it would assist in the investigation.

  Bill (11:44 A.M.–1:01 P.M.)

  Age 24, single, 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; had keys to storage drawer.

  Cooperative.

  Me: Are you the person who stole the $6,000?

  Bill: No.

  Me: Do you know who stole the missing money?

  Bill: I have no idea who did it. Al hand-carried the money shipment from the vault to the mailroom.

  Bill spoke and acted naturally and appeared to be thinking clearly.

  Me: Is there anyone you suspect who might have taken that money?

  Bill: No one. I can’t see how anyone would have had enough time to steal the money; at least a couple of minutes was needed to steal it. There were always two people around that drawer in which the money was locked until being carried to be mailed.

  Me: Do you have any suspects?

  Bill: None.

  Me: Who do you trust? Who, do you think, did not steal the money?

  Bill: I don’t know. I trust no one over another.

  Me: Do you think the money was actually stolen, or do you think there’s some other reason the money is missing?

  Bill: I believe it’s stolen based on what I’ve heard of the details.

  Me: What do you think should happen to the person who stole the money?

  Bill: I think it should be returned.

  Me: Do you think the person who stole the money should go to jail?

  Bill: It all depends on the circumstances.

  Three Case Studies

  183

  Bill attempted to recall details of what happened on the day of the shipment. He recalled specific times and calculated who probably did what at the time. He declared that he took work breaks with Sam, Gary, and Pete each day. I asked him again about his suspicions.

  Me: Do you have any suspects?

  Bill: No.

  Me: Is there anyone you trust the most?

  Bill: No. I don’t like what it’s doing to us.

  Bill was referring to how the theft had broken down the closeness of his coworkers. Bill said he had spoken with a judge recently about polygraph examinations. He asked me several questions before volunteering to take one to assist in the investigation. He wanted to know about the likelihood of erroneous results.

  He said that he realized that the results might not be admissible in court. Our discussion helped him resolve any doubts he had regarding the polygraph examination.

  I conducted the test as a continuation of his interview. In my opinion, based on my evaluation of the results, Bill was apparently truthful when he denied any participation in the theft of the $6,000.

  The Primary Phase—Day 2

  The day of interviewing ended and the behind-the-scenes chatter began. I had other inquiries to deal with and I could not return for several days. Therefore, the next interviews were conducted two weeks later. The delay did more good than harm, it seemed.

  Al (8:29 A.M.–9:05 A.M.)

  Older, married, long-time bank employee, trusted. Character good, reputation good, loyalty good, no financial problems known. Had access to money; had keys to storage drawer. Cooperative.

  184

  The Art of Investigative Interviewing

  Al had hand-carried the money shipment from the vault to the mailroom and had locked it in the drawer. His workday had ended before the messenger and the guard had taken the money to be shipped.

  Me: If you stole the money, it’s important to tell me about it. How do you stand on that? Did you steal that $6,000?

  Al: Me? No sir! I’m too close to retirement. That’s the last thing I would do.

  Me: Do you know for sure who did steal that money?

  Al: No.

  Me: Do you have any suspects even though you don’t know for sure who took the money?

  Al: The boys here are going to school. No idea. I think it happened at the mailing company or at the branch office. The boys here wouldn’t jeopardize their future.

  Me: Who do you trust the most of everyone you work with?

  Al: Everyone with keys, including some of the boys. I trust Bill the most.

  Al voluntarily requested a polygraph examination. He emphasized his contention that the money was probably not stolen at the main bank. He believed that the thief needed a few minutes to open the money shipment bag, steal the money, and replace the seal on the bag. If someone among his fellow employees did steal the money, he said, “that person would have to be a Jekyll-and-Hyde personality.”

  As he left the interview, Al commented, “I hope it’s resolved.

  I don’t take kindly to having everyone around here looking at me as though I did it.”

  Jan (9:14 A.M.–10:19 A.M.)

  Age 20, single, employed at the bank for a couple of years. Character good, reputation good, loyalty good, no financial problems known. Had carried the money shipment with Sam from the organization to the mailing station. Had no access to the money prior to transporting the shipment. Cooperative.

  Three Case Studies

  185

  Jan and Sam always transported the money to be shipped. It was Bill or Sam who handed her the money on the day in question. Sam and she “gab” as they transport money. That day they talked mostly about the vacation that Sam and Violet had taken recently; Jan reported that Sam spends most of his time with Violet. Jan voluntarily requested a polygraph examination.

  Me: If you are the person who stole the money, it’s important to tell me about it and get this thing cleared up.

  Jan: No, I did not! No way! Life’s too good! I’m happy with my life!

  I wouldn’t want to jeopardize it for anything.

  Me: Do you know for sure who did steal the money?

  Jan: No, they’re all my friends. I’ve thought of each as a possible but can’t think of anyone who would do it. I feel guilty thinking any one of them might. I can’t accuse any of them.

  Me: Who do you suspect might have stolen the money?

  Jan: Pete acts like a seventh grader, but I can’t think he stole the money.

  Me: Who do you trust the most of your fellow employees?

  Jan: Sam and Gary.

  Me: What else can you tell me regarding the loss?

  Jan: I don’t want to think that anyone did it.

  After evaluating Jan’s polygraph examination, it was my opinion that she was apparently truthful in her denial of participation in the theft.

  Sam (10:31 A.M.–11:24 A.M.)

  Age 22, single, dating Violet, trusted employee, armed guard with additional duties. Character good, reputation good, loyalty good, no financial problems known. Friend of Gary and Pete; they attended college together, and they socialize outside of work. Had access to the money.

  Cooperative.

  In Sam’s interview, as in the others, I used a combined approach involving structured and semistructured questions.

  My intention was to prompt the interviewee to exhibit verbal and

  186

  The Art of Investigative Interviewing

  nonverbal signals regarding his truthfulness. I’ve given the most complete account of Sam’s interview to illustrate my style and some important details of the procedure I used.

  In addition to the semistructured questions asked of everyone else, I asked Sam what his major studies were at college. He told me he had studied engineering and accounting.

  Me: What type of work do you do at
the bank?

  Sam: I work with inventory and car maintenance, odd jobs, and I’m the armed guard accompanying money shipments.

  Me: It’s important to get this matter cleared up, Sam. I’m asking everyone the same things, and I’d like you to work with me to resolve this issue of the missing $6,000. If you’re the person who took the $6,000, it’s important to get it straightened out and clear things up. How do you stand on this loss, Sam? Did you steal that $6,000?

  Sam (shaking his head): No.

  I did not ask this question in an accusatory way, but in an open, neutral way without assuming that Sam was the thief. My delivery of the question was intended to draw out any uneasiness and to reveal evasiveness. Nonverbal signals take place in about a hundredth of a second. I have to give the interviewee my undivided attention to sense such signals, and I must do so without being obvious about it.

  Me: Do you know for sure who did take that money?

  Sam: No idea.

  Me: Do you have any suspicions of who might have taken that money even though you don’t know who did it for sure? I’m not asking you to point fingers or anything like that. I’m wondering if anyone has done anything or said anything that causes you to think they might have taken the money.

  Sam: No. No one I associate with did it.

  When I asked Sam if he knew that the polygraph examination was being made available to everyone in this investigation, he responded that he thought the accuracy of polygraph results

  Three Case Studies

  187

  was questionable, and he quickly asked me why his girlfriend had been called in for questioning. This snap question seemed like a counterblow from a defensive stance. He presented the question to show that he was protective of Violet, but his behavior indicated that he was trying to avoid the topic of the polygraph examination. I didn’t want to give him a reason to walk out of the interview, so I told him that because Violet knew everyone involved in the investigation, it seemed appropriate to ask her if she noticed anything that might be useful to the inquiry. In line with the preceding interaction, I repeated the

  “Suspicion” question.

  Me: Sam, do you have anyone you suspect as a possibility?

  Sam: No one I associate with could have done it!

  With this diversion question, the potential heat of Sam’s protectiveness regarding Violet (in reality, probably a self-protection effort) disappeared so that it would not interfere with my progress.

  Me: Who do you trust that you think would not have taken that money?

  Sam: There’s only one single person, and that’s Al, who runs the mailroom in the mornings.

  Me: What kind of person do you think did this thing?

  Sam: I don’t know. It’s hard to say. It all depends.

  Me: On what?

  Sam: I don’t know! That’s a hard question, hard to make a judgment. I’ve never known anyone to take anything.

  Me: What do you think should happen to the person who actually did steal that $6,000?

  Sam: I suppose whatever the law says should be carried out.

  Me: How about jail?

  Sam: I would imagine if that’s what it involves.

  Me: Why do you think someone would steal that money?

  Sam: For the same reasons as you said—to solve problems with finances and things like that.

  188

  The Art of Investigative Interviewing

  Me: Is there any reason for anyone to say they think you took the money? Anything you may have said or done that could have mislead anyone to think you’re the one who got that money?

  Sam: I didn’t take it, and I’m acting the same. They shouldn’t say that.

  I thought to myself, That’s interesting. Violet said something similar.

  Me: Is there any reason for your fingerprints to be on the shipment that was short the $6,000?

  Sam (quickly and defensively): I carry money around the bank every day all around. Heaps of it, both loose and bundled.

  Me: Any reason for your fingerprints to be on the paper straps which were around the money from which the $6,000 was taken?

  Sam: No.

  Me: Do you mind if the investigation extends beyond the organization and into your financial affairs?

  Sam: No problem. Tell me more about the polygraph examination.

  Sam’s response seemed to be a way for him to stop the discussion of his finances. Was this a defensive move, perhaps?

  As I was explaining about the function of the polygraph, Sam interrupted me.

  Sam (challengingly): What if I don’t take it?

  Me: Well, you can answer that for yourself. There will be assumptions, certainly. If everybody takes the polygraph examination except one, then the person who doesn’t may seem a likely suspect. If you took the money, the examination will show that.

  Sam (with a chip on his shoulder): If I don’t take it, then you’re saying I took the money?

  Me: Not at all. You decide. It’s available to everyone. Take it or not, it’s your choice, you decide! I’m just making it available to everyone to help clear up this matter.

  Sam: I don’t want to take it then!

  Me: Okay. . . . I think we’ve covered everything for now. I may want to talk with you again.

  Three Case Studies

  189

  Sam (as he was leaving the interview room): I’m sorry about not taking that polygraph examination, but I’m not comfortable about it.

  Me: That’s no problem. Think over what we’ve talked about, and if you want to take the examination or if you have anything else to talk about, mention it to Investigator Able later. Have a good day, and thanks for your cooperation.

  Sam had chewed gum throughout the interview, and his answers were guarded. He appeared pale, and his young healthy body seemed to drag as he left the interview room.

  At this point, it was my opinion that Sam was involved in the theft, but to reveal my opinion to Sam then would have been premature and self-defeating. I also thought it necessary to withhold my opinion from Investigators Able and Baker until I had completed all of the interviews that day. I couldn’t be sure how many employees were involved in the theft, and I didn’t want the investigators to accuse anyone prematurely. They probably wouldn’t do such a thing, but I wanted to be sure. Sometimes even a look will give the investigator away.

  Gary (12:27 P.M.–1:19 P.M.)

  Age 22, single, bank handyman. Good character, good reputation, good loyalty, no financial problems known. Friend of Pete and Sam. Had access to money. Had been reluctant to cooperate earlier in the investigation; seemed convinced that the loss was a mistake, not theft. Indignant.

  After I explained the objective of the investigation and asked the background questions, I began using the semistructured approach.

  Me: Have you ever been arrested?

  Gary: No.

  Me: Do you have any friends who have ever been arrested?

  Gary (looking away): Not that I can think of. . . . My sister-in-law’s brother was in trouble.

  190

  The Art of Investigative Interviewing

  I reviewed the generally known facts of the reported theft, then continued with my questions.

  Me: I’m asking everyone the same things in an effort to determine what happened to the missing money. If you’re the person who caused that $6,000 loss, it’s important to tell me about that and to get this thing cleared up. How do you stand on this, Gary? Are you the person who stole that money?

  Gary: No. (Adding quickly) I learned of the loss the week after it happened. Bill asked me if I knew about the missing money. That was the first I learned of it.

  Me: Well, then, do you know for sure who did steal that money?

  Gary (shaking his head): No, I don’t.

  Me: Knowing for sure who did it is one thing, but having suspicions is something else. Who do you suspect did this thing even though you don’t know for sure? Is there anyone who, because of what they did or said, causes
you to be somewhat uneasy and maybe think they could be involved? Keep in mind that I’m not asking you to point fingers or anything because that wouldn’t be fair.

  Gary: They’re all my friends being questioned, and I can’t suspect them.

  Me: Of all the people who had access to the missing money, who do you think could not have stolen that money?

  Gary: Bill, Al, Sam, and Pete. I trust them a lot; we do things together outside the bank.

  Me: Do you think the money was actually stolen, or do you think there’s some other explanation for the loss?

  Gary: I don’t know. At first, I thought it was bookkeeping error, but now it looks like theft.

  Me: When it’s determined who actually did take that $6,000, what do you think should happen to that person?

  Gary: I don’t know, reprimanded and terminated, maybe court.

  But court would mean bad press for the bank.

  Me: How about jail for that person?

  Gary (smoothly and without hesitation): I should think so!

  Me: Polygraph examinations are available to those who decide to volunteer for them. Examinations are considered to be a valuable aid to investigations.

  Gary: No, thank you. I’ve been an honest, hardworking employee, and you should take my word for it that I didn’t steal that money.

  Three Case Studies

  191

  I didn’t take it! I have a background in electronics, and I don’t think polygraphs work.

  Me: Well then, is there any reason for anyone to say that you took the money? Anything that you did or said that could have misled anyone to think you could be involved in any way in the theft?

  Gary: No, I don’t think so. I didn’t take it.

  Me: What kind of person do you think did steal that money?

  Gary: Investigator Baker said it could be an honest, upstanding person. Someone who is angry with the organization.

  Me: What would cause someone to take that money?

  Gary: I don’t know.

  Me: Is there any reason for your fingerprints to be on the money straps found in the money shipment bag when it was opened at the branch?