Nathan J Gordon, William L Fleisher
Page 32
report the results of an interview or interrogation. Volumes have been written on the
subject, and every law enforcement or investigative training course devotes hours to devel-
oping these skills. The authors have been writing reports for more than 40 years each.
Although the job is now easier, thanks to modern word processing with its clip and paste
and template capabilities, we believe that success in report writing rests in the basics.
A good report must tell a story. Unlike fiction, it is a true story. To tell this story, we must
collect all of the available facts and ensure that they are reported in a concise and clear man-
ner. The report should be clear, concise, understandable and, after it is read, should have
answered any and all questions the reader might have about the matter at hand – in partic-
ular, the five “W’s” of Who? What? When? Where? and Why?
A simple reporting technique is to try to answer these questions as you conduct your
interviews and interrogations. Therefore, it is important that your questions to the subject
should be formulated to elicit the answers to the five W’s.
It is extremely important to take good notes even though the interview may be recorded.
We are often reminded of the faux Confucius saying, “A short pencil is better than a long
memory.” Collecting the facts and later accurately memorializing them is the crux of what
we do. We strongly suggest you prepare the report as soon after the interview as possible.
This is important because it is fresh in you mind and you can clearly interpret your own
notes. Many recent legal precedents require that you maintain your handwritten notes of
an interview for various prescribed lengths of time. We recommend that you keep your
handwritten notes in the case file.
Every report should be written as if it will someday be read by a trial judge – and it may
well be. The report should reflect what happened, and whenever possible, quotes should be
accurately reflected with quotation marks. A report should only relate to the facts and
should not reflect the interviewer’s opinion. It can, and often does, include the interviewee’s
opinions, which should be clearly reported as such. For example: Mr. Johnson stated he
“believes that the gun belonged to his brother-in-law, Fred.”
The report can be in memorandum form or in a formal report format. Once a format is
chosen, it should be consistent with your agency or company’s standard format. All reports
should follow the same format. There is nothing more unprofessional than three or four
investigators in the same agency or firm using as many different reporting formats. This
Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques
219
# 2011, Elsevier Ltd.
220
13. REPORT WRITING
format should extend to the “voice” of the report, whether it is written in the first person (I
asked Mr. Smith where he was on the day the money went missing) or the third person (The inter-
viewer asked Mr. Smith where he was on the day the money went missing). Remember to be con-
sistent with voice as well as format. Whenever possible, use uncomplicated language. Your
purpose is not to impress the reader with your erudition, but to communicate the facts in a
simple, understandable manner.
The report should clearly indicate times, places, and participants in the interview. Iden-
tifying data and contact information should be included for both the interviewee and the
interviewer. Some reporting formats place identifying data at the end of the report.
The first paragraph should include the predication, date, time, and location of the inter-
view, as well as the name, address, and telephone number of the interviewee. The purpose
of the interview should be clear to the reader. The report should include the information
that the interviewee was advised of the identity of the interviewer(s) and the nature of
the interview. Also, any rights or warnings given to the interviewee should be noted here.
The last sentence of the first paragraph should indicate that the interviewer was voluntarily
providing the subsequent information.
For example, the first paragraph of a memorandum of an interview written in the third
person may look something like this:
On January 5, 2010, Archibald Meriwether, white male, born 01/01/1955 at Columbus, Ohio, currently
residing at 123 Brown Street, Apartment 4F, Anywhere, PA 18080, telephone number 215 555 4321, was
interviewed at his residence by investigators Ralph Johnston and Samuel Adamski, Cleveland Office of
the ABC Investigation Agency. The interviewing officers identified themselves and stated the nature (pur
pose) of the interview. At which time, Mr. Meriwether provided the following voluntary information:
The subsequent paragraphs should relate all relevant information developed during the
interview. The report writer should use appropriate language that is clear, concise, and easy
to read. The report must logically follow the flow of the interview. However, it is OK to
write the report in such a manner that the information is sorted out by content. Often, an
interviewee will add a thought to a previous statement, and this should be placed in the
report in the proper context.
Subsequent paragraphs written in the third person voice might look as follows:
He has worked at the Cooper Mortgage Company, 1414 5th Street, Cleveland, Ohio, for approximately
seven (7) years. He is an accounts manager. Last Thursday he was off on a personal vacation day, which
he needed to get his car fixed. When he came into work on Friday, Jack Jackson, his boss, told him “Some
body broke into the safe and took all the cash.” That was the first time he learned of the theft.
The last paragraph should logically finish up the interview:
He advised that he could provide no further information concerning the missing money. The interview
was terminated.
Many agencies use a Q&A format to report interviews and interrogations. In this format,
every question and answer is reported verbatim. This is the format used by court reporters.
When conducting a FAINT interview as discussed in this book, the Q&A format is easily
SUMMARY
221
followed and the report can be set up as a template in your word processor. See Appendix
A for an example of the FAINT format.
There are some exceptions regarding the inclusion of the interviewer’s opinions in a
report. For example, when preparing reports such as the results of a polygraph examination
or a FAINT interview, you may offer opinions as such: “In my professional opinion,
Mr. Meriwether can be eliminated (or cannot be eliminated) as a suspect in the theft of
money reported missing from the safe at the Cooper Mortgage Company.”
Never let your personal feelings about the interviewee “jade” your report. Your report
must contain all relevant information offered by the interviewee, incriminating and excul-
patory. The test of a good report is when the reader can understand it and has had all of
his questions answered when he is finished reading the report. Remember, if it is not on
paper, it does not count.
SUMMARY
• The report tells a true story of what occurred during the interview and what the
interviewee said.
•
A good report answers Who? What? When? Where? and Why?
• Develop a standard format and stick to it.
• Do not include your own opinions in your report, unless they are offered as the
“professional opinion” of an expert.
• The report should uses simple language and concisely represent what the interviewee
said.
C H A P T E R
14
Torture and False Confessions:
The Ethics of a Post-9/11 World
In the first chapter, we presented examples of methods used throughout history by vari-
ous cultures and societies to determine the truth. “Truth seekers” employed these techni-
ques for what they believed was “the greater good” to protect the group as a whole from
its deviant members. Some of these techniques involved different degrees of “torture.”
Today, we have been led to believe that civilized governments have for the most part pub-
licly abandoned the use of torture to illicit truthful information.
Our use of the word publicly is not by happenstance. Year after year, month after month,
and, yes, day after day, stories appear from all over the world of human rights abuses
involving torture and murder. Whether it is a report about Pinochet’s Chile; torture, mur-
der, and human dismemberment in Rwanda; “ethnic cleansing” in the former Yugoslavia;
rape and torture in the Sudan; or the interrogation incidents at Abu Ghraib, allegations of
torture are rampant. In the United States, the case of a Haitian immigrant, Abner Louima,
who in August 1997 was arrested outside a social club and physically tortured with a
now infamous “toilet plunger,” clearly demonstrates that America is not immune from this
abhorrent activity. All of these are terrible examples of abuse of power. We would think
that no moral and ethical person would in any way whatsoever justify this inhuman treat-
ment of fellow human beings. But it happens.
On September 11, 2001, our world changed forever with the attacks against U.S. citizens
in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Ironically, September 11, 2001, was also the
publication date of the first edition of this book. Americans can no longer go about their
daily lives in ignorant bliss, safe in the knowledge that two huge oceans and a vigilant
government are protecting them from dangerous extremists. On September 12th, the day
after, Americans screamed for retaliation. They demanded enhanced security immediately.
They were willing to pay the cost to their pockets, as well as their convenience. But were
Americans willing to defend themselves at the cost of their ethical, cultural, and constitu-
tional values? The American public cheered the war in Afghanistan, and many agonized
over the war in Iraq. Now, there soon may be a war in Yemen.
Almost 10 years later, the debate is still raging on. After the allegations of prisoner abuse at
the Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo, the arguments continue concerning the use of
“extraordinary measures” in the interrogation of Arab prisoners by the United States and its
Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques
223
# 2011, Elsevier Ltd.
224
14. TORTURE AND FALSE CONFESSIONS
allies. The ethics, legality, and practicality of subjecting armed combatants and others to
extreme interrogation conditions are still the fuel for moral and political arguments. Prosecu-
tions and threats of prosecution loom in every political debate. Fortunately, most of us will
never have to decide whether or not to “torture” a prisoner. That dilemma is on the plates of
the military, intelligence, and police entities that now are operating in these new theaters of war.
When Saddam Hussein was dragged out of his “spider-hole” hideout near his birth vil-
lage just outside Takrit, Iraq, there was great discussion on how he was going to be treated
during his interrogation. Human rights groups screamed for the protection of the former
dictator’s human rights, while right-wing talk show hosts screamed for “squeezing” Sad-
dam for information about other terrorists, and his former Iraqi subjects screamed for his
head. It was obvious that Saddam’s interrogators were not interested in having him admit
guilt to his crimes. The crimes against his people were so well documented that his confes-
sion was unnecessary. It was more important to learn as much as possible about the ongo-
ing insurgency, weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), future planned attacks, locations of
the opposition leadership, explosives, strategies, and so forth. The question was how to pro-
ceed with his interrogation. According to Saddam’s FBI interrogator, special agent George
Piro, no coercive techniques such as “sleep deprivation, heat, cold, loud noises, or water
boarding” were used against Saddam [1]. In his interview on CBS News’s 60 Minutes, Piro
told correspondent Scott Pelley that harsh methods were not used because “It’s against
FBI policy, first. And wouldn’t have really benefited us with someone like Saddam,”
because he, Saddam, was not the kind of person who would “respond to threats, to any
type of fear based approach.” [1] Piro took a traditional psychological approach to dealing with Saddam, creating a psychological attitude of superiority, “creating a relationship
based on dependency, trust and emotion,” alternating between “acts of kindness and
provocation.” [1]
FIGURE 14.1
14. TORTURE AND FALSE CONFESSIONS
225
It took Piro 5 months to bring up the most sensitive issue on which he was seeking infor-
mation – WMDs. Certainly, using the psychological soft-sell approach with Saddam would
not have been feasible if this had been a “ticking bomb scenario.” However, the FBI did
achieve its goals to hear from the “horse’s mouth” about the history of Saddam’s actions
and capabilities leading up to the confrontation that brought him down.
The United Nations Office of High Commission on Human Rights’ UN Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment defines
torture in Part I, Article 1, paragraph 1, as follows:
For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering,
whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based
on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions [2].
Merriam-Webster defines torture thus:
Pronunciation: ‘tor cher. Function: noun; Etymology: French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus,
past participle of torquere to twist; the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure.
Amnesty International, an organization that tracks human rights violations, is of the
mind that under no circumstance should undue coercion or torture be used, period. Some-
where in this debate lies an interrogation approach t
hat should be based on legal and
FIGURE 14.2
226
14. TORTURE AND FALSE CONFESSIONS
ethical standards and that considers the risk of engaging in untoward interrogation versus
the safety and welfare of the innocent public. There are no easy answers; however, in this
chapter we review some of the issues and give our own thoughts on the matter.
First and foremost, we do not advocate the use of physical force in any manner whatso-
ever to obtain a criminal confession. Furthermore, we abhor gratuitous abusive behavior at
any time during an interrogation. The authors strongly believe such conduct is counterpro-
ductive in the search for truthful and useful information. That being said, let us look at
some other viewpoints about this issue.
In January 1997, under pressure by a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the
Baltimore Sun, the CIA declassified its previously secret manual on interrogation entitled
“KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation,” dated June 1963 [3]. This manual sets out
and discusses various interrogation methods, including “torture,” for extracting informa-
tion from “uncooperative” subjects. The KUBARK* Intelligence Manual has since become
a lightning rod for human rights groups in their war against extraordinary methods of
interrogation of prisoners, usually by despotic regimes, but more recently, in the course
of CIA and U.S. military activities in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The KUBARK Intelligence Manual goes into detail of how to conduct an interview of a
“resistant source who is a staff or agent member of an Orbit intelligence or security service
or of a clandestine Communist organization.” This interrogation is described by the man-
ual’s author(s) as “the most exacting of professional tasks.” We would agree.
The KUBARK Intelligence Manual defines counterintelligence interrogation (CI) as follows:
An interrogation designed to obtain information about hostile clandestine activities and persons or
groups engaged therein. KUBARK CI interrogations are designed, almost invariably, to yield information
about foreign intelligence and security services or Communist organizations. Because security is an element