Investigative Interviewing: Psychology, Method and Practice
Page 26
Thus, if our initial presumptions are not accurate or contain imperfect data, the final conclusion we draw will likely be inaccurate. Innumeracy and other inherent biases are the bane of many fallen leaders.
6.3.6 Prevention and the Path to Better Guardrails
The simplest path to prevention of bad things is to not hire those who have a propensity to do bad things. A task that is easier said than done. Among the tools available, is Robert D. Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PC-R) (see www.hare.
org). Widely considered the foremost reliable diagnostic tool available to identify clinical psychopathy and its attendant personality disorders, it is up to the task.7
However, most employers haven’t access to the PCL-R or the means to properly
administer it. Moreover, a host of federal and state employment laws make the
162 ◾ Investigative Interviewing
path to preemployment diagnosis nearly impossible. Thus, the use of diagnostic
screening to prevent hiring potential problems (or people capable of creating future problems) is neither practical nor likely lawful. Instead, prevention is a matter of building more sensible guardrails. Here are a few to ponder:
1. Set the tone at the top and make culture management a top priority. This
involves role-modeling and active culture management across the enterprise
where eliminating bad behavior becomes everyone’s responsibility.
2. Screen all employment applicants using all of the tools lawfully and practi-
cally available. Be consistent and treat all applicants similarly and don’t be
afraid to ask tough (lawful) questions. For example, request applicants pro-
vide proof of prior earnings or wages and carefully verify all prior employ-
ment and references.
3. Properly train those who screen and interview applicants and those selected
for promotion. Empower those involved in the selection process by allowing
their input in hiring and promotion decisions and put qualifications and
experience before the immediate need to fill vacancies.
4. Establish clear expectations regarding workplace performance and behavior.
Create policies and protocols that manage behavior instead of those that sim-
ply prescribe discipline or corrective action when transgressions occur.
5. Embrace the concept of culture management and retain only those employees
who share the organization’s culture.
6. Inspect that which you expect. Constantly assess, audit, and evaluate all of the elements contributory to the organization’s pursuit of principled compliance.
7. Provide employees the means by which to safely and anonymously (if they
desire) report issues of concern, bad behavior, and retaliation.
8. Establish reward and recognition programs that allow the celebration of
proper and ethical behavior.
Of all of the sciences, human behavior is the least understood. The ancients
pondered the origins of good and evil and modern psychologists are still seeking the foundation of our conscience. What is known, however, is that regardless of our rules, laws, ethos, and the infinite boundaries man has attempted to place on his behavior, good people sometimes still do bad things.
6.4 Why Some People Lie
It is not a secret that the outcome of the investigatory interview is likely to result in discipline. This potential outcome is not lost on the interviewee. Even the
most honest and well-meaning offender may be tempted to lie in order to avoid
punishment. To be successful, the interviewer must be able to provide the interviewee a credible reason to believe that cooperating and telling the truth will
Process of Overcoming Objections and Denials ◾ 163
benefit him. That is, the interviewee must be motivated to tell the truth. That motivation or incentive must be sufficient to overcome the potential benefits of lying. On both a conscious and subconscious level, the interviewee conducts a
risk-benefit analysis. If the benefits of telling the truth outweigh the benefits of lying, the subject will tell the truth. Classic responses indicating just the opposite include:
◾ “The way I was raised …”
◾ “My Daddy told me to never …”
◾ “You know, I’ve got a family to feed.”
◾ “Why would I lie?”
◾ “You haven’t shown me anything. Where is the proof?”
◾ “If I did it, prove it.”
These responses provide incredible insight into the mind of the interviewee.
Notice that the interviewee does not offer anything useful that might prove their innocence. Instead, he demands proof of his guilt. Here is what is likely not said when these responses are offered:
◾ “The way I was raised … I am guilty and learned that lying works. People
who tell the truth always get punished.”
◾ “My Daddy told me to never … I am guilty, but my Daddy taught me to
never tell the truth, truthful people are stupid.”
◾ “You know, I’ve got a family to feed … I am guilty, but, if I tell the truth and lose my job, feeding my family will be more difficult.”
◾ “Why would I lie? Let me count the reasons: save my job, avoid punishment,
protect my reputation, stay out of jail, keep my kids, keep the money I’ve
stolen, save my marriage, and get over on a chump like you.”
◾ “You haven’t shown me anything. Where is the proof? I am guilty and I am
stalling. Even if you show your proof to me, I’ll claim it proves nothing.
Moreover, if you show me your evidence now, I will be able to fabricate a bet-
ter alibi and lie my way out of this mess later.”
◾ “If I did it, prove it. I am guilty and I know you know it. But, I suspect your proof against me is weak and you need me to confess. I’ve learned that challenging my accuser, I almost always go unpunished.”
In other words, it is often useful to listen to what is not said as much as one listens to that which is said. Here is something else to ponder—innocent people very rarely ask to see the evidence. They recognize such a question is rhetorical because if they are indeed innocent, they know that there is no evidence. Generally the request to see the evidence is made only by guilty people. The guilty want to see the amount and quality of proof that has been gathered against them in order to more effectively challenge it. They know from experience that their failure to know the
164 ◾ Investigative Interviewing
evidence possessed by their accuser makes effective lying very difficult. By saying too much without knowing all of the evidence gathered, it is too easy to say something wrong and be trapped. Thus, very often the guilty will confront their accuser with: “I’m not going to answer another question until you show me some proof.”
Tip: People lie because they believe that lying provides more benefits than telling the truth. The interviewer needs to appeal to the interviewee on the conscience and subconscious level and convince them that telling the truth is more beneficial than lying.
Warning signs of deception include:
◾ Using language to mask an untruth, such as “to tell the truth” or “hon-
estly speaking”
◾ A selective memory
◾ The inability to recall even nonincriminating facts or circumstances
◾ Avoiding eye contact or appearing to be visually looking for an answer
◾ Offering useless and irrelevant comments or details
◾ Inconsistent, evasive responses
◾ Body language and mannerisms that are inconsistent with one who is telling
the truth
Tip: The use of rationalization or projection is a means by which the subject attempts to make their behavior understandable and socially acceptable. By assisti
ng the interviewee find a rationalization or to project blame onto another person is often critical in obtaining a confession.
Deceptive behaviors include:
◾ Overly anxious: tapping feet, clicking teeth, bobbing knee, constantly look-
ing at the clock
◾ Unconcerned: the lint-picker, whistling, rolling eyes, grooming self, inspecting nails
◾ Defensive: demanding proof, evidence, or the identity of witnesses
◾ Evasive: memory loss, vague, aloof
◾ Guarded: uses qualified answers, suspicious, questions interviewer’s intentions
◾ Complaining: room too hot, too cold, thirsty, body pain, headache
◾ Angry or arrogant: in your face, disrespectful, argumentative
Process of Overcoming Objections and Denials ◾ 165
It is well established that the greater the consequences, the greater the temptation to minimize one’s guilt or deny guilt completely. Those who are guilty frequently try to psychologically distance themselves from the offense. They will
frequently refer to the victim in the third person, awkwardly avoiding the use of their name or revealing their connection with them. For example, Patsy Ramsey,
the mother of murdered child celebrity JonBenet, repeatedly referred to her slain daughter as that child when speaking in public. Curiously, Mrs. Ramsey seemed unable to bring herself to say my baby or my JonBenet. Subsequently, we saw Mark Peterson, the philandering cad accused of murdering his pregnant wife and unborn son, when talking to the media said of his wife, “A lot of people want her to come home.” Peterson also seems to have difficulty saying, I want my wife to come home.
Killers like Peterson can be so consumed by guilt that they are unable to personally identify with those who were once the most important people in their lives. In another murder case involving a child victim, the stepfather suspected of molesting and then killing the toddler told the police, “I would never hurt that child.” Notice that the suspect substitutes the word hurt for murder and words that child for the child’s name.
In a recent case of mine, an office manager suspected of stealing an envelope
stuffed with cash that had been pushed through a door slot after the close of business, repeatedly told my interviewer, “I did not see the money on the floor.” A curious answer for anyone asked did you take the money. Again, analyze what the subject is saying. First, he was not asked if he saw the money, he was asked if he took the money. Second, the money was never on the floor, the envelope containing the money was on the floor. Factually, the manager’s response was truthful. However, he failed to answer the question. Figure 6.3 shows a few of the more common
psycho-linguistic differences frequently encountered when dealing with truthful and deceptive individuals.
People lie for another reason as well. They lie because of fear. That fear includes the fear of losing one’s job, punishment, humiliation, embarrassment, and castiga-tion. Fear can be a terrific force. It can either motivate us or inhibit us. The investigative interviewer’s job is to assist the interviewee overcome that fear and share the truth.
6.5 Confront Objections and Overcome Denials
Admitting one’s guilt often involves the loss of face as well. When other people know we have done bad things, we are embarrassed. We know people will think
differently of us if they know the bad things we have done. As such, there are enormous pressures to hide the truth, minimize our malfeasance, and lie. It has been my experience that in workplace investigations, most people lie because they are afraid. In order to obtain an admission from these individuals, one must determine what they fear.
166 ◾ Investigative Interviewing
Truthful
Deceptive
Rich in details.
Vague, few details.
First person singular, past tense.
Inconsistent first person singular.
Speaks in both present and past
tense.
Uses possessive pronouns such as,
Lack of possessive pronouns. Instead
“My daughter.”
says, “The child.”
Proper characterization of the
Improper characterization of the
victim…”My daughter.”
victim…”She…”
Appropriate emotions at the right
Inappropriate emotions. No
time.
emotions at all.
Wants truth known. Actively seeks to
Wants truth hidden. Claims to seek
find it.
the truth, but actions indicate
otherwise.
Tries to assist and focus the
Provides little useful information;
investigation.
attempts to broaden the
investigation. Casts a wider net than
is necessary.
Committed to innocence and alibi.
Not committed to innocence or alibi.
Will offer multiple alibis. Passive
when asked tough questions.
Expressive and speaks with
Detached and evasive.
conviction.
Admits the opportunity to commit
Denies the opportunity. Overstates
the crime.
inability to commit the crime.
Argues actual innocence. Identifies
Argues legal innocence. Raises legal
facts which support innocence.
defensives, while ignoring the facts.
Figure 6.3 Comparison of truthful and deceptive behaviors.
In the context of investigatory interviews, the best way to learn what one is
afraid of is to ask. The question might be proposed as follows. “Bobby, it is not uncommon in these circumstances that people are afraid of losing their job, going to jail or being shunned by their friends. However, most often our worst fears never come true. Are you afraid you will be fired?”
By approaching the obstacle in this fashion, I have articulated some of the common fears people face in these circumstances. Even if my suppositions are incorrect,
Process of Overcoming Objections and Denials ◾ 167
I will likely draw the interviewee out and encourage him to tell me his fear. Once the fear is identified, in most instances, it can be addressed. While it is improper to minimize the seriousness of the offense or the possibility of punishment, the interviewer can put these matters into proper perspective. For example, the fear of losing one’s job is not as frightening if one knows other employment is readily available. Alternatively, the fear of going to jail may be exaggerated and not even a mere possibility. Only talking about it can the interviewer address the interviewee’s fears and possibly overcome them.
A denial also can be overcome by appealing to the subject’s sense of integrity. A rational person knows that lying often makes matters worse. They know that lying ultimately complicates things and, in the end, the truth almost always prevails.
Here is one approach to overcome this challenge:
While I cannot tell you what will happen when this investigation is over,
the worst mistake someone can make is lying when others know they are
guilty. Your decision not to tell the truth will not minimize what you have done. It will not make it go away or remove your guilt. In addition to what you already have done, you will have to deal with the prospect of being
known as a liar. Which behavior do you think management least likes, _
or lying?
This creates a fascinating psychological dilemma for the interviewee. It is similar to what I refer to as my liar’s paradox.8 My version of the liar’s paradox goes like this: In order to avoid punishment for breaking one policy, you have chosen
to break another. Giving your choice more thought, which policy do you
believe to be more important, the one you broke or our policy against lying?
Another
question to ask someone who clings to their innocence in the face of
considerable evidence against them is: “How is it we can know with certainty you are not lying today?”
This question causes the subjects to ponder the gravity of their guilt without
calling them a liar. If the response questions whether the interviewer is calling the interviewee a liar, the response to him might be: “No. However, in light of the amount of evidence that points to your guilt, it is impossible to understand how you are innocent.”
This line of questioning will frequently elicit a tacit admission. This type of admission comes in a variety of forms. Within the answer provided by the interviewee, he only will imply or infer guilt. For example, the interviewee might use one of the phrases in Figure 6.4.
The last question I ask someone who cannot find the ability to tell the truth
begins with a statement:
168 ◾ Investigative Interviewing
“O.K., then show me the
An innocent person knows there is no
evidence.”
evidence and would not ask to see
something which does not exist.
“If I am guilty, then why haven’t
This question tests the interviewer’s
they fired me?”
confidence in his evidence. It also
suggests that the interviewer has not
convinced the interviewee of the quality
of his investigation or the evidence it
produced.
“Show me what you’ve got and
This is a trap. The interviewee has no
then I will tell the truth.”
intention of telling the truth but wants to
see the evidence against him. No quantity
of evidence will cause this interviewee to
provide an admission.
“Tell me the names of the
This is also a trap. The interviewee wants
people who talked about me
to know the interviewer’s source of
and then I will cooperate.”
information in order to size up the quality
of evidence against him. He may also want
the information in order to intimidate