highly effective means to gauge the veracity of witness and suspect statements. Its use
today, by many law enforcement and intelligence agencies worldwide, is a fitting tribute
to these investigative interviewing trailblazers.
SUMMARY
• Two major systems of statement analysis are in use today: CBSA and SCAN.
• Both of these systems help identify deceptive suspects who write their statements from
fabrication, rather than from real memories.
• The deceptive suspect would rather run from the truth than tell an outright lie.
• In statement analysis we see the deceptive suspect’s failure to commit to their statement,
and attempts to omit the portion of time when the crime was committed.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Daphna Tavor, a Swiss based psychologist trained in the art of CBSA, SCAN,
FAINT, and forensic psychophysiology, for her assistance in providing explanations of CBSA and possible exam ples of the application of CBSA in a suspect’s statement not involving a sexual allegation.
References
[1] M. Steller, Assessing credibility of children’s statements about sexual abuse, Paper presented at the Institute of Forensic Sciences, Istanbul University on June 29, 2000.
[2] T. Lesce, SCAN: Deception detection by scientific content analysis, Law and Order Magazine 38 (8) (1990).
[3] D. Tavor, Lecture conducted on Criteria Based Statement Analysis, Centurion, South Africa, April 10, 2003.
[4] L. Greuel, et al., Glaubhaftigkeit der Zeugenaussage, Psychology Verlags Union, Beltz, 1997.
[5] D. Tavor, Speech at the 25th Anniversary Congress for Law and Mental Health, Siena, Italy, July 2000.
C H A P T E R
7
Question Formulation:
Irrelevant, Relevant, and Comparison Questions
The questions we use in the Forensic Assessment Interview fall into four categories: Irrel-
evant, Relevant, Comparison, and Projective (this last category is complex and is discussed
in the next chapter). One would not play a round of golf with just a driver and a putter, but
would rely on a variety of differently functioning clubs to achieve the goal of the game. It is
exactly the same with the question types we use in the Forensic Assessment Interview. As
each club has been specifically designed for a particular golfing situation, so it is with the
questions we use. Each type of question has its place; each one is important.
IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS
Irrelevant questions are questions that have no connection whatsoever to the matter under
investigation, and therefore should pose no threat to the suspect. These questions usually
are about the suspect’s background. In short, they are not questions that innocent or guilty
suspects have a reason to lie about. It should be noted that irrelevant in this case does not
mean trivial; these questions are hardly unimportant to the overall interview process.
These “neutral” questions serve four very useful purposes. First, they establish the pro-
fessional authority present in the room: it is the interviewer who asks the questions, and the
suspect who must answer. Second, because both truthful and deceptive suspects will be at a
heightened emotional state during an interview, these questions allow the interviewer to
assess the suspect’s normal behavior for this heightened emotional situation. Third, they
allow the interviewer to identify something he may have in common with the suspect,
which serves to immediately establish rapport. Fourth, they serve to minimize resistance
by structure, a strategy used by deceptive suspects to try to escape answering a sensitive
question by answering the interviewer’s questions with a question.
If during this initial portion of the interview the conversation can change into a non-
threatening discussion about a recent sporting event, or some other thing shared in com-
mon, such as military service or school experiences, it will allow the interviewer an
excellent opportunity to monitor the suspect’s situational “norm” truthful demeanor, as
well as establish rapport with the suspect. It should go without saying that politics, religion,
Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques
89
# 2011, Elsevier Ltd.
90
7. QUESTION FORMULATION
and sex are usually emotionally charged topics that should be avoided. Irrelevant questions
should cause no sympathetic nervous system physiological arousal.
Here are some examples of irrelevant questions:
What is your name?
Where do you live?
How old are you?
What is your marital status?
What is the highest grade you completed in school?
Were you ever in the military?
Remember that sometime during this part of questioning the interviewer must make the
transition from what appears to be a trivial, closed-ended interview into something shared
and in common with the interviewee. This will afford the interviewee some time to speak
about nonthreatening things and allow the interviewer to assess the suspect’s situational
“norm” behavior.
RELEVANT QUESTIONS
Relevant questions are closed-ended questions dealing directly with the matter under
investigation that must be answered in the shortest fashion, usually “Yes” or “No.” These
relevant questions will inquire into direct involvement, secondary involvement, or knowl-
edge about the incident. These closed-ended questions must be formulated so that the inno-
cent can answer them truthfully, while the guilty are forced to lie or admit their guilt. As
such, these questions are designed to threaten the deceptive person only and cause sympa-
thetic nervous system physiological arousal to occur.
Examples of direct involvement relevant questions:
Did you divert those funds for your own use?
Did you set that fire?
Did you take that money reported missing from the safe?
Did you force that woman to have sex with you?
Did you fire the shot that hit that man?
Examples of relevant questions concerning secondary involvement:
Did you plan with anyone to divert that money?
Were you present when that shooting took place?
Did you help anyone take that money?
Did you plan with anyone to set that fire?
Do you know for sure who harmed Mary?
Did you see who harmed Mary?
Did anyone tell you who harmed Mary?
Relevant questions must not contain words that are so evocative of emotion that the lan-
guage itself might cause psychophysiological responses, regardless of whether the person is
lying or telling the truth. Therefore, avoid emotionally charged words such as “kill,”
RELEVANT QUESTIONS
91
“rape,” or “steal.” For the same reason, avoid using intimidating legal words such as “bur-
glarize,” “extort,” “bribe,” or “rob.” Legal words in and of themselves can be ambiguous
and allow the guilty interviewee to hide behind a rationalization (e.g., “I didn’t take a bribe;
I accepted pay for a special job”).
During the interview, keep relevant questions short and focused. Make sure that the
interviewee understands the language and that it remains within his comfort zone. When-
ever possible, use language that focuses the relevant question on
the act itself, rather than
language that connotes guilt or innocence. Questions framed around guilt and innocence
may allow the suspect to rationalize that, although he may have committed the act, he
did nothing for which he should feel guilty. Consider the question, “Did you steal that
missing money from your employer?” The guilty suspect could rationalize that he is telling
the truth when he answers “No,” because he was promised a raise at the beginning of the
year that he never received. This mental justification permits him to rationalize that he
didn’t “steal” the money, because the company owed it to him and he was just taking what
actually belonged to him. To make the perpetrator in this mindset face his wrongdoing, it is
much more effective to focus on the physical act by asking, “Did you remove any of the
money that your company reported missing?”
In homicide interviews, avoid the question, “Did you cause the death of (victim)?” espe-
cially if the suspect had some type of relationship with the deceased. In reinterviewing an
innocent man who failed a polygraph test when asked, “Did you cause the death of your
daughter?” we asked him what he had been thinking about that might have registered as
a positive reaction for lying. The man said he was thinking that he had caused her death
because he felt responsible for it by not being there when she needed his protection most.
His daughter was 4 years old and was taken from his house during the night. She was
found sexually molested and beaten to death the next morning. He explained that as her
father, he should have been able to protect her. He felt it was his failure, his fault that his
daughter had been killed. When asked on a reexamination if he beat her to death, he
answered “No,” and the polygraph confirmed his innocence.
As you can see, this notion of the cause of guilt and responsibility is open to a wide range
of interpretation. The interviewee can internalize guilt without being the perpetrator or
directly involved in the crime. An interviewee can feel responsible for not having acted to
protect someone he cared about or loved. Consider these hypothetical circumstances.
A boyfriend and girlfriend had a fight. The girlfriend got out of the car and walked away.
The boyfriend left in anger but came back for her, didn’t find her, and went home. Later he
found that on her way home she was raped and murdered. How did the boyfriend feel?
Did he see himself as responsible? Did he feel guilt for his anger? If he had not given in
to his anger, she would not have gotten out of the car, and she would still be alive.
The interviewer must make sure he is dealing with only one issue and aspect of the crime
at a time. Imagine if the victim above had been raped by one perpetrator, but killed by his
accomplice. The complex relevant question, “Did you rape and kill. . .” could be success-
fully denied by both, thus raising a second instance of ambiguity. In a multiple-issue crime,
questioning should focus on the most serious act first. Considering the theory of Psychologi-
cal Set, the guilty party could fail to leak deceptive behavior to what is perceived to him
as the lesser crime, because he is waiting to be asked about the more threatening one.
Cleve Backster labeled a subject’s internal ability to physiologically ignore a lesser threat
92
7. QUESTION FORMULATION
as anti-climactic dampening [1]. This anti-climactic dampening also explains why the deceptive suspect physiologically reacts more strongly to the relevant question than to the com-
parison question (see the next section), even though he is lying to both.
In all cases, extensive preparation for the interview may mean the difference between
success and failure. Because relevant questions are meant to force the guilty party to lie,
the interviewer needs to know as much about the crime and the interviewee as possible.
That will enable the questions to be well framed and clearly focused. Such relevant ques-
tions generate the mental conflict and tensions that most threaten the guilty suspect and
cause the observable psychophysiological changes that occur. Thus, the more known about
the crime, the better prepared the interviewer will be, and the more productive the
interview.
COMPARISON QUESTIONS
John E. Reid is usually credited with developing the comparison question used in forensic
psychophysiology truth verification examinations [2]. The comparison question, in the
opinion of the authors, is one of the most important question types for a successful determi-
nation of truth or deception. This question creates a mental environment for properly iden-
tifying truthful suspects. These are questions that are broad in scope and deal with issue
themes similar to, but less threatening than, the relevant question issue. They are questions
one would expect every innocent person would truthfully answer “Yes.” In reality, com-
parison questions create a conflict and threat for innocent people, making them feel as if
they must lie to be perceived by the interviewer as innocent of the substantive allegation.
To get an understanding of and feeling for how comparison questions work, read the fol-
lowing questions and answer each truthfully in your own mind as you do so.
Examples of comparison questions:
General comparisons:
In your entire life, did you ever tell a lie to get out of trouble?
In your entire life, did you ever do anything for which you could be arrested?
Theft comparisons:
Prior to working for your current employer, did you ever steal anything from a job?
In your entire life, did you ever steal anything?
In your entire life, did you ever steal from someone who trusted you?
In your entire life, did you ever cheat?
Arson comparisons:
In your entire life, did you ever deliberately damage anything?
During the first 19 years of your life, did you ever play with matches?
Homicide comparisons:
During the first 22 years of your life, did you ever go out of your way to get even with
anyone?
COMPARISON QUESTIONS
93
Between the ages of 19 and 23, did you ever lose your temper?
Sex comparisons:
During the first 20 years of your life, did you ever have an unusual sexual fantasy?
In your entire life, did you ever masturbate?
In your entire life, did you ever lie about a sexual matter?
You probably answered all, or most, of these questions “Yes,” in your mind. However,
almost every suspect who is innocent of the crime or “truthful” will hedge or answer them
“No.” To understand this, let’s look at the dynamics involved with the area of “compari-
son” questioning.
Assume you are an “innocent as later verified” suspect in the theft of $10,000 from the
safe in the office where you work. The relevant question might be, “Yesterday, did you
remove that missing safe money?” Because, you are innocent of the crime and did not take
the money, you answer “No.” However, because you are a still a “suspect,” even though
you answered truthfully, this question may still hold some threat for you – no one likes
to be accused of anything. Now the detective asks you, “What type of person would steal
$10,000 from
his employer?” Then he elaborates, “This is the act of a thief. An honest person
does not wake up one day and decide to steal money. A person who would do this is a per-
son who has stolen from other jobs and from people who trusted him throughout his life. It
is a pattern of criminal behavior that has evolved over a long time. This is the kind of per-
son who would do this act. This is the type of person who, even if they did not take the
missing safe money, should not be in a sensitive position like yours. I want to determine
for sure that you are not that type of person. That is why I would like to know, in your
entire life, did you ever steal anything?”
Now, if you are the “guilty as later verified” subject who had in fact taken the $10,000 in
question, you would not be concerned about this line of inquiry into your past stealing.
Because you are there being questioned about the $10,000 you actually took, you feel guilty
and threatened by those relevant questions. The threat is immediate and real, because you
may go to jail for the $10,000 you took. That you are being asked about ever stealing things
in the past seems psychologically unimportant to you at his time.
However, if you are that “innocent” suspect, think about what is going through your
mind as you are asked the comparison question. You do not know what to do: lie or tell
the truth. If you tell a lie about prior petty thefts, will you be detected? If you are detected,
will the detective think you were the one who took the $10,000? What if you tell the truth
about stealing as a child? Will they think you are exactly the “type of person” who would
steal the $10,000, now that you have told them about the 50 cents you took from your
mother’s purse, or the candy bar you ate without paying for it on your last job? Even if they
do not, the detective has already said, “That is the type of person who, although he did not
take the $10,000, should not be in a sensitive position like yours.”
It is important to understand that at some time in their lives almost all individuals have
stolen something, lied about something important to someone who trusted them, cheated
someone, deliberately hurt someone, or done some other act of which they are thoroughly
Nathan J Gordon, William L Fleisher Page 14