by 4<8=8AB@0B>@
tion you need. Help interviewees relax enough that they do not feel threat-
ened, but bear in mind that eliminating all tension is neither possible nor to
your advantage. Some degree of tension in an interview often helps the
interviewee think actively so that the interview, including the response, is
productive.
Seating
For the interview, choose a location that provides both privacy and comfort.
Determine the seating arrangements in advance. The main point to remem-
ber is that you are in control. Use this control to arrange the chairs so that you are sitting across from the interviewee. You will want to have the interviewee sitting where he can’t escape the room easily but you can. You don’t
want the interviewee being distracted, so keep the room uncluttered. As the
interview progresses, I usually move my chair to within about four feet of
the interviewee. I try to use chairs of similar design and comfort. Obviously,
chairs and their location are a ridiculous consideration at an accident scene,
but the important point is to avoid moving too fast into the interviewee’s
personal space. Controlling the interview room also means that you want
to be sitting in a place that will avoid direct sunlight with your back to
the wall, in a room that is temperature controlled and not overheating.
You want to be sure to take water with you.
Announcing Your Objective
Announce the objective of the interview in answer to the interviewee’s usu-
ally unasked question about why she is being interviewed. Tell the inter-
viewee that you want to determine how the incident that you’re
investigating happened and that you want to prevent similar events from
occurring in the future. For example, you might say, “The purpose of
our talk today is to discuss some electronic kitchen appliances that seem
to be missing from the warehouse. I’m looking for information that will help
me determine how these appliances were removed so that I can make clear
recommendations to prevent another disappearance in the future. I’m inter-
viewing several people, and I need your assistance to get a better view of the
circumstances. First, let me get a little background data about you to get to
know you a little better.” By orienting interviewees to the objective of your
interview, you encourage them to be less secretive and defensive. When
they realize the seriousness of your inquiry, interviewees may comply more
Overview of the Interview Process
101
completely. As I mentioned, never announce your objective as identifying
and prosecuting the guilty party. Although interviewees often want to know
how their interview is relevant and significant to your inquiry, it is not help-
ful to explain your overall objectives. Too much explanation may cause
them to become apprehensive about how their help might harm fellow
human beings, reducing their willingness to cooperate. Alternatively, they
might not accept your explanation and might provide only limited informa-
tion that might not be truthful or helpful. Hence, too much explanation
unnecessarily gives interviewees directive powers—the power to lead an
interview down a particular path.
When beginning an interview, adopt an open manner that invites the
interviewee to share any thoughts, observations, opinions, or facts that have
any bearing on the crime. This invitation should be implied, not actually
spoken, and you should show appreciation for the cooperation when it
comes. If there is a time to open the door to the truth, it is at this point
of the discussion—in the first four minutes, when the interviewee is deter-
mining whether it is okay to talk to you. In those first minutes, the inter-
viewee senses whether you are neutral or biased, whether you are trying
to gather facts or are taking unfair advantage of people.
Setting the Tone
After you have announced the objective and during those critical first few
minutes of the interaction, ask the interviewee questions that will be easy to
answer: the spelling of his or her name, date of birth, number of years of
employment, current position, years of education, marital status. These
questions give the interviewee the opportunity to vent some emotional
energy and to feel more comfortable. At this stage of the investigation,
you may note evasiveness and lack of cooperation. From the beginning,
use positive tactics that encourage cooperation, such as active listening,
empathy, respect, and believability.
Forensic interviews are not intense interactions in which verbal combat
takes place. Try for a soft harmony to promote comfort and thought. Use a
toned-down style to avoid any suggestion of intense confrontation. In dis-
cussing the circumstances of an incident, I recommend that you use the
word if to soften the questioning. Using if tends to prevent any implied accu-
sation in your voice. Too often investigators interrogate every interviewee
in a prosecutorial manner in hopes of quickly unmasking the guilty party.
I see no justification for treating every interviewee as though he were guilty.
I avoid using quick questions and burning stares. At the outset of each
102
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
interview, my choice of words and phrases is intended to exhibit my positive
attitude and expectations. Setting a positive tone with each interviewee pays
off. Doing so communicates a professional self-image.
Contact at the Crime Scene
At a crime scene, the victim’s fear is so immediate and powerful that it can-
not be dissipated by the victim’s exercise of self-control alone. Your patience
and assistance will be required. A hurried approach will only cause confusion
and heighten the victim’s distress. Calm the victim by saying something like,
“You’re safe now.” Showing proper regard for the victim’s feelings builds
empathy, which facilitates questioning and promotes accurate recollections.
Fear of reprisal and intimidation may prevent witnesses as well as victims
from cooperating; to prevent intimidation, move witnesses away from sus-
pects before identifying and interviewing them. Ask witnesses to recall
everything observed during the incident; be sure that you don’t contaminate
the information they provide. For example, as a witness presents recall, avoid
editorializing by interpreting as the recall progresses; otherwise you may find
that the recall tends to follow your expectation or interpretation. Therefore,
keep your evaluation to yourself so as not to influence the recall.
Because of the urgency of some criminal investigations, it is not always
possible to prepare fully for an interview. In such a situation, gather basic
information immediately; later, in a recontact interview, obtain additional
facts under more favorable conditions. Remember, though, that the greater
the time lapse between the incident and the interview, the less likely it is that witnesses will be able to accurately report what they observed. In addition,
they may be reluctant to cooperate fully once the excitement of the situation
has subsided. Contamination is another concern. People tend to seek group
consensus, and they will often adopt the group opinion as their own, regard-
less of whether they believe it to be correct. If not separated quickly and
interviewed, witnesses may compare stories and adopt parts of the accounts
of others at the crime scene. Make a special point of interviewing alibi wit-
nesses promptly to reduce the possibility that suspect and witness will take
the opportunity to corroborate their stories and cover up the suspect’s par-
ticipation in the crime.
THE PRIMARY PHASE
The primary phase follows the contact section of the initial phase of the inter-
view. During the primary phase, the interviewer strengthens the rapport
Overview of the Interview Process
103
Figure 9.6 The primary phase. During this part of the interview, the investigator observes, evaluates, and assesses the interviewee’s verbal and nonverbal behavior.
begun in the contact section, gathers more information through active lis-
tening, and watches for signs of deception. By this point, you have estab-
lished that you are open to discussion, and when you are seen as a warm
person, you are more likely to gain the information you are seeking.
At the beginning of the primary phase (Figure 9.6), the interviewer gradually moves his or her chair closer to the interviewee (the moderate location
discussed in Chapter 10). Between points B and C of the interview process
(Figure 9.7), the investigator reviews the case information with the interviewee as a prelude to asking additional questions. All the while, he or
she tries to maintain a positive tone and build rapport.
Exactly how you will proceed—which questions you will ask and how you
will formulate them—depends as much on the quality of the interaction you
have been able to establish as on the facts you need to gather. The investigator’s adaptability is vital. Being able to think on your feet is important to seeking out the truth. (See Chapter 11 for more on question formulation.) The investigator
moves from a structured to a semistructured approach between points C and D
on the polyphasic flowchart (refer back to Figure 9.1). Encourage interviewees to think carefully and to try to remember details. Allow them the time they need to think. Don’t interrogate yet! That will come later.
“Bones”
Around points C and D on the flowchart, I begin to use what I call bones—
nonaccusatory questions that reveal the elements of the complete incident.
104
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
Figure 9.7 Expanded view showing the primary phase.
These semistructured questions work together much as the bones of the body
make up a whole skeleton. In the same way that muscle and tissue surround
our bones, all the details of the incident and the interviewee’s involvement
surround the central facts of the incident. The semistructured questions
you use in this phase of the interview are designed to reveal, through an inter-
viewee’s pattern of responses, whether she is lying or telling the truth.
Move with compassion and continue to use the hidden persuaders
throughout the primary phase. Without being obvious, try to imply that
you are seeking the interviewee’s permission to ask the questions as you pro-
ceed. Avoid hasty conclusions and accusations. Don’t abruptly stop inter-
viewing and begin trying to gain an admission or confession. Remember
that culpable individuals hesitate to reveal a truth that brings shame, embar-
rassment, and possible punishment. As a lead-in to using the bones, you
might say, “As I mentioned before, I’m trying to determine how the loss
occurred. So, let me ask you a few questions.” Then proceed with the fol-
lowing series of questions, remembering to remain flexible and keeping in
mind the value of the floating-point strategy.
Overview of the Interview Process
105
The Narration Question
At some logical point during the primary phase, ask the interviewee to tell
you what happened—what he knows of the incident under investigation.
Truthful interviewees tend to provide smooth- flowing narratives that have
been clearly thought out. They may offer suggestions to help you solve the
matter. Untruthful interviewees will weigh everything they say, causing
awkward pauses in their narration. Once the narrative is complete, review
and summarize the details to ensure that the report is complete. Allow the
interviewee unrestricted recall, and then ask specific questions to uncover
details. All the while take notes to show that you are attentive.
The “You” Question
Address the interviewee by name, and begin this question by saying, “It’s
important to get this matter cleared up.” Briefly review the reported inci-
dent and explain that you are asking these questions in an effort to determine
what happened. The “you” question might take several forms. Here are a
few examples:
•
“If you’re the one who did it, it’s important to get it cleared up. How do
you stand on this? Did you steal the traveler’s checks?”
•
“The report claims that you spoke with Rita just before the fire broke
out. If you did, it’s important to get this straightened out and clear things
up. Jim, let me ask, did you have any contact with Rita just before the fire
broke out?”
An interviewee who has a high level of shame and remorse and cannot stand
the stress of the investigation may provide a full confession at this point. This is a rare occurrence, however. Do not ask the “you” question accusingly,
and do nothing to suggest that the interviewee is responsible for the incident
or is lying. Instead, adopt a positive tone of open curiosity. “If the inter-
viewee is hiding something, your genuine curiosity will provoke unease
and evasion exhibited by such outward signs as squirming and preening.
Such signs of evasion and possible deception may take place in about a hun-
dredth of a second. You should be attentive and notice these signals without
being obvious.
The “Who” Question
You might begin the “who” question with a preamble, such as, “Knowing
for sure who did set the fire in the warehouse is one thing, but having sus-
picions is something else. Do you know for sure who set the fire?” The
106
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
interviewee will probably answer negatively, which leads easily into the next
question.
The “Suspicion” Question
Then you might say, “Okay, you don’t know for sure who did it. But let me
ask: Do you have any suspicions of who might have set the fire?” Quickly
add the caveat, “Keep in mind that I’m not asking you to be malicious, to
arbitrarily point a finger at anyone or anything like that, because that
wouldn’t be fair. I’m just wondering if anyone has done anything or said
anything to cause you to think they might have set the fire. Can you think
of anyone who might have been involved?” Typical responses from non-
culpable interviewees include these: “I can’t imagine who did it or why”;
“I can’t believe it even happened here”; “If one of my coworkers did it,
he would have
to be a Jekyll-and-Hyde personality.”
The “Trust” Question
This question usually takes the form, “Who comes to mind that you trust?
Who do you think could not possibly have stolen the computer equip-
ment?” or “Of all the people who had the opportunity, who do you think
would not have taken the money?”
The “Verification” Question
“After considering the situation, do you think the money was really stolen,
or do you think the theft report is false?” Culpable interviewees may say they
don’t think the loss was caused by theft: “It must have been a mistake or
misplaced in some way.” The blameless tend to acknowledge the report
as correct, saying the theft was real.
The “Approach” Question
“Life presents many temptations for all of us. Let me ask you this: Have any
of the truckers ever asked you to divert a cargo?” The blameless interviewee
acknowledges that there was some discussion but that he never took it seri-
ously enough to mention. The culpable ones latch onto such discussions as
an opportunity to cast blame on others and report that discussions took
place.
The “Thoughts” Question
“There are so many demands and pressures on people in their daily lives that
they occasionally fantasize about doing things. Now, as far as you’re
Overview of the Interview Process
107
concerned, do you recall ever thinking of having sex with Mary Sue, even
though you never actually did?” To report a fantasy of having sex with Mary
Sue tells me that the culpable interviewee considers the thinking meaning-
ful, memorable enough to recall. “Well, there have been times when she
rubs herself against me and I think she really wants me to touch her sexu-
ally.” The innocent do not consider such fleeting moments significant and
deny involvement.
The “Instruction” Question
This question is useful when you’re investigating charges of child sexual
abuse. “Many people teach their kids about sex as they’re growing up. After
all, it’s the responsibility of the parent to teach their children about things