Unit 3: Interviewing and Interrogation
Law Enforcement Operations: Criminal Interviewing and Interrogation
The success of an interview is to a degree determined by attitudes formed on the initial contact. If this encounter is strained and awkward or marked with distrust it may stifle cooperation. A person soon senses that there is something about him the interviewer does not like. Sarcasm, a curt dismissal of offered cooperation, or rudeness can reveal the investigator’s attitude. Antagonism, whether it be acted out or implied, soon forces withdrawal of any cooperation the witness may have wanted to offer. Make a determined effort to elicit a favorable response. Be friendly, put the witness at ease and create a situation which will lead to a good rapport.
Investigators are People
The factors which influence our ability to perceive and to describe what is perceived do not affect only the “other guy.” Every investigator is subject to the same factors to some extent. It is important, therefore, to be aware of your own abilities as well as your limitations. Investigators’ attitudes, opinions, emotions and the like all come into play during an interview. They too will determine how much and how well the investigator gathers information from persons.
Getting Acquainted
Your immediate objective is to establish rapport. Identify yourself and show your credentials. Your approach may either be formal or informal depending upon the person being interviewed. Calling a younger person by his first name will usually ease a tense situation. Allow the witness time to become accustomed to you and to the surroundings. Do not press, let the witness set the pace. Many people find the interview a strange and strained situation. A witness may be unsure as to what is expected of him and the novelty of the situation will tend to make him apprehensive and guarded. A certain amount of fear may develop. The mere presence of an investigator or his credentials may cause him to become overly cautious and unconsciously withhold
information. The prospect of serving as a witness and becoming involved also will affect cooperation. Noone cares to reveal information to his own detriment. Your initial job is to diffuse the tenseness and put the witness at ease.
Attempt to establish some common ground prior to settling down to the actual questioning. Weather, kids, pets, cars, and sports are good neutral subjects that can help to create a less threatening atmosphere. The discussion must be as natural as possible.
Listen to What Is Said and How it Is Said
The interviewer must not only induce a subject to freely relate information he may possess, but he must also evaluate the person and the conversation. He will find that on many occasions it is not only what a
person says that is important, but also the manner in which it is said or what is not said. Sudden silence should be recognized. It can suggest that the witness may be deliberating whether he should share the information with the interviewer. Uncertainty or sudden confusion may also indicate that a sensitive area has been reached. When the conversation reaches this stage, it is prudent for the investigator to review the sequence of topics preceding this apparent loss of memory. Attempts to withhold information because of guilt feelings may also be found in sudden emotional outbursts or indignation or anger.
A witness may unexpectedly shift from the topic of conversation to a totally unrelated subject. This usually indicates information is being withheld because it may be too painful or embarrassing to pursue.
Probing conducted in a tactful, understanding and sincere manner will usually reveal the reason a witness wants to evade a particular area of conversation.
Bodily responses often betray the emotional stress of a subject. A “nervous laugh”, twisting a handkerchief, paper, etc., are symptomatic of tension and apprehension. Embarrassment and anger may be reflected by the more obvious blushing or pallor of the skin. Surprise is evidenced by a sudden glance at the interviewer, wide open eyes or a dropping of the lower jaw and unconscious opening of the mouth. Such signals are valuable as they are involuntary responses. A witness may be able to control his statements, but he can seldom manage to fully control his bodily responses at the same time.
Getting the Whole Story
At the onset of the interview, avoid specific questions. Direct questions divert and limit the interview and are likely to give clues as to what the interviewer believes is significant. If the interviewer nods or shows approval after certain answers and ignores others, he is indicating the things that interest him. As a result, a witness may omit some relevant material in an effort to avoid what he believes the investigator considers insignificant. The most practical method of interviewing is to let the witness give the entire story without interruption. Interruptions break the normal flow of conversation, distract the witness and may result in an unintentional forgetting of information. Some witnesses are reluctant to talk when they’re aware that every word is being recorded. If so, it may be more expedient to take an oral interview and make a written report as soon as you leave the premises. This doesn’t necessarily mean that a few brief notes can’t be made. Jotting down a name, a phrase, an address or phone number can serve as useful reminders when more specific information is later requested. You should be aware that it is usually difficult to discover all information on the first attempt, but after the initial shock wears off, repetition is the key to success.
Characteristics of Good Questions
1. Short and confined to one topic.
2. Clear and easily understood:
a) Instead of asking, “Did you see the victim exit the vehicle?” ask, “Did you see the victim (name) get out of the car?”
b) Avoid questions or statements involving double or triple negatives. They are confusing and often suggest an answer opposite to the correct one. Example of a double negative: “Didn’t you not stop at a stop sign before entering the intersection?”
3. Non-threatening/mild: Avoid words such as murder, confession, dope addict.
4. Precise: A precise question calls for a specific or exact answer.
5. Separate: One question to a sentence.
Avoid Yes/No Questions
Asking questions answerable by a simple yes or no limits the amount of information to be learned. For example, the answer to the question, “Did you ever see the subject beat his wife?”, may not be revealing if the witness didn’t see the subject assault his wife. A question such as, “Tell me something about the relationship between the subject and his wife,” will elicit more information and an explanation of the behavior of the person. Open-end questions invite extended responses. Ask positive questions that presuppose a witness’ knowledge: Ask, “What time was it?” not “Did you see what time it was?” Typical open-end questions are general queries such as: “Tell me what you saw; Tell me more about that; What happened then?”
Leading Questions
Leading questions are suggestive and tend to influence the answers given by a witness. They should be avoided while asking for original information. They can result in a witness saying something s/h either doesn’t mean or has no independent knowledge of. The question, “What did you do then, take a good look at the
assailant?” may result in a fictitious answer as the witness doesn’t want to appear inadequate. He may give a fictitious description. Instead, ask the witness, “What did you do then?” This allows for an extended answer and doesn’t put the witness in the position of trying to please you. Avoid leading questions.
Rapid-Fire Questions
Asking questions before the preceding one has been answered or before the witness has finished answering or asking more than one question at a time results in confusion and creates tension. It can also give an uncooperative witness the opportunity to withhold information by not allowing him to finish his statement.
Non-directive Approach
This is an interviewing technique which turns the witness’ statements into questions calling for more information. In using this method, simply repeat the witness’ last phrase with a rising inflection on the last word so that it becomes a question. This encourages a witness to conform and tell about what has been said. Further information is drawn out without giving directions or restricting thinking.
EXAMPLE: Witness - As far as John goes, I don’t know the man. I have seen him twice.
Investigator - You’ve seen him twice?
Witness - Yes, and both times he was really drunk and crazy.
Direct Questions
When the witness finishes the narrative, ask direct questions covering points which slh may have missed, as well as the specific questions in the investigation request. Remember to follow the “Five Basic W’s:” What, Where, When, Who, Why?
Techniques of Cognitive Interview
R. Edward Geiselman and Ronald P. Fisher, under a grant from the National Institute of Justice, have done extensive research on interviewing techniques and have devised interview methods to enhance the completeness and accuracy of eyewitness reports. They have called these methods the “cognitive interview,” the primary techniques of which are as follows:
1. Reconstruct the Circumstances
In this method, the investigator instructs the witness to reconstruct the incident in general: “Try to reconstruct in your mind the circumstances that surrounded the incident. Think about what the surrounding environment looked like at the scene, such as rooms, location of furniture, vehicles, the weather, lighting, any nearby people or objects. Also think about how you were feeling at the time and think about your reactions to the incident. “
2. Report Everything
The investigator explains that some people hold back information because they are not quite sure that the information is important. The witness is asked not to edit anything, even things that may not be important.
3. Recall the Events in Different Order
The instruction may be: “It is natural to go through the incident from beginning to end.
However, you also should try to go through the events in reverse order. Or, try starting with the thing that impressed you the most in the incident and then go from there. Going both forward and backward in time.”
4. Change Perspective
In this method, witnesses try to recall the incident from different perspectives that they may have had at the time, or adopt the perspectives of others who were present during the incident.
Witnesses may be instructed to place themselves in the role of a prominent character in the incident and think about what s/h must have seen.
Mentally reconstructing the circumstances that surrounded a to-be-remembered event has been shown to be a powerful memory aid in numerous laboratory experiments. This technique is certainly easier than physically returning to the scene of a crime and it may be preferable given that the scene of a crime can change.
Asking the victim or witness to be complete has two positive effects. First, many people do not have a good idea of what information has investigative value. Second, the effort to be complete sometimes leads one to remember an important detail through association with something seemingly unimportant.
While the events should be recalled initially in the order in which they occurred, recalling the events in reverse order forces the victim or witness to examine the actual memory record looking for benchmarks. When events are recalled in chronological order, some people reconstruct in their minds what must have happened based on prior knowledge of similar crime scenarios.This sometimes leads to incomplete or even inaccurate reports.
Mentally changing perspectives while recalling an event also appears to enhance the completeness of reports. In many cases, the victim or witness had a variety of perspectives on the incident, but people tend to report what they remember from one, static perspective.
Additional Techniques
1. Physical Appearance
Did the person remind you of anyone? If you were reminded of someone, try to think of why. Was there anything unusual about the person’s physical appearance or clothing?
2. Names
If you think that a name was spoken but you cannot remember what it was, try to think of the first letter of the name by going through the alphabet. Then try to think of the number of syllables.
3. Numbers
Was a number involved? Was it high or low? How many digits were in the number? Were there any letters in the sequence?
4. Speech Characteristics
Did the voice remind you of someone else’s voice? If you were reminded of someone, try to think of why. Was there anything unusual about the voice?
5. Conversation
Think about your reactions to what was said and the reactions of others. Were there any unusual words or phrases used?
Testifying in Court
The witness may ask if he will have to testify in court. Inform him that it is a possibility and find out where and when the witness can be located, if needed. Most witnesses have never testified and will be nervous; empathize with him and demystify the court process by explaining it. Do not tell a witness he will not be needed.
Ending the Interview
Ask the witness if he has any questions. Thank him for his cooperation and for taking time out to assist you. Sincere expressions of courtesy during and after the interview not only create a favorable impression, but also strengthen the will to cooperate. Treating the witness as a person and extending
common courtesies is good manners and helps assure future cooperation, especially if the person may have to testify at a later date, or if further interviews are necessary.
Closing Question
Let your last question be: “Is there anything else you can tell me about this matter which we have not discussed as yet?” Ask the witness if you can contact him/her again if other questions come up.
Get a phone number.