Inge Sebyan Black
Page 21
or might provide an incomplete or nonsensical response. Perhaps the inter-
viewee is preoccupied or distracted and did not hear the question correctly,
or perhaps he is too overwhelmed by emotion to answer. If your question
was poorly worded, the interviewee might not have understood what you
were asking. Be patient. Give the interviewee time to think without chal-
lenging him. Then ask the question again, varying the wording if appropri-
ate. Never ignore an unanswered question to go on to another topic. To go
on and leave questions unanswered will only cause you eventual frustration.
Questioning Techniques
137
Of course, the interviewee might ignore a question because she has
something to hide. Always maintain a certain amount of unexpressed skep-
ticism. When repeating a question, be alert for possible signals of deception.
Be aware of patterns indicating that the truth is emerging. By not answering,
an innocent interviewee might hope to avoid discussion of a difficult topic.
You can reduce tension by repeating or rewording your question. When the
interview touches on sensitive or threatening topics, you may need to restate
a question to find a more acceptable form. Some words trigger mental
images that may be emotionally painful to the interviewee, causing her to
block out certain thoughts. Whether you repeat or reword a question
depends on the circumstances and how you evaluate your progress in the
interview.
There are times when it is useful to ask a mild, modified version of an
emotionally loaded question before asking the main question. This warns
the interviewee of the emotional question to follow, helping the inter-
viewee prepare for it. At other times, it is necessary to spring emotion-laden
questions on the interviewee to reveal any hidden tension.
Never demand an answer to a question. Don’t point out that the inter-
viewee failed to answer. Instead, reword your question and try again. Some
interviewees will try to provoke you into challenging them so they will feel
justified in storming out of the interview room. Even victims and witnesses
of a crime may feel insulted if challenged by a demand to answer a question.
By calmly repeating your questions, you signal persistence, patience, and
humanity, which strengthen the bonds of interpersonal communication.
Identifying and Challenging Deception
Although we cannot claim King Solomon’s special wisdom, we can at least
use our talents as observers to uncover the truth. We can watch for behav-
ioral patterns that indicate possible deception.
A lead-in that introduces a change of topic—for example, “Now I’m
going to ask you a few questions about the day the money was missing”—
causes some interviewees to nonverbally signal their intent to deceive. They
may fidget in their chair, cross their legs or arms, or break eye contact. Any
such sign of uneasiness should cause you to question mentally the truthfulness
of the answers that follow.
Do not immediately confront or challenge interviewees who display
signs of uneasiness prior to or while answering announced questions. To
challenge indicates that you have concluded that the topic of the question
138
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
is bothersome or that the interviewee intends to lie. Instead, ask your ques-
tion, and note the interviewee’s uneasiness for review later. Look for pat-
terns of evasiveness that may indicate deception. When a clear pattern of
evasiveness becomes evident, gradually challenge the interviewee. Isolated
signs of evasiveness, although important, are not enough to warrant a
challenge.
Some degree of unprovoked anxiety may be useful in an interview.
Unprovoked anxiety means an uneasiness brought to the interview and not
caused by the investigator as some planned effort. That anxiety may be
caused by the interviewee’s knowledge of someone’s personal responsibility.
When you sense unprovoked anxiety, you can use it as the basis for display-
ing your humanity and showing you are okay to talk to. You can enhance
tension through your use of questions or by commenting about the inter-
viewee’s defense mechanisms or sensitivity to certain events. However,
insensitive confrontation over conflicting details in the interviewee’s story
could cause undue tension, evasiveness, and defensiveness, resulting in an
unproductive interview.
Handling Trial Balloons
Interviewees sometimes ask trial balloon questions. For example, a subject
might ask, “Let’s say I did take the money—what would happen to me?”
or “What usually happens to a person who steals merchandise?” These
what-if questions may indicate that the interviewee is on the brink of report-
ing some significant fact.
When the interviewee floats a trial balloon, avoid pouncing on it as an
admission of guilt. Instead, calmly respond to the inquiry, and subtly ask
questions that encourage the interviewee to tell the truth. What-if questions
are used to test the water, so to speak, to see if it is safe. They signal the need for continued patience and persistence; they do not indicate that it is time to
charge ahead destructively.
Terminating the Interview
Always assume that more information is forthcoming and that you need only
ask appropriate questions and give adequate encouragement. Even when it
seems you have reached the termination point—when it seems as though all
questions have been asked and answered—continue to assume that the inter-
viewee has more to tell you. You might ask, “What else can you tell me
about what happened?” or “What else should I know about this matter?”
Questioning Techniques
139
At some point, of course, you will need to terminate the interview. You
can do this several ways. Even if you have no intention of questioning the
subject again, you might announce that a second interview is possible. Or
you might make arrangements for a second interview and give yourself time
to further prepare. Finally, you might lead into a confrontation by announc-
ing that you believe there are inconsistencies that must be resolved or by
specifically accusing the interviewee of the crime. Your next step would
be to attempt to gain a confession or an admission of guilt. In most instances,
you will probably end the interview and not need to speak with that person
again.
CONCLUSION
On a final note, take the recent interview of the 2013 Boston Marathon
bomber. The second bomber had been captured and was interviewed for
the first time. Reports stated that he had been shot in the throat and couldn’t
speak. Assume that you are instructed to conduct the interview and you
need to be prepared and ready for a series of questions that you need to
address immediately, knowing that he will likely stop talking once he is
given his Miranda warning. Remember that the right questions could pre-
vent future mass casualties and mass destruction.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What is the objective of interviewing?
2. How
can leading questions help you with overly talkative
interviewees?
3. How should you respond when the interviewee provides opinions
instead of facts?
4. Why shouldn’t you ask vague questions?
5. What is a question?
6. Why is it important to ask questions objectively?
7. Is the interview a conversation or a cross-examination? Explain.
8. Give two examples of closed questions.
9. How do most open questions begin?
10. What are two things that open questions can help you do?
11. Name three types of open questions, and give an example of each.
12. How are pointed questions based on the self-fulfilling prophecy?
13. What type of question can help you develop and strengthen rapport?
140
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
14. What is one advantage of using leading questions?
15. How do polite social conversations differ from investigative
interviews?
16. How does your expectation play a role in gaining truthful
information?
17. Why isn’t it a good idea to ignore unanswered questions and go on
with the interview?
18. How might your questions trigger emotions that block the inter-
viewee’s thought process?
19. What is a trial balloon question, and how should you respond to it?
20. Why should you assume that the interviewee has more to tell you,
even at the end of the interview?
CHAPTER 12
Internal Investigations and
Controls
If you are an investigator working for a corporation, security firm, retail
organization, insurance company, or private client, you will likely find your-
self conducting interviews for the purpose of securing a confession to a crim-
inal offense. Our role often starts with preliminary research, moves into an
investigation, and finally leads into an interview for the purpose of obtaining
a statement or confession. I have spent much of the past 35 years conducting
corporate investigations into fraud, embezzlement, drug use, theft, and other
wrongdoings. These investigations have taken anywhere from hours to more
than six months. You will need to exercise patience in conducting internal
investigation cases; however, it has been my experience that once an em-
ployee is successfully (that is, not being caught) stealing or committing fraud, they continue to do so. The manner in which they commit the crime may
change, but their greed doesn’t subside.
Depending on the state laws and company laws, you may need several
conclusive videos in which the criminal act is being committed prior to con-
ducting your interview.
There are many things to consider when you’re conducting internal
investigations:
•
What was the source that provided initial information and under what
terms? (That is, informant, whistleblower, co-conspirator, witness, etc.)
•
Determine who might be allowed into the knowledge of an ongoing
investigation.
•
Who will you want to interview and what information might they have?
•
Determine whether the allegations fall under criminal conduct or an
internal discipline matter.
•
Address any conflicts of interest by anyone connected to the
investigation.
•
Be prepared to document everything related to this case.
•
Who in the company needs to be notified of the investigation? (That is,
human resources, legal department, auditing, financial department)
•
What evidence will you need to gather to prosecute this case?
141
142
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
•
Know and follow all relevant company policies.
•
Consider all laws that might apply.
While trying to understand the complexities of internal investigations, let’s
look at internal theft, dishonest employees, danger signals, and keys to
reducing theft.
The remaining text in this chapter is reprinted, with permission, from
Chapter 13, “Internal Theft Controls and Personnel Issues,” from Introduc-
tion to Security, ninth edition (Fischer and Halibozek, 2013).
INTRODUCTION
It is sad but true that virtually every company will suffer losses from internal theft—and these losses can be enormous. Early in this new century, even the
large corporate giants such as Enron, WorldCom, and Martha Stewart have
been affected by internal corruption that reached the highest levels of the
organization. In addition, the name Bernie Madoff will long be associated
with perhaps the greatest customer and company theft of all times. In its
2010 report, The Cost of Occupational Fraud, the Association of Certified
Fraud Examiners estimated that fraud (employee theft) cost the world busi-
ness community $2.9 trillion, or 5% of the estimated gross world product, in
2009. Although this figure is startling, it must be remembered that there is no
accurate way to calculate the extent of fraud. In 2002, Security reported that
in the retail business alone, 1 in every 27 employees is apprehended for theft
from an employer. Internal theft in the retail business outstrips the loss from
shoplifting by approximately 7.9 times.
The significance of employee theft is pointed out in a 2010 University of
Florida and National Retail Federation Report. Dr. Richard Hollinger, lead
author, reported that $14.4 billion was lost to retailers, thanks to thieving
employees, down slightly from earlier studies.
WHAT IS HONESTY?
Before considering the issue of dishonest employees, it is helpful to under-
stand the concept of honesty, which is difficult to define. Webster says that
honesty is “fairness and straightforwardness of conduct, speech, etc.; integ-
rity; truthfulness; freedom; freedom from fraud.” In simple terms, honesty is
Internal Investigations and Controls
143
respect for others and for their property. The concept, however, is relative.
According to Charles Carson, “Security must be based on a controlled
degree of relative honesty” because no one fulfills the ideal of total honesty.
Carson explores relative honesty by asking the following questions:
1. If an error is made in your favor in computing the price of something
you buy, do you report it?
2. If a cashier gives you too much change, do you return it?
3. If you found a purse containing money and the owner’s identification,
would you return the money to the owner if the amount was $1? $10?
$100? $1,000?
Honesty is a controllable variable, and how much control is necessary depends
on the degree of honesty of each individual. The individual’s honesty can
be evaluated by assessing the degree of two types of honesty: moral and
conditioned. Moral honesty is a feeling of responsibility and respect that
develops during an individual’s formative years; this type of honesty is subcon-
scious. Conditioned honesty results from fearing the consequences of being
caught; it is a product of reasoning. If an honest act is
made without a con-
scious decision, it is because of moral honesty, but if the act is based on the
conscious consideration of consequences, the act results from conditioned
honesty.
It is vital to understand these principles because the role of security is to
hire employees who have good moral honesty and to condition employees
to greater honesty. The major concern is that the job should not tempt an
employee into dishonesty.
Carson summarizes his views in the following principles:
•
No one is completely honest.
•
Honesty is a variable that can be influenced for better or worse.
•
Temptation is the father of dishonesty.
•
Greed, not need, triggers temptation.
Unfortunately, there is no sure way by which potentially dishonest em-
ployees can be recognized. Proper screening procedures can eliminate appli-
cants with unsavory pasts or those who seem unstable and therefore possibly
untrustworthy. There are even tests that purport to measure an applicant’s
honesty index. But tests and employee screening can only indicate potential
difficulties. They can screen out the most obvious risks, but they can never
truly vouch for the performance of any prospective employee under circum-
stances of new employment or under changes that may come about in life
apart from the job.
144
The Art of Investigative Interviewing
The need to carefully screen employees has continued to increase. In
today’s market, there are many individuals who belong to what has been
called the “I Deserve It!” Generation. According to a study by the Josephson
Institute for the Advanced Study of Ethics, cheating, stealing, and lying by
high school students have continued an upward trend, with youth 18 and
younger five times more likely than people over age 50 to hold the belief
that lying and cheating are necessary to succeed. The 2008 report showed
that 64 percent of U.S. high school students cheated on an exam, 42 per-
cent lied to save money, and 30 percent stole something from a store.
The Institute, which conducts nonpartisan ethics programs for the Internal
Revenue Service, the Pentagon, and several major media organizations and