A Structured Model for Investigative Interviewing of Suspects
39
• The interviewer asks questions that relate to the evidence without disclos-
ing the evidence to the suspect. Before confronting the suspect with the
evidence, the interviewer validates the evidence by asking questions that
enable him or her to explore and rule out possible alternative explanations
that the suspect might otherwise resort to.
• If, after being confronted with the evidence, the suspect alters his or her
statement to account for the evidence and therefore brings the statement
more into line with the evidence, the interviewer responds in a mildly
positive manner, and certainly not in a negative manner.
In order to be able to apply the model the following conditions must be
met:
• There must be enough possible evidence against the suspect to draw up a
questioning plan.
• The suspect must be willing and able to discuss the incident. It is not pos-
sible to use this approach if the suspect exercises the right to remain silent
or is only prepared to discuss with the interviewer things that do not relate
to the incident. It is also impossible to use this approach – or any other
form of interview for that matter – if the suspect is psychotic or distraught,
for example.
The p reparation of a q uestioning p lan
The interviewer draws up a list of all the possible evidence against the sus-
pect. The source or traceable origin of each piece of evidence is also noted. A
single piece of evidence may have several sources. For example, two witnesses
who know the suspect personally may both have seen him or her at the crime
scene.
The interviewer decides which pieces of evidence they wish to discuss during
the interview. The interviewer then considers the ways in which the suspect
might explain the evidence, regardless of whether the explanations given by
the suspect are true or fabricated.
Example. A man is suspected of committing a burglary at 10 Bishops Close
during the night of Sunday, 2/Monday, 3 December. The suspect does not
live near the house that was burgled – he lives 3 kilometres away. The suspect
has been convicted of burglary on three previous occasions. A witness, a neigh-
bour of the person who lives at 10 Bishops Close, saw the suspect ’ s car parked
in an isolated spot at 2 o ’ clock in the morning on the night in question and
made a note of the vehicle registration number, because he thought it looked
suspicious.
The suspect might give any one of the following explanations for the fact
that his car was seen near Bishops Close. These explanations might be true or
false.
40
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing
• The suspect was there with his car.
• The suspect lent his car to someone else on the night in question.
• The suspect sold his car shortly before the night in question.
• Someone else used the suspect
’ s car that night without the suspect
noticing.
• The witness noted the vehicle registration number incorrectly. The sus-
pect ’ s car was nowhere near Bishops Close on the night in question.
The suspect might give any one of the following explanations for the fact
that he was seen near 10 Bishops Close on the night in question. These expla-
nations might be true or false.
• The suspect was there to commit a burglary.
• The suspect was there with someone else. It was the other person who
burgled 10 Bishops Close.
• The suspect was visiting someone in the neighbourhood.
• The suspect had some other legitimate reason for being there (he was
driving past and simply pulled over for a cigarette, or stopped to urinate,
etc.).
Having considered the possible explanations, the interviewer then thinks up
questions that can be asked to verify each of the pieces of evidence. These
information - gathering questions must be open questions. The interviewer
starts by asking general open questions and leads on to more specifi c open
questions, using the so - called funnel model. While gathering information to
verify the evidence it is important to ask open questions that do not provide
the suspect with any information about what the interviewer knows or
suspects.
Example. A question such as
‘ Were you in or near Bishops Close last
weekend? ’ provides the suspect with far more information about what the
interviewer knows or suspects than if the interviewer simply asks the suspect,
‘ What did you do last weekend? ’
When asking information - gathering questions it is important to ensure that
the questions do not focus exclusively on precisely what the interviewer wants
to know. To start with, the questions need to be broader and more general
and they must also specifi cally address things that are irrelevant or less relevant.
If the person who committed the burglary is likely to have lost something at
the crime scene, such as a cigarette lighter, when asking information - gathering
questions it is better to start by asking about other items the person might
have had with him, such as cigarettes, a pen or a wallet, rather than simply
asking questions about the lighter. Where possible this helps to throw the
suspect off guard so the suspect does not know where the interviewer is
heading or what information the interviewer may have.
A Structured Model for Investigative Interviewing of Suspects
41
Besides asking questions that relate to the evidence, the interviewer can also
ask questions that relate to the source of a piece of evidence. For example, this
may be important if the suspect knows a witness who has provided a certain
piece of evidence. Then, besides asking questions that relate to the evidence
provided by the witness, it is also advisable to question the suspect about the
source of the evidence to establish the suspect ’ s impression of the source. If,
in answer to the information - gathering questions, the suspect describes the
witness as a reliable person and says that he has nothing against the witness,
it will be more diffi cult for the suspect to claim that the witness is unreliable
when subsequently confronted with the witness ’ s information.
Example. A man is found dead near a bar. The barman has stated that the
victim and the suspect both frequently drank in the bar and that on the evening
in question he saw the two men arguing there. He could tell that they were
arguing from their gestures and because they were swearing at each other.
They were shouting so loudly he could hear them above the music – this was
partly because they were standing reasonably close to him.
In this case the barman is the source of this important piece of evidence.
Once the interviewer has established that the suspect regularly frequents the
bar, the interviewer can then ask the suspect the following questions:
• Who do you meet in the bar?
• Who else do you know who go there regularly?
• Who do you know who works there?
• Wh
at kind of work do they do there?
• What do you think of A, B, C and D? (The interviewer can inquire about
the suspect ’ s impression of the friendliness, honesty, reliability and work
ethic of all of the people the suspect has named.) What kind of relationship
do you have with A, B, C and D?
If the suspect describes the barman as a likeable, reliable fellow, or if he says
that while he knows the barman he does not have a relationship with him
(either positive or negative), it will be more diffi cult for the suspect to claim
at a later stage that the barman is a fantasist or a liar who has a grudge against
him and wants to do him harm.
When formulating information - gathering questions it is important to specify
what the questions are meant to establish. To maintain a sense of clarity and
structure for the interviewer and the suspect alike, each information - gathering
question should have just one objective.
Example. The suspect ’ s car was parked outside 10 Bishops Close at 2 o ’ clock
in the morning on the night of Sunday, 2/Monday, 3 December. Given that
this is the case, the object of individual information - gathering questions is to
establish that:
42
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing
• The suspect was the only person who used the car on that night.
• The suspect ’ s car was parked outside 10 Bishops Close on that night.
• The suspect ’ s car was parked outside 10 Bishops Close at 2 o ’ clock in the
morning on that night.
The next step in the preparation of the question plan is to decide what to
do if the suspect ’ s answers to the information - gathering questions are incon-
sistent with the evidence. Having asked the suspect as many information
-
gathering questions as possible, one possibility is to confront the suspect with
the evidence immediately. It is also possible to confront the suspect with the
evidence at a later stage. To proceed with either of these courses the suspect
must have been asked enough information
- gathering questions about the
evidence to be able to confront the suspect with the evidence. At the same
time, it is also important to consider whether, when it comes to increasing the
pressure on the suspect, it is appropriate to confront the suspect with the
evidence at that stage. For example, being confronted with a piece of evidence
that places the suspect at the scene of the crime will put far more pressure on
him or her than being confronted with a piece of evidence that places the
suspect somewhere near the scene of the crime. Because the model is based
on the principle that pressure should be built up gradually during the course
of the interview in order to minimize resistance, it is important to ensure that,
if possible, the build - up of pressure is suffi ciently gradual in terms of the level
of challenge in the successive confrontations.
Besides increasing the level of challenge in successive confrontations, the
confrontations also need to be more specifi cally related to the crime and more
frequent during the course of the interview. In other words, the confrontations
need continually to home in on the crime, which makes them more incrimi-
nating for the suspect, as well as being made at shorter intervals during the
course of the interview and, if necessary, one after another.
Not all information - gathering questions will lead to a confrontation, simply
because no confrontation is possible at that point. If the interviewer has asked
one or more information - gathering questions to establish whether the suspect
or someone other than the suspect used the suspect ’ s car on the night in ques-
tion, the interviewer cannot subsequently confront the suspect if the inter-
viewer does not have any evidence that the suspect was the only person to use
the car that night. If, during the interview, the suspect states that he lent the
car to an acquaintance that night, it will be necessary to check to verify the
suspect ’ s statement. If the investigation reveals that what the suspect has said
is not true, the suspect may be confronted with that evidence in a later
interview.
Once the preparation phase is complete, the interviewer will have a question
plan that specifi es which pieces of evidence are to be discussed with the suspect
in what order and at what point in the interview. The plan will also indicate
whether and, if so, at what point in the interview the suspect is to be con-
fronted with the evidence in question.
A Structured Model for Investigative Interviewing of Suspects
43
An example of part of a question plan relating to the use of a car by a person
suspected of burglary can be found at the end of this chapter.
The c onducting of the i nterview
The interviewer does not have to know the question plan by heart and there
is no reason why the interviewer should not take the question plan into the
interrogation room. There is no need to be secretive about this. The inter-
viewer can simply explain to the suspect that there are lots of questions he or
she wishes to ask and that he or she has brought along certain documents to
ensure that everything is covered that needs to be covered. This will usually
make a positive impression on the suspect. However, given that the interviewer
has drawn up the question plan and in doing so has carefully considered the
questions that need to be asked during the course of the interview, the inter-
viewer will usually know most of the plan by heart.
Effective use of the question plan during the interview requires skill on the
part of the interviewer. It is not advisable to stick so closely to the plan that
the interviewer simply fi res off one question after another. The interviewer has
to be suffi ciently fl exible so that at a relational level the interchange with the
suspect is conducted as a ‘ normal ’ conversation. Sometimes it may be necessary
for the interviewer to pursue a line of questioning that is not anticipated in
the question plan. The plan simply serves as a (main) guideline during the
interview.
During the interview the interviewer asks the suspect the information
-
gathering questions in the order in which they have been prepared. Once the
interviewer has asked the suspect all of the information - gathering questions
that relate to a certain piece of evidence, the interviewer summarizes what the
suspect has said and checks that he or she has understood the suspect correctly.
In summarizing what the suspect has said, the interviewer needs to ensure that
his or her summary is as complete as possible and that it includes both relevant
and irrelevant points.
Example. A person suspected of robbing the Fortis Bank in King Street has
stated that he has three bank accounts – one with the Fortis Bank, one with
the Postbank and one with ABN Amro. In response to questioning he has said
that he visited the Fortis Bank last month, he has not been to ABN Amro for
years and that he runs his account with the Postbank via the internet. He has
also said when he last visited the Fortis Bank a
nd ABN Amro.
The interviewer should summarize this information as follows:
‘ So, if I understand you rightly, your account with the Postbank is via the inter-
net. You last visited the Fortis Bank in King Street on Friday of last week when
you withdrew money, but prior to that you had not been there for several
months. You have not been to ABN Amro for years and no longer use your
account with the bank. Is that right? ’
44
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing
The interviewer should not summarize this information as follows:
‘ So, if I understand you rightly, you last visited the Fortis Bank on Friday of last
week. Is that right? ’
If the answers to the information - gathering questions achieve the objectives
established at the outset, the interviewer can proceed to ask the next set of
information - gathering questions. This will be the case if the statement made
by the suspect is consistent with the evidence. If not, the interviewer may
choose to confront the suspect with the evidence (this will depend on action
outlined in the question plan).
When confronting the suspect with a piece of evidence the interviewer
should be brief, clear and neutral. When confronted with evidence that con-
fl icts with his or her statement, the suspect will experience a certain amount
of internal pressure to explain the inconsistency between his or her story and
the evidence. If, when confronting the suspect with a piece of evidence, the
interviewer talks for too long so the confrontation takes the form of a mono-
logue, there is a risk that the internal pressure that the suspect is experiencing
will diminish. There is no need for the suspect to say anything while
the interviewer is speaking. This is why a confrontation needs to be brief. I
t also needs to be clear. If it is vague, the suspect will be able to ask
questions. If, for example, the interviewer says,
‘ Someone saw you there
’
the suspect can ask,
‘ Where did they see me?
’ or
‘ Really? Who saw me?
’
‘ Really? When? ’ This will lessen the impact of the confrontation. If the inter-
viewer fails to remain neutral and presents the confrontation in the form of
an attack, it is easier for the suspect to respond to the tenor of the attack
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing: Current Developments and Future Directions Page 10