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 gro-
ceries 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 of cer-
tain 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 out who took Jane’s purse, what should happen to that person?”
The culpable will want to give the thief a break, whereas 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.” Then
later, stress could be the basis of an interrogative approach.
108
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
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 “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 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 that 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
Overview of the Interview Process
109
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 a large purchase. The nonculpable ones don’t
mind the extended inquiry because they generally don’t have anything
to hide.
THE TERMINAL PHASE
Between points E and F of the polyphasic flowchart (refer back to 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. The
interviewer 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 her
responses compares to the totality of the evidence. You will have had
enough time to become confident in your conclusion. Generally, one inter-
view will offer sufficient indicators to guide your conclusions, but not
always. There are certainly no absolutes in such assessments, but I’m con-
vinced that nonverbal signals are meaningful indicators of deception. I think
it’s fair to say, based on my experience, that certain behavior signals charac-
terize deceptive individuals, whereas other behavior signals characterize the
110
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
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 brown
piece. Differences become evident when the investigator considers the total-
ity 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 she fabri-
cated 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 o
ver being ques-
tioned 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 though 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 semi-
structured approaches, evaluate whether there is a need for further inter-
viewing using the unstructured approach or whether it would be
appropriate to seek an admission or a confession through interrogation.
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 want to clarify, you might decide to continue
the interview or to schedule another. To verify information that the inter-
viewee 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.
Overview of the Interview Process
111
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 (refer back to
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 inter-
viewee’s deception. Seek the truth using increased review and encourage-
ment 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.
•
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 whether they would be willing to undergo a detection-of-
deception (polygraph) examination. This suggestion might be made at sev-
eral 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 situ-
ation and on how the suggestion fits into the overall process. Some people
will not agree to undergo a polygraph examination, no matter how help-
ful 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 that an
interviewee 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 psychophys-
iologist chosen to administer the examination will provide high-quality,
112
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
professional service. Although polygraph examinations are not 100 percent
accurate, they have proved to be highly reliable.
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.”
•
“I’m uneasy about what you’ve told me here today. I believe you’ve got
more to tell me.”
•
“I think you’re the one who did it, and it’s important for us to talk about
this to get it cleared up.”
Use care when making such statements. You don’t want to frighten the sub-
skill. Although there is no need to harshly accuse or intimidate the inter-
viewee, this is the time for specific review and persistent encouragement
to clear up inconsistencies or to gain an admission or a confession. It is at
this point that the interview gradually flows into an interrogation. The
interviewer-turned-interrogator now clearly and specifically announces that
the subject seems to be intentionally withholding information and is prob-
ably a key player in the matter under investigation. While you announce
your suspicions, you should continue to help the subject save face and ratio-
nalize his involvement. This is no time to degrade or humiliate the subject.
Coercion has no place here—or indeed anywhere in this process.
Up to this time, you have modified your efforts to deal with embarrassed
victims and reluctant witnesses, but now is the time to forge ahead into an
interrogation to seek an admission or a confession. Don’t be destructive in
your efforts. Don’t label the interviewee when addressing him. In other
words, don’t say, “I know you’re the molester.” Not only are such com-
ments hostile, but they are self-defeating.
Be certain, and be confident! This is no longer the time for using the word
if. Instead, display confidence in the subject’s involvement. Interrogation is
Overview of the Interview Process
113
not for all investigators. It is a matter of temperament, confidence, and skill.
Some investigators are more capable than others of handling this concentrated
search for the truth.
Your efforts may yield only an incomplete admission of guilt. If you
doubt that the su
bject told the complete story of what happened, remember
that even a partial confession can be helpful in concluding the investigation.
That is not to say that you should be satisfied with a half-done job. Accept
whatever confession or admission is offered, and have it witnessed and put
into written form. Then commit yourself to starting over with renewed
effort to seek more details of the subject’s culpability.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. How and when do we learn bias and prejudice?
2. How can we change our attitudes as we mature?
3. Name the three sections of the initial phase, and describe the inter-
viewer’s task in each.
4. What is the floating-point strategy, and how can you use it during an
investigation?
5. Where can you find hints of motivation?
6. How can you evaluate potential interviewees, and why should you do
this?
7. What should you consider in planning an interview strategy?
8. What does it mean to have an open mind as an interviewer?
9. What is the main purpose of the first four minutes of an interview?
10. What are hidden persuaders, and how can you use them in an
interview?
11. Which of the hidden persuaders do you think are most effective?
12. How can you make a positive impression in the first few seconds of an
interview?
13. How does the interviewee evaluate the investigator? What is she try-
ing to determine?
14. What is the strategic advantage in interviewing someone who is not
under arrest?
15. What are the elements of the contact section?
16. What should you tell the interviewee about the objective of the
interview?
17. How can you put the interviewee at ease to promote cooperation?
114
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
18. What tactics can you use when you’re interviewing victims and wit-
nesses at a crime scene?
19. What is the interviewer’s task in the primary phase?
20. What are “bones,” and what do they help the interviewer determine?
21. Why is it useful to have the interviewee provide a narrative of what
happened?
22. What is the interviewer’s task in the terminal phase?
23. What occurs during the follow-up phase?