by MAC-3
Gary (emphatically): Oh, no!
Me: Can you think of anyone who could have been involved in the theft?
Gary: I can’t imagine who it is or that it even happened here.
As Gary left the interview room, he was smug. He seemed to be trying to give the impression that he and his associates did not steal the missing money. As he was about to leave, he told me that he always wanted to become a PI (private investigator).
He wanted to know if the job is glamorous and if I liked doing it.
I commented briefly that there’s some satisfaction in assisting in situations where help is needed and where a matter can be cleared up. I viewed the exchange as Gary’s way to stroke me emotionally, to help soothe the open wounds caused by his determined reluctance to comply totally.
As Gary was leaving, I asked him to consider what we had discussed, and I told him that if he thought of anything else, to let Investigator Able or me know. I thanked Gary for his cooperation as he left, even though he had been belligerent and arrogant throughout the interview.
Pete (2:13 P.M.–3:24 P.M.)
Age 22, single, bank handyman. Good character, good reputation, good loyalty, no financial problems known. Friend of Gary and Sam. Had
192
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
access to the money. Had been reluctant to cooperate earlier in the investigation; seemed convinced the loss was a mistake, not theft. Has an influential relative in the community and used his relative’s status as his own.
After I established the objective of the interview and asked the structured questions, Pete said, “This interview is a learning experience for me.” He smirked as he spoke, and his posture was challenging. He added sarcastically, “Gee, I’ve never talked to an FBI agent before.” His manner conveyed a subtle put-down. He knew that I wasn’t with the FBI at the time of the interview. It seemed his way to sarcastically poke at me and try to put me in my place.
As a prelude to the first semistructured question, I briefly reviewed the case. I told Pete that someone had probably used keys to enter the locked drawer to get at the money shipment in the mailroom. As I was speaking, Pete took out his keys, dangled them in two fingers for about ten seconds to be sure I saw them, and then dropped them on the table dramatically. I didn’t comment on the keys but continued with my comments: Me: Now, if you’re the one who stole that $6,000, it’s important to tell me about it and get this thing cleared up. How do you stand on that? Are you the one who stole that money?
Pete (shaking his head): No.
Pete squirmed in his chair as I made notes and nothing was said. He looked at the polygraph instrument on the table next to him.
Me: Do you know for sure who actually did steal that money?
Pete: I have no idea.
Me: Even though you don’t know for sure who did take that money, do you have anyone in mind who you think may have taken the money because of what they did or said?
Pete (crisply and impatiently): There’s really nothing I have on that; I really don’t think anyone from the bank took it, to tell you the truth.
Three Case Studies
193
Me: Well, then, who do you trust the most? Who do you think was not involved in that theft?
Pete: Gary, Bill, Sam, and Al.
I asked Pete about a pair of pliers that we thought might have been used to reseal the money shipment bag after the $6,000 was removed and before it was mailed to the branch office. Pete knew of the pliers, but he denied having used them at any time. He commented, “It’s a far shoot to think that the pliers and where they were found have any meaning.” Another put-down, I thought. He seemed to be evaluating my questions and giving them a negative assessment.
Me: Is there any reason for your fingerprints to be on any of the paper found in the pouch when it was opened at the branch office?
Pete: No!
Me: It seems the person who took the money may have done so by getting into the drawer in the mailroom that held the money shipment. Do you have a key to fit that drawer?
Pete (removing keys from a clip on his belt): Here, I have a key that fits all the drawers in that area.
Me: Is there any reason anyone might say they saw you taking something out of the mailroom into the baling room on the day of the loss? [The baling room may have been where the money shipment was opened and resealed with a fresh seal.]
Pete: No.
Me: Now that we’ve talked about this and some of the important things involved, I’m still interested in who you think might have done this thing. Pete, do you have any thought as to who might have taken that money?
Pete: No, no question marks. Gary, Bill, Sam, or I did not take that money; we have all had lots of opportunity, but didn’t.
Me: Let’s assume that the person who actually did steal the money was caught and there was no doubt who did it. If that person were here standing before you, what would you say to him or her?
Pete (quickly and smoothly): It’s not right! Pay it back!
Me: Do you think that person should go to jail?
Pete: Yes, whatever the law says.
Me: Even if it’s Sam, Gary, Bill, or Al?
Pete (firmly): Prosecute!
194
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
Me: Isn’t that kind of harsh?
Pete: Yes, but they know better.
Me: I’m making the polygraph examination available to everyone in this case. I’m not soliciting or requiring anyone to take the testing, but I am making it available to everyone who wants to volunteer for it. Have you ever taken a polygraph examination before?
Pete: No. I think nervousness may affect the test. No thank you.
Me: What kind of person do you think did steal that money?
Pete: Someone who needs money.
I terminated the interview, and as Pete left the interview room, I commented, “It would be helpful to resolve this matter regarding you, Sam, and Gary. Why not meet with those guys to talk over what happened in your interviews. I’d like you to think about the polygraph.” “Yeah! Sure! You bet!” he said, but his tone implied, Don’t hold your breath, fella.
The Terminal Phase
At the end of the second day of interviews, a police officer asked Gary, Sam, and Pete for their full cooperation, and they consented. I wasn’t sure whether I would be involved in the inquiry any longer, until I learned from Investigator Able that he had contacted the three men to verify that they were going to cooperate.
They would, they said.
At the end of the second day, I told Investigators Able and Baker that I thought Sam had probably stolen the $6,000. I gave my opinion knowing that there was no guarantee that Gary, Pete, and Sam would agree to undergo polygraph examinations. At that time, the end of the second day, I really didn’t know if I would be asked to return to continue the inquiry. My ego dictated that I at least announce to Investigators Able and Baker that I thought Sam stole the money. They both were reluctant to hear my view since they had committed themselves to the opinion that Sam could not be the culpable. They did not argue or refute my view and I left that day convinced that Sam was the thief. The next day Investigator Able called to ask me to continue the inquiry.
Three Case Studies
195
The Follow-Up Phase
During his interview two days earlier, Al had volunteered to undergo a polygraph examination. During the test on the morning of the third day, I asked if he was the person who had stolen the $6,000. He said, “No.” He added that he had hand-carried the money shipments for mailing for many years.
”Do you know who actually stole the $6,000?” I asked.
”No, sir!” He added that he thought the theft took place at the mailing company or at the branch office that received the shipment.
After evaluating his polygraph examination, it was my opinion that Al was apparently truthful when he denied participating in the theft of the missing $6,000.
<
br /> Later that afternoon, I conducted polygraph examinations of Pete and Gary. In my opinion as the polygraphist, both men were apparently truthful when they proclaimed they did not steal the $6,000.
Next, I turned my attention to Sam, who had also volunteered to undergo a polygraph examination. My evaluation of the results suggested to me that Sam’s denial of involvement in the theft was apparently not truthful.
I explained the results of the examination to Sam, and he made a verbal confession of stealing the $6,000. Sam and I created the following written statement based on his verbal confession.
He then read, said he understood, and signed a handwritten statement in which he declared that he had some of the stolen money hidden in his car.
Dear Mr. Able: About 3:15–3:20 on [date], I removed the
[branch name] mail pouch from the mailroom to the baling room. I was there for five minutes with the pouch, and I removed the seal. I removed three packs of $20 bills, amount-ing to $6,000 total. I stole that money to cover personal debts that accumulated for me. I spent about $2,000, and I have about $4,000 in my car at this time which I will return to you immediately. I got the seal I used to reseal the pouch from
196
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
purchasing. The pliers I used were in purchasing. I took them to the baling room with me to reseal the pouch after I stole the $6,000.
I am sorry for stealing the $6,000 from the [branch name] pouch, and I want to repay the money I spent. Please understand that I’m sorry and that I will never do anything like this again. Please know that I am under financial pressure and that is why I stole that money from [bank name].
Mr. Yeschke has treated me fairly today. No one has promised me anything or threatened me in any way to make this statement.
The above is the truth.
I called in Investigator Able to witness Sam’s signature, and a tacit admission was obtained using the following procedure:
●
The accusation must be made in the presence of the defendant.
●
The defendant must have understood that he was being accused of complicity in a crime.
●
The statement must be such as would naturally provoke a denial from one similarly situated.
●
The circumstances must have been such as to afford the accused an opportunity to act and speak freely.
●
The person accused must have remained silent or made an evasive or equivocal reply short of a total denial.
●
The language of the accusation must be shown in its entirety and in the words used by the accuser.
●
If the accused makes a denial in toto, neither the accusation nor the denial is admissible.
●
After obtaining a verbal or written admission or confession, ask the subject to sit for a minute while you get your supervisor to come in to verify that you have covered everything properly. Or, you might say you are going to bring a secretary in so that he or she understands what your report will contain.
Three Case Studies
197
●
Before bringing the third person into the room, instruct the third person to just stand or sit quietly in the room with you and the subject while you do all the talking.
●
Upon entering the room, situate the third person so that you can read to him or her. Introduce the third person to the subject.
●
Talk to the third person directly while the subject looks on. Clearly stare to the third person that you and (name of subject) put the statement together. Say, “I’m going to read this to you so that you understand what we put together.” Then, just before reading the statement, turn toward the subject to state, “If I say anything that is not accurate and correct, please let me know.” Then, say something like: “We discussed each part of the statement as we put it together. I read each part of it to (name of subject) as we put it together. Now (name of subject), as I read this, be sure it is clear; if there is anything that we need to change, add or correct, let me know.”
●
Read the statement to the third party. Tell the third person something like: “I read this to (name of subject) and then I gave it to him to read. He appeared to read it.
I asked him if it was clear for him. He said, ‘Yes!’ I asked him if we should add anything. He said, ‘No!’ I asked him to write ‘The above is true’ at the bottom of the page and I asked him to put his name at the bottom, which he did.
I asked him if it was true and correct and he said, ‘Yes.’”
●
To the subject say, “Now (name of subject), is there anything you would like to add to this (motioning to the statement)? Any correction we need to make on it?
Anything we should add to it at this time?”
●
To the third person say, “He wrote the above is true and he put his name here (showing on the statement where the subject signed and wrote the above is true). I signed here as a witness and put the date and time here (pointing to the statement appropriately as the subject watches).”
198
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
Generally, as I read the statement to the third person, the interrogatee is quiet without objecting. His agreement with my comments is implicit in his quietness. He implies his acceptance of my comments regarding his statement by saying nothing. He does not object or refute my narrative. Because he does not express or declare objection to my comments, he is giving unspoken approval to my comment. His tacit acknowledgment that what I said is correct and true is reflected by so doing.
Quietly, I suggested to Investigator Able that we should locate and confiscate the gun that had been issued to Sam for his duties as bank guard. That done, Sam led Investigator Able and me to his new sports car, which was parked across the street from the bank. Sam removed a paper bag containing $3,580 in $20
bills—all that was left of the bank’s missing $6,000.
After reviewing my observations, evaluations, and assessments of the eight interviewees, it was my opinion that Sam had acted alone in the theft of the $6,000. I also believed that the other interviewees had no specific knowledge of the theft. Because of loyal friendship and pride, Pete and Gary had unintentionally created a “smoke screen” behind which Sam had hidden. I learned later that Pete and Gary were so convinced that Sam did not steal the money that the three had intentionally banded together to oppose anyone in authority who would even imply that any of them might have stolen the money.
If interviewees intentionally try to anger or placate the investigator, they are probably being defensive, but if they anger the interviewer merely because of their spontaneous behavior, then they are working from a position of confidence and arrogance, showing their hostility to authority and their dislike of their situation. In the case of Pete and Gary, their behavior aggra-vated the bank investigators and drew their attention to them as the most likely suspects. Their arrogant defiance was consistent and not phony.
Three Case Studies
199
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. How did human needs interfere in this inquiry?
2. How were the in-house investigators misled by the behavior of two of the suspects?
3. Were Pete and Gary trying to protect Sam?
4. What verbal and nonverbal clues led the investigator to the solution?
THE CASE OF THE FALSE ALLEGATION
Background
The following case involves the interrogation of a thirteen-year-old girl, Kathy, who had alleged that her natural father, Michael, had sexually molested her. She later recanted her story. The authorities thought she was lying when she backed away from her allegation. Maintaining her dislike for Michael and seeing that the authorities were convinced of her original allegation, she claimed once again that he had molested her—an allegation that he denied. By the ti
me I became involved in the case, the authorities were frustrated and confused by Kathy’s conflicting stories, but they were still obligated to pursue the truth.
Kathy agreed to undergo a detection-of-deception examination. During the preliminary interview, she still asserted that Michael had molested her. However, the polygraph examination indicated that she was apparently lying when she claimed to have had sexual intercourse with her father.
The Gentle Interrogation
Without telling Kathy that it was apparent to me that she had been lying, I tried to ease gently into a confrontation. I could have merely reported my opinion, but I wanted a confession from her.
She was capable of making up stories, and I didn’t want her to
200
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
make up anything about how I had treated her. I didn’t announce my knowledge of her deception until we had spoken for some time and had developed a rapport. Determining her veracity was only part of my mission. My main objective was to have her own up to the truth and stick with it. Her voluntary and believable confession was needed to stop the prosecution of her father.
Me: Your evaluation is that he was treating you like a three-year-old?
Kathy: Uh-huh.
Me: And he didn’t give you much human warmth, then? Is that right?
Kathy: Yeah, he was always looking down at everything and me!
Me: Treated you different than the other kids?
Kathy: Yeah, well, in a way! Me and my brother that died. He treated us the same way. He treated my other brother, the one that would have been his nephew, anyway, really special. Uh-huh.
Me: Really special! Oh, he did?
Kathy: Uh-huh!
Me: You could feel that?
Kathy: Uh-huh!
Me: Yeah, okay. Kathy, we were talking before about the area of sexual contact. You mentioned to me before about seeing in the newspaper how a father had his kids taken away from him.
