Nathan J Gordon, William L Fleisher
Page 30
This suspect’s FAINT score was a 9, indicative of deception. His polygraph data also
indicated deception, and he confessed to masturbating in front of his granddaughter on
two occasions.
CASE STUDY 6
In the following case study, cash was stolen from the drop safe at a skating rink.
Q: Where do you work?
A: ABC Ice Rink.
Q: What do you do?
A: I’m the general manager.
Q: How do you like working there?
A: I like it.
Q: What is this interview and investigation about?
A: Stolen five hundred and some dollars out of the drop safe.
Q: Why were you selected to be interviewed?
A: Because I was one of the people who found it, I guess.
Q: How do you feel about being interviewed?
A: I’m not happy about it, but you got to do what you got to do.
Q: Write in detail what this is about and how you would explain it.
A: The theft of $542 from the ABC Ice Rink. I am the manager of the facility. $542 was stolen from our
drop safe and myself and my assistant manager found the missing money and contacted the police. Since
then an investigation has been ongoing for four weeks. Someone went in the drop box and 5 out of 15 envel
opes were torn open and money taken out. There were keys I left in my office to the drop safe. Seven or
eight supervisors had access.
Q: If you were the investigator, how would you conduct the investigation?
A: I guess the same way it was done.
Q: What are the five most important reasons this took place?
A: I put those keys in the wrong place. They shouldn’t have had access to the drop safe.
Q: Did you ever think about doing something like this?
A: No.
Q: Is there anyone you would suspect?
A: One person, Jimmy Ruess. He worked Saturday night and Sunday night by himself. I fired him for
stealing $20 out of the bank. He admitted to me he took it, but denied taking the $542.
Q: Is there anyone you would definitely eliminate from the investigation?
A: Karen Busch. She’s been there longer than me and is a great employee.
Q: What do you think should happen to the person who did this when they’re caught?
A: Be fired.
206
11. THE VALIDATION OF THE FORENSIC ASSESSMENT INTERVIEW (FAINT)
Q: Would you give them a second chance?
A: I’m sorry, no.
Q: Would there be any reason evidence would turn up indicating you did this?
A: No.
Q: How do you think the investigation will come out today concerning whether you took that missing
money?
A: Positive. I didn’t take it.
Q: Why do you think someone would do something like this?
A: I guess for need.
Q: If you had been the interviewer and could have only asked three questions to resolve this, what would
you have asked?
A: Have you stolen the $542? Do you know who stole the $542? I don’t know the third. Could you have stolen it?
Analysis of Case Study 6
Q: Where do you work?
A: ABC Ice Rink.
Q: What do you do?
A: I’m the general manager.
Q: How do you like working there?
A: I like it.
Score: þ3 Positive answer without hesitation, adaptors, or coding.
Q: What is this interview and investigation about?
A: Stolen five hundred and some dollars out of the drop safe.
Score: þ2 Strong language describing exactly what the crime was.
Q: Why were you selected to be interviewed?
A: Because I was one of the people who found it, I guess.
Score: þ1 Includes himself as a possible suspect.
Q: How do you feel about being interviewed?
A: I’m not happy about it, but you got to do what you got to do.
Score: 0
Q: Write in detail what this is about and how you would explain it.
A: The theft of $542 from the ABC Ice Rink. I am the manager of the facility. $542 was stolen from our
drop safe and myself and my assistant manager found the missing money and contacted the police. Since
then an investigation has been ongoing for four weeks. Someone went in the drop box and 5 out of 15 envel
opes were torn open and money taken out. There were keys I left in my office to the drop safe. Seven or
eight supervisors had access.
Score: þ1 Allows for the construction of good, relevant questions.
Q: If you were the investigator, how would you conduct the investigation?
A: I guess the same way it was done.
CASE STUDY 6
207
Score: þ1 Agreement with process.
Q: What are the five most important reasons this took place?
A: I put those keys in the wrong place. They shouldn’t have had access to the drop safe.
Score: 0 Fails to give five reasons; however, does take responsibility for what happened.
Q: Did you ever think about doing something like this?
A: No.
Score: þ1 No hesitation or adaptors.
Q: Is there anyone you would suspect?
A: One person, Jimmy Ruess. He worked Saturday night and Sunday night by himself. I fired him for
stealing $20 out of the bank. He admitted to me he took it, but denied taking the $542.
Score: þ3 Narrows the investigation.
Q: Is there anyone you would definitely eliminate from the investigation?
A: Karen Busch. She’s been there longer than me and is a great employee.
Score: þ2 Narrows the investigation.
Q: What do you think should happen to the person who did this when they’re caught?
A: Be fired.
Score: þ2 Strong punishment.
Q: Would you give them a second chance?
A: I’m sorry, no.
Score: þ2
Q: Would there be any reason evidence would turn up indicating you did this?
A: No.
Score: þ2 Positive answer without any hesitation or adaptors.
Q: How do you think the investigation will come out today concerning whether you took that missing
money?
A: Positive. I didn’t take it.
Score: þ2 Positive answer without any hesitation or adaptors.
Q: Why do you think someone would do something like this?
A: I guess for need.
Score: 0 Fails to “look down” at the type of person who would do this.
208
11. THE VALIDATION OF THE FORENSIC ASSESSMENT INTERVIEW (FAINT)
Q: If you had been the interviewer and could have only asked three questions to resolve this, what would
you have asked?
A: Have you stolen the $542? Do you know who stole the $542? I don’t know the third. Could you have
stolen it?
Score: þ1 Asks strong relevant questions.
This suspect’s FAINT score was a þ23, indicative of truthfulness.
SUMMARY
• FAINT’s integration of other systems of detecting deception, additional questions, and a
system for quantifying observations of verbal, nonverbal, and written behavior
drastically reduced the “inconclusive” rate reported in the BAI study [2].
• By using a 3-point scoring system, scores of 0 or higher appear to result in 88% accuracy
for determinations of truthfulness, and an assessment score of 5 or lower appears to
result in 89% accuracy for determinations of deception.
• In single-issue suspect cases, an assessment score of þ3 or higher appears to be 100%
accur
ate for determinations of truthfulness, and an assessment score of þ2 or lower
appears to be, 96% accurate for determinations of deception.
• Using the weighted scoring system, an assessment score of þ7 or higher appears to be
91% accurate for determinations of truthfulness, and an assessment score of þ4 or lower
appears to be, 91% accurate for determinations of deception.
• In single-issue suspect cases using the weighted scoring system, an assessment score of
þ8 or higher appears to be 100% accurate for determinations of truthfulness, and a score
of þ7 or lower appears to be 100% accurate for determinations of deception.
References
[1] N.J. Gordon, The Validity of the Forensic Assessment Interview Technique, University of South Africa, 2004.
[2] F. Horvath, B. Jayne, J. Buckley, Differentiation of truthful and deceptive suspects in Behavior Analysis Interviews, J. Forensic Sci. 39 (3) (1994) 793 807.
C H A P T E R
12
Interviewing Children and the
Mentally Challenged
There are many case situations that will necessitate an investigative interview of a child
or mentally challenged individual. These interviews will fall generally into two categories:
one in which the interviewee is a suspect in a crime, and one in which the interviewee is an
alleged victim of a crime. In the latter, these interviews often are the result of a claim of sex-
ual abuse or maltreatment where a child or mentally impaired individual is the victim.
Although most of these claims may be substantiated, the investigator must be aware that
false claims of this nature also are made.
Whether these individuals are alleged victims or suspects, the interviewer must recog-
nize that their language development and resources will have an effect on their ability to
give a proper statement, as well as their ability to encode and recall an experience.
For example, we would expect a very young child to give fewer details than an older
one, or an adult [1]. Children are more vulnerable to suggestion than adults. Because a
child or mentally deficient interviewee may have difficulty giving a spontaneous detailed
statement, the investigator must ask questions.
To diagnose mental retardation, professionals look at a person’s mental abilities (IQ) and
his or her adaptive skills. Both of these are highlighted in the definition of mental retarda-
tion provided between the lines below. This definition comes from the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IDEA is the federal law that guides how schools
provide early intervention and special education and related services to children with dis-
abilities [2].
A standard IQ test, such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale or Stanford Binet IQ test, is
generally used to determine an individual’s intellectual functioning. The average score is
100. People scoring below 70 are considered to have mental retardation. Professionals also
assess the person’s adaptive behavior. To measure adaptive behavior, professionals look at
what a child can do in comparison to other children of his or her age. Certain skills are
important to adaptive behavior [2]. These are:
• Daily living skills, such as getting dressed, going to the bathroom, and feeding one’s self
• Communication skills, such as understanding what is said and being able to answer
• Social skills with peers, family members, adults, and others
Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques
209
# 2011, Elsevier Ltd.
210
12. INTERVIEWING CHILDREN AND THE MENTALLY CHALLENGED
The IDEA defines mental retardation as follows [2]:
. . . significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with deficits in adap tive behavior and manifested during the developmental period, that adversely affects a child’s educational
performance. [34 Code of Federal Regulations }300.7(c)(6)]
If the interviewee is a suspect in a custodial situation where “Miranda” rights are
required, the investigator must be able to establish that the interviewee was mentally
capable of understanding his constitutional rights and intelligently and affirmatively
waiving them. One method of accomplishing this is to use simple language when advis-
ing the interviewee of his rights and to ask him to explain in his own words what each
right means.
In a possible homicide investigation where the father of an infant was suspected of delib-
erately committing the crime, the advisement of his constitutional rights went like this:
I: Before we begin I want to make sure you understand that you do not have to talk to us if you do not
want to. Do you understand that?
S: Yeah.
I: What does that mean?
S: If I don’t want to say nothing I don’t have to.
I: You have the right to have an attorney present.
S: Okay.
I: What does that mean?
S: If I want a lawyer I can have one.
I: What if you do not have enough money to hire a lawyer? What would happen then?
S: You have to get me one for free.
I: That is right. If you do decide to talk to us anything you say can be used as evidence against you.
Do you understand that?
S: Mmm, mmm.
I: What does that mean?
S: You can use what I say in court against me.
I: That is right. So, would you like a lawyer?
S: Nah.
I: Are you willing to talk to us?
S: Yeah.
When interviewing someone from this population of suspects, the investigator must con-
sider the mental development of the interviewee when assessing his answers. The manner
in which questions are asked is critical, especially when attempting to collect accurate infor-
mation from an alleged victim. Interviewing is a learning process. The questions asked by
the interviewer may be assimilated into the child’s memory, thereby affecting the child’s
actual recall.
The interviewer’s influence on these populations can be verbal as well as nonverbal.
A verbal example of interviewer influence would be an attempt to gather information by
making a statement such as, “I interview many children/people who have had bad things
happen to them. I am very proud that many of them have the courage to tell me about it.
I want you to tell me about what happened to you.” Because of this question, the inter-
viewee can be influenced to tell a story of bad things happening to him in order to meet
12. INTERVIEWING CHILDREN AND THE MENTALLY CHALLENGED
211
the expectations of the interviewer. A nonverbal example of interviewer bias could be any
gesture or expression that reinforces the belief that something bad has happened to the
child/person.
The investigator should know that there are no behavioral manifestations that in and of
themselves are conclusive of sexual abuse. For example, nightmares, bedwetting, sudden
changes in school performance, and aggressive or sexual behavior are all behavioral symp-
toms, but none of these symptoms are specific to sexual abuse.
The use of props and drawings during the forensic interview may also create false infor-
mation. Therefore, before the child completes his initial statement during the Forensic Inter-
view process, it is recommended tha
t the interviewer not use props and drawings, because
the added information that results from this process often is tainted, and it is not possible to
differentiate between true facts and fictitious facts.
In their research, Greenhoot et al. [1] allowed children to utilize props to assist them in describing what happened during a visit to a doctor’s office. They found that children using
props gave more detailed and elaborate statements than children using only verbal
responses; however, these children also had more inaccuracies about their visits.
Researchers have determined that information provided by children may be based on
recall memory or recognition memory. Recall memory refers to information that results
from open-ended questions, such as, “What did you do this morning?” Recognition mem-
ory refers to information obtained from direct questions, such as, “Did you eat breakfast
this morning?” [3] Questions dealing with recall memory provide more accurate informa-
tion because the child is not influenced in any direction by the interviewer.
In research conducted at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
(NICHD), scientists found that young children will provide a great deal of information,
of a much purer nature, when asked questions that require the information to come from
recall memory. Questions that lend themselves to recognition memory may produce tainted
information because it may lead the interviewee to give false information: the child may
think this is what the interviewer seeks, or may feel pressured to give false information
for self-esteem [3].
If a child is asked a question based on recall memory, such as, “What did you do after
school yesterday?” and the child replies, “When I got home the first thing I did was my
homework,” it would be more likely to be accurate than if the interviewer had asked a
direct question based on recognition memory, such as, “When you got home from school
yesterday, did you do your homework?” Perhaps, now the child will give false information
and say they did, because they feel that the interviewer expects them to have done this, and
they want to meet the interviewer’s expectation [3].
Because it is not possible to differentiate true statements from statements made as
a result of a suggestion of the interviewer or others in the child’s environment, it is