INTERVIEW THEORY AND APPLICATION Flashcards
1
Q
Before embarking on an interview, the examiner should___
A
review the case file to ensure that:
- it does not contain important information that has been overlooked;
- information is known to the witness
2
Q
Generally, the ___should be interviewed before the
more reluctant witnesses.
A
most vulnerable witness
3
Q
A good interview is ___ in scope.
A
objective. It should be aimed at gathering information in a fair and impartial manner.
4
Q
The respondent must understand that the interviewer is attempting to obtain only the
relevant facts and is not “out to get” someone. This can best be done by___
A
phrasing questions in a nonaccusatory manner.
5
Q
The interviewer can ask five general types of questions:
A
introductory, informational, assessment, closing, and admission-seeking
6
Q
In routine interview situations, where the object
is to gather information from neutral or corroborative witnesses, only three of the five types will normally be asked:
A
introductory, informational, and closing questions.
7
Q
If the interviewer has reasonable cause to believe the respondent is not being truthful
A
assessment questions can be asked
8
Q
Finally, if the interviewer decides with reasonable cause that the respondent is responsible for misdeeds
A
admission-seeking questions can be posed
9
Q
Introductory questions are used by the interviewer for two primary purposes:
A
to provide an introduction, and to get the respondent to verbally agree to cooperate in the interview
10
Q
There are essentially three types of Informational Questions that can be asked:
A
open, closed, and leading
11
Q
Closing Questions
A
are asked at closing for the purposes of reconfirming the facts, obtaining previously undiscovered information, seeking new evidence, and maintaining goodwill
12
Q
Assessment Questions
A
are questions specifically designed to establish the
respondent’s credibility.
13
Q
Admission-Seeking Questions
A
are reserved specifically for individuals whose culpability is reasonably certain. Admission-seeking questions are posed in an exact order designed to (1) clear an innocent person or (2) encourage the culpable person to confess.
14
Q
Elements of Conversations
A
Expression Persuasion Therapy Ritual Information Exchange
15
Q
An ____ is any social-psychological barrier that impedes the flow of relevant information by making the respondent unable or unwilling to provide the
information to the interviewer
A
inhibitor
16
Q
Competing Demands for Time
A
The respondent might hesitate to begin an interview because of other time demands. The subject does not necessarily place a negative value on being interviewed, but weighs the value of being interviewed against doing something else. The successful interviewer must convince the respondent that the interview is a good use of time.
17
Q
Ego Threat
A
The respondent in some cases might withhold information because of a perceived threat to his self-esteem. There are three broad categories of ego threats: repression, disapproval, and loss of status.
18
Q
Repression
A
The strongest ego threat is repression. espondents might not only refuse to admit information to the interviewer, they might also refuse to admit the information inwardly. They are being honest when answering that they do not know or that they have forgotten. Embezzlers, for example, might repress memory of the act because it does not conform to
their moral code.
19
Q
Disapproval
A
A less intense but more common effect of ego threat is found when respondents possess
information but are hesitant to admit it because they anticipate disapproval from the
interviewer. If respondents are made to feel that the interviewer will not condemn them, they might welcome the opportunity to divulge information. A generally accepting and sympathetic attitude toward the respondent goes far toward eliciting candid responses.
20
Q
Loss of Status
A
Sometimes respondents fear losing status if the information provided becomes public. This can sometimes be overcome by the interviewer’s assurance that the information will be handled confidentially.
21
Q
Etiquette
A
The etiquette barrier operates when an answer to the interviewer’s question contains information perceived by the respondent as inappropriate. Answering candidly would be considered in poor taste or evidence of a lack of proper etiquette. The desire to avoid embarrassing, shocking, or threatening answers is distinct from the fear of exposing oneself. Often, the negative effects of the etiquette barrier might be forestalled by selecting the appropriate interviewer and setting for the interview.
22
Q
Trauma
A
Trauma denotes an acutely unpleasant feeling associated with crisis experiences. The
unpleasant feeling is often brought to the surface when the respondent is reporting the experience. Trauma is common when talking to victims, and can usually be overcome by sensitive handling of the issue.
23
Q
Forgetting
A
A frequent inhibitor to communication is the respondent’s inability to recall certain types of
information. This is not a problem if the objectives of the interview deal only with current attitudes, beliefs, or expectations. The natural fading of the memory over time makes it easier for the ego-defence system to reconstruct one’s own image of the past by omission, addition, or distortion.
The memory problem is a much more frequent obstacle than is generally expected by
interviewers. Even some of the most simple and obvious facts cannot be elicited because of
the respondent’s memory problems. There are three factors that contribute to recollection of an event.
First, the vividness of the person’s recall is related to the event’s original emotional impact, its meaningfulness at the time, and the degree to which the person’s ego is involved. A second factor is the amount of time that has elapsed since the event. Third is the nature of the interview situation, including the interviewer’s techniques and tactics.
24
Q
Chronological Confusion
A
This term refers to the respondent’s tendency to confuse the order of experiences and can occur in two ways: two or more events might be correctly recalled, but the respondent is unsure of the sequence, or only one event might be recalled, and it is incorrectly assumed to have been true at an earlier point.
25
Inferential Confusion
denotes confusion and inaccuracies resulting from errors of inference. These errors generally fall into two categories: induction or deduction
26
Induction occurs when
the respondent is asked to convert concrete experiences into a higher level of generalization
27
Deduction occurs when
the respondent is asked to give concrete examples of certain categories of experience.
28
Unconscious Behaviour
Often the interview process reveals information about a person’s unconscious behaviour.
There are three types of unconscious behaviour: customs or habits, circular reactions, and
reactions to acute emotional crises.
29
A custom or habit is
a settled tendency or usual pattern of behaviour; it is the behaviour that an individual engages in regularly
30
A circular reaction is
the immediate, unwitting response of one person to the subliminal, nonverbal clues of another
31
A response to an acute emotional crisis
does not follow a habitual pattern or result from a
reaction to others. It arises only in special circumstances when the interviewee is
experiencing an emotional dilemma.
32
Facilitators of communication
are those social-psychological forces that make conversations, including interviews, easier to accomplish
33
Fulfilling Expectations
In the interview setting, the interviewer communicates expectations to the respondent. The
interviewer should be able to transmit both a general expectation of co-operation and a more specific expectation that the respondent will answer the questions truthfully.The interviewer must clearly distinguish between asking for information and expecting it. The former is mainly achieved with verbal communication, while the latter is accomplished through nonverbal behaviour. The interviewer who expects the respondent to co-operate will likely
be more successful than one who only asks questions.
34
Recognition
All human beings need the recognition and the esteem of others. Social interaction often depends on an exchange of social goods. People will “perform” in exchange for recognition and other social rewards. The need for recognition can be fulfilled by attention from people outside the individual’s social circle. The skilful and insightful interviewer takes advantage of every opportunity to give the respondent sincere recognition.
35
Altruistic Appeals
here seems to be a need for humans to identify with some higher value or cause beyond immediate self-interest. This might sometimes take the form of identification with the objectives of a larger group. Altruistic deeds usually increase self-esteem whether or not the deeds have been made public. This distinguishes altruism from publicity. Altruism is of major importance in motivating many respondents. Interviewers who understand the
respondent’s value system can use strategy and techniques that appeal to altruism.
36
Sympathetic Understanding
Human beings need the sympathetic response of others. They like to share their joys, fears,
successes, and failures. This need for understanding differs from the need for recognition
that requires success and increased status. Interviewers who reflect a sympathetic attitude
and who know how to direct that attitude toward the objectives of the interview will find their percentages of success much higher than those who do not.
37
New Experience
People welcome new experiences. Although variety might not be the only spice of life,
escape from the dreary routine is sought by everyone. Sometimes the respondent is
motivated by curiosity regarding the interviewer. Interviewers should consider this when
deciding what to say about themselves. One must not assume that just because an interview
is a new experience, it will satisfy the respondent’s needs. Aspects of the respondent’s
perception of the new experience can be ego-threatening. The respondent might be anxious
about the impression left with the interviewer. This apprehensiveness can often be detected
by the interviewer at the beginning of the contact. Once these fears are dispelled, the
respondent frequently finds the interview a new and interesting experience.
38
Catharsis
Catharsis is the process by which a person obtains a release from unpleasant emotional
tensions by talking about the source of these tensions. We often feel better by talking about
something that upsets us. Although we are all familiar with the frequent necessity for
catharsis in ourselves, we do not always perceive the same need in others. The need for
sympathetic understanding and the need for catharsis are related, but they are not the same
thing. The interviewer, who does not have time to listen to what he considers inconsequential or egocentric talk, will often find the respondent unwilling to share important consequences.
39
Need for Meaning
Another general trait common to people is the need for meaning. Every society has a set of
assumptions, values, explanations, and myths lending order to the society. The concept of need for meaning is related to cognitive dissonance. Psychological tension is created when an individual becomes aware of incongruence of facts, assumptions, and interpretations. This tension is painful and its reduction is rewarding to the individual. In cases where the interview topic deals directly with the sources disturbing a person’s system of meaning, there is a strong motivation for the respondent to talk it through, if he is convinced of the interviewer’s interest.
40
Extrinsic Rewards
Extrinsic rewards are rewards the interviewee receives that are not directly related to the
interview experience, and they cause the respondent to see the interview as a means to an
end. Extrinsic rewards for interviewees can include money, job advancement, and retention of privileges. What is irrelevant to the interviewer might not be to the respondent. A sensitive interviewer will be able to recognize what extrinsic rewards the respondent receives, if any, from being interviewed.
41
Introductory Questions Provide the Introduction
Obviously, the interviewer must introduce himself before the interview commences. The interviewer should generally indicate his name and company, avoiding titles. This is not always the case, but the more informal the interview, generally the more relaxed the respondent.
42
Introductory Questions Establish Rapport
Webster’s defines rapport as a “relation marked by harmony, conformity, accord, or affinity.” In other words, there must be some common ground established before questioning begins.
This is usually accomplished by the interviewer spending a few minutes with the respondent
in “small talk.” This aspect, however, should not be overdone. Most people are aware that the interviewer is there for a meaningful purpose and not to chitchat.
43
Introductory Questions Establish the Interview Theme
The interviewer must state the purpose of the interview in some way prior to the
commencement of serious questioning. Otherwise, the respondent might be confused, threatened, or overly cautious. Stating the purpose of the interview is known as establishing the interview theme.
44
Introductory Questions Observe Reactions
This is done by first posing nonsensitive questions while establishing rapport. During this phase, the interviewer attempts to find some common ground on which to connect with the respondent. After the interviewer establishes rapport through normal conversation, the respondent’s reactions are observed. This will serve as a baseline for observing behaviour when more sensitive questions are asked. If the respondent’s verbal and nonverbal
behaviour are inconsistent from one type of question to another, the interviewer will attempt to determine why.
45
Theme Development
The goal of the theme is to get the respondent to assist in the interview. Generally, the most
effective interview theme is that help is being sought.In most interviews, the interviewer should approach the respondent so that person is made
to feel important in helping out. During this phase of the interview, the respondent must not
feel threatened in any way.
46
Physical Contact
Make physical contact with the person being interviewed by shaking hands. The interviewer should not invade the respondent’s personal space The interviewer uses body language to create the impression of trust during the interview by gesturing openly with the arms, clasping hands together, and leaning forward in a manner to
indicate interest
47
Establish the Purpose of Interview
The reason or purpose of the interview should be general and not specific. The specific interview purpose will be conveyed to the respondent later. The stated purpose of the interview should be one that is logical for the respondent to accept and easy for the interviewer to explain. Normally, the
more general, the better.
48
Don’t Interview More than One Person
One of the basic rules is to question only one person at a time. The testimony of one
respondent will invariably influence the testimony of another.
49
Privacy
Another basic rule is to conduct interviews under conditions of privacy. The interview is best conducted out of the sight and sound of friends, relatives, or fellow employees. People are very reluctant to furnish information within the hearing of others.
50
Ask Nonsensitive Questions
Sensitive questions should be scrupulously avoided until well into the interview. And then such questions should be asked only after careful deliberation and planning. During the
introductory phase, emotive words of all types should be avoided. Such words put people on
the defensive, and they are more reluctant to answer and to cooperate.
51
Get a Commitment for Assistance
The interviewer should ask for the commitment before the interview commences, and should encourage the respondent to voice that “yes” aloud. If the interviewer encounters silence the first time, the question should be repeated in a slightly different way until the respondent verbalises commitment.
52
Establish Transitional Statement
used to provide a legitimate basis for the inquiry and to explain to respondents how they fit into the inquiry.
53
Seek Continuous Agreement
Throughout the interview process—from the introduction to the close—the interviewer
should attempt to phrase questions so that they can be answered “yes.” It is easier for people
to reply in the affirmative than the negative.
54
Do Not Invade Body Space
During the introductory part of the interview, the interviewer generally should remain at a
distance of four to six feet. Do not invade the personal zone (closer than about three feet)
55
Types of Informational Questions
| Open Questions
The typical open question calls for a
monologue response that can be answered in several different ways. During the information
phase of the interview, the interviewer should endeavour to ask primarily open questions
that stimulate conversation. Some of the best open questions are subtle commands.
56
Types of Informational Questions
| Closed Questions
Closed questions are those that require a precise answer: usually “yes” or “no.” Closed
questions also deal with specifics, such as amounts, dates, and times. As far as possible,
closed questions should be avoided in the informational part of the interview. They are used
extensively in closing questions.
57
Types of Informational Questions
| Leading Questions
Leading questions contain the answer as a part of the question. Most commonly, they are
used to confirm facts already known. This type of question gives the subject much less room
to manoeuvre than an open or closed question because they direct the subject to answer in a
particular way. Leading questions imply that the interviewer already knows the answer,
asking the subject to confirm what is already known, and they can be particularly effective in
interview situations.
58
Types of Informational Questions
| Double-Negative Questions
Questions or statements containing double-negatives are confusing and often suggest an
answer opposite to the correct one. They should not be used.
59
Types of Informational Questions
| Complex Questions
Complex questions and statements are too complicated to be easily understood, cover more
than one subject or topic, require more than one answer, and/or require a complicated
answer. They should be avoided.
60
Types of Informational Questions Attitude Questions
The attitude of the interviewer can be conveyed by the structure of the question or statement, and by the manner in which the question is asked. It is always a good idea, however, to ask a question for which you know beforehand that the answer will be “yes.”
61
As a general rule, questioning should proceed from
the general to the specific
62
Controlled answer techniques or statements
might be used to stimulate a desired answer or
| impression. These techniques direct the interview toward a specific point.
63
Free Narratives
an orderly, continuous account of an event or incident, given with or without prompting. It is used to get a quick résumé of what is known about a matter. Be sure to designate specifically the occurrence that you wish to discuss.
64
Below are suggestions to improve the quality of the interview during the information-
gathering phase.
• Begin by asking questions that are not likely to cause the respondent to become
defensive or hostile.
• Ask the questions in a manner that will develop the facts in the order of their occurrence, or in some other systematic order.
• Ask only one question at a time, and frame the question so that only one answer is required.
• Ask straightforward and frank questions; generally avoid shrewd approaches.
• Give the respondent ample time to answer; do not rush.
• Try to help the respondent remember, but do not suggest answers; and be careful not to imply any particular answer by facial expressions, gestures, methods of asking questions, or types of questions asked.
• Repeat or rephrase questions, if necessary, to get the desired facts.
• Be sure you understand the answers, and if they are not perfectly clear, have the respondent interpret them at the time instead of asking for more explanation later.
• Give the respondent an opportunity to qualify his answers.
• Separate facts from inferences.
• Have the respondent give comparisons by percentages, fractions, estimates of time and
distance, and other such comparisons to ascertain accuracy.
• Get all of the facts; almost every respondent can give you information beyond what was
initially provided.
• After the respondent has given a narrative account, ask questions about every item that
has been discussed.
• Upon conclusion of the direct questioning, ask the respondent to summarise the
information given. Then summarise the facts as you understand them, and have the respondent verify that these conclusions are correct.
65
Note Taking
The interviewer will frequently need to take notes during the interview. Start each interview
on a separate sheet of paper. This procedure can be especially helpful should documents
from a particular interview be subpoenaed. Do not try to write down all the information you
are given during an interview, only the pertinent facts. Taking too many notes will make the
interview process cumbersome and might inhibit the respondent. If a quote is particularly
relevant, try to write it down verbatim. Enclose all direct quotes in quotation marks.Do not slow down the interview process for note taking. Instead, jot down key words or
phrases, and then go back over the details at the end of the interview. In general, it is better
to err on the side of taking too few notes rather than too many
66
Maintain Eye Contact
The interviewer should maintain eye contact with the respondent as much as possible during
note taking. Just as eye contact personalises all human communication, it creates a more
comfortable environment and facilitates the flow of information during the interview
process.
67
Opinions
Avoid making notes regarding your overall opinions or impressions of a witness. Such notes
can cause you problems with your credibility if they are later produced in court. Be careful
not to show excitement when taking notes. During interviews of targets and adverse
witnesses, take notes in a manner that does not indicate the significance of the information;
that is, never allow note taking to “telegraph” your emotions.
68
Writing Down Questions
Whenever possible, do not write down a list of interview questions. Let the interview flow
freely. Inadvertently allowing the respondent to read a written list of questions can provide
an opportunity to fabricate an answer. However, writing down key points the interviewer
wants to discuss might be appropriate.
69
Documenting Results
Expound the notes from the results of questioning as soon as possible after concluding the
interview—preferably immediately afterward. If this procedure is followed, the examiner will
not have to take copious notes during the interview.
70
Observing Interview Reactions
The interviewer must be knowledgeable about the behaviour of individuals during the interview situation. Most nonverbal clues to behaviour fall within one of the following categories: proxemics, chronemics, kinetics, or paralinguistics.
71
Proxemic communication is
the use of interpersonal space to convey meaning
72
Chronemic communication
refers to the use of time in interpersonal relationships to convey meaning, attitudes, and desires
73
The interviewer can control the length of pauses and the rate of his speech. This is called
pacing
74
The interviewer can also control the length of time after the respondent has finished a sentence before another question is posed. This is called
silent probe
75
Kinetic communication
involves the use of body movement to convey meaning
76
Paralinguistic communication
involves the use of volume, pitch, and voice quality to convey meaning
77
“I’m Too Busy”
* The interview will be short
* The interviewer is already there
* The project is important
* The interview will not be difficult
* The interviewer needs help
78
“I Don’t Know Anything About It”
This resistance is typically diffused by accepting the statement, and then responding with a question.
79
“I Don’t Remember”
One of the best ways to respond is to simply remain silent while the person is deliberating. If this is not successful, the best way to counter is to pose an alternate, narrower question. As with other
symptoms of resistance, the resistance is accepted and diffused, and an alternate question is posed.
80
“What Do You Mean by That?”
The interviewer should typically react to such a question by treating it as a mere request for clarification.
81
The interviewer will invariably encounter a few difficult people. There are five common-
sense steps to take with such people.
```
Don’t React
Disarm the Person
Change Tactics
Make It Easy to Say “Yes”
Make It Hard to Say “No”
```
82
Disarm the Person
A common mistake is to try to reason with an unreceptive person. You must disarm the
hostile person. The best tactic is surprise. If the person is stonewalling, he expects the
interviewer to apply pressure; if attacking, the person expects the interviewer to resist. To
disarm the person, listen, acknowledge the point, and agree wherever you can.
83
Change Tactics
In some situations, changing tactics to reduce hostility might be the only viable option. This
means casting what the respondent says in a form that directs attention back to the problem
and to the interests of both sides. This normally means asking the respondent what he would
do to solve the problem.
84
Make It Easy to Say “Yes”
In trying to negotiate with difficult people, the usual tactic is for the interviewer to make a
statement and attempt to get the respondent to agree with it. A better choice is to agree with
one of the respondent’s statements and go from there. It is better to break statements into smaller ones that would be difficult to disagree with. This helps the difficult person save face.
85
Make It Hard to Say “No”
One way of making it difficult to say “no” is by asking reality-based (what-if) questions.
These types of questions are used to get the respondent to think of the consequences of not
agreeing.
86
A volatile interview is
one that has the potential to bring about strong emotional reactions in the respondent
87
There should be ___ interviewers involved in potentially volatile situations.
two
88
____ should be employed in any interview that is considered potentially volatile
Surprise
89
In a potentially volatile interview, the order of questions should be___
out of sequence
90
The ___question is generally considered to be less threatening, and is, therefore, ideally suited for the potentially volatile interview.
hypothetical
91
“I don’t want to be involved.”
The interviewer should answer this question by pointing out that he would not be there, asking questions, if the respondent were not involved. Point out that you are saving the respondent trouble by discussing the matter “informally” (do not say “off
the record”).
92
“Why should I talk to you?”
The interviewer should answer that he is trying to clear up a problem, and that the respondent’s assistance is important.
93
You can’t prove that!”
The interviewer should tell the person that he are not trying to prove or disprove; you are simply gathering information.
94
“You can’t make me talk!”
Tell the person that you are not attempting to make him do anything; you are trying to resolve a problem, and would deeply appreciate help.
95
Once the respondent has answered all questions about the event, and the interviewer has
reason to believe the respondent is being deceptive, a theme must be established to justify additional questions. This theme can ordinarily be put forth by saying,
“I have a few additional questions.”
96
Norming or calibrating is
the process of observing behaviour before critical questions are asked, as opposed to doing so during questioning
97
The interviewer will then carefully assess that reaction. Suggestions for observing the verbal and physical behaviour of the respondent include:
* Use your senses of touch, sight, and hearing to establish a norm
* Do not stare or call attention to the person’s behaviour symptoms
* Be aware of the respondent’s entire body
* Observe the timing and consistency of behaviour
* Note clusters of behaviours
98
It is said that everyone lies and does so for one of two reasons:
to receive rewards or to avoid punishment
99
Verbal clues are
```
indications relating to wordings, expressions, and responses to specific questions.
CHANGES IN SPEECH PATTERNS
REPETITION OF THE QUESTION
COMMENTS REGARDING INTERVIEW
SELECTIVE MEMORY
MAKING EXCUSES
EMPHASIS ON CERTAIN WORDS
OATHS
CHARACTER TESTIMONY
ANSWERING WITH A QUESTION
OVERUSE OF RESPECT
INCREASINGLY WEAKER DENIALS
FAILURE TO DENY (qualify the denial)
AVOIDANCE OF EMOTIVE WORDS
REFUSAL TO IMPLICATE OTHER SUSPECTS
TOLERANT ATTITUDES
RELUCTANCE TO TERMINATE INTERVIEW
FEIGNED UNCONCERN
```
100
Nonverbal clues to deception include
various body movements and postures accompanying the verbal reply
101
FULL-BODY MOTIONS
When asked sensitive or emotive questions, the dishonest person will typically change his
posture completely, as if moving away from the interviewer. The honest person will frequently lean forward toward the interviewer when questions are serious.
102
ANATOMICAL PHYSICAL RESPONSES
Anatomical physical responses are those involuntary reactions by the body to fright such as
increased heart rate, shallow or laboured breathing, or excessive perspiration. These reactions are typical of dishonest people accused of wrongdoing.
103
ILLUSTRATORS
Illustrators are the motions made primarily with the hands to demonstrate points when talking. During nonthreatening questions, the illustrators might be done at one rate. During threatening questions, the use of illustrators might increase or decrease.
104
HANDS OVER THE MOUTH
Frequently, dishonest people will cover the mouth with the hand or fingers during deception.
105
MANIPULATORS
Manipulators are motions like picking lint from clothing, playing with objects such as
pencils, or holding one’s hands while talking. Manipulators are displacement activities that
reduce nervousness.
106
FLEEING POSITIONS
During the interview, dishonest people will often posture themselves in a “fleeing position.”
While the head and trunk might be facing the interviewer, the feet and lower portion of the
body might be pointing toward the door in an unconscious effort to flee from the interviewer.
107
CROSSING
Crossing one’s arms over the middle zones of the body is a classic defensive reaction to difficult or uncomfortable questions. A variation is crossing the feet under the chair and locking them. These crossing motions occur mostly when being deceptive.
Alternatively, the body or legs might be crossed to reduce stress. When the hands are crossing the body, it is a defensive gesture, to protect the “soft underbelly.”
108
REACTION TO EVIDENCE
While trying to be outwardly concerned, the guilty person will have a keen interest in
implicating evidence. The dishonest person will often look at documents presented by the
interviewer, attempt to be casual about observing them, and then shove them away, as if
wanting nothing to do with the evidence.
109
Most actions that are designed to interrupt the flow of speech are stress related. Examples include:
* Closing the mouth tightly
* Pursing the lips
* Covering the mouth with the hand
* Lip and tongue biting
* Licking the lips
* Chewing on objects
110
Genuine smiles usually involve __false ones are confined to ___
the whole mouth - the upper half
111
“The company is particularly concerned about fraud and abuse. There are some new laws in
effect that will cost the company millions if abuses go on and we don’t try to find them. Do you
know which law I am talking about?”
Most individuals will not know about the laws concerning corporate sentencing guidelines, and will, therefore, answer “no.” The purpose of this question is to get the respondent to understand the serious nature of fraud and abuse.
112
“Congress recently passed a law last year that can levy fines of more than $200 million against
companies that don’t try to clean their own houses. $200 million is a lot of money, so you can
understand why the company’s concerned, can’t you?”
The majority of people will say “yes” to this question. In the event of a “no” answer, the
interviewer should explain the issue fully and, thereafter, attempt to get the respondent’s
agreement. If that agreement is not forthcoming, the interviewer should assess why not.
113
“Of course, they are not talking about a loyal employee who gets in a bind. They’re talking
more about senior management. Have you ever read in the newspapers about what kind of
people engage in company misdeeds?”
Most people read the newspapers and are at least generally familiar with the problem of fraud and abuse. Agreement by the respondent is expected to this question.
114
“Most of them aren’t criminals at all. A lot of times, they’re just trying to save their jobs or just
trying to get by because the company is so cheap that it won’t pay people what they are worth.
Do you know what I mean?”
Although the honest person and the dishonest person will both probably answer “yes” to this question, the honest individual is less likely to accept the premise that these people are not wrongdoers. Many honest people might reply, “Yes, I understand, but that doesn’t justify stealing.”
115
“Why do you think someone around here might be justified in taking company property?”
Because fraud perpetrators frequently justify their acts, the dishonest individual is more likely than the honest person to attempt a justification, such as, “Everyone does it,” or “The company should treat people better if they don’t want them to steal.” The honest person, on the other hand, is much more likely to say, “There is no justification for stealing from the company. It is dishonest.”
116
“How do you think we should deal with someone who got in a bind and did something wrong in
the eyes of the company?”
Similar to other questions in this series, the honest person wants to “throw the book” at the miscreant, while the culpable individual typically will say,
“How should I know? It’s not up to me,” or, “If they were a good employee, maybe we should
give them another chance.”
117
“Do you think someone in your department might have taken something from the company
because they thought they were justified?”
Most people—honest or dishonest—will answer “no” to this question. The culpable
person, however, will more likely say “yes” without elaborating. The honest person, if
answering “yes,” will most likely provide details.
118
“Have you ever felt yourself—even though you didn’t go through with it—justified in taking advantage of your position?”
Again, most people, both honest and dishonest, will answer this question “no.” The dishonest person, however, is more likely to acknowledge having at least “thought” of doing it.
119
“Who in your department do you feel would think they were justified in doing something against
the company?”
The dishonest person will not likely furnish an answer to this question, saying instead
that, “I guess anyone could have a justification if they wanted to.” The honest individual, on the
other hand, is more likely to name names—albeit reluctantly.
120
“Do you believe that most people will tell their manager if they believed a colleague was doing
something wrong, like committing fraud against the company?”
The honest person has more of a sense of integrity, and is much more likely to report a
misdeed. The dishonest person is more likely to say “no.” When pressed for an explanation, this person will typically say, “No, nothing would be done about it, and they wouldn’t believe me anyhow.”
121
“Is there any reason why someone who works with you would say they thought you might feel
justified in doing something wrong?”
This is a hypothetical question designed to place the thought in the mind of a wrongdoer
that someone has named him as a suspect. The honest person will typically say “no.”
The dishonest person is more likely to try to explain by saying something like, “I know
there are people around here who don’t like me.”
122
“What would concern you most if you did something wrong and it was found out?”
The dishonest person is likely to say something like, “I wouldn’t want to go to jail.” The honest person, however, might reject the notion by saying, “I’m not concerned at all, because I haven’t done anything.” If the honest person does explain, it will usually be along the lines of disappointing friends or family; the dishonest person is more likely to mention punitive measures.
123
Admission-seeking questions have at least three purposes
to distinguish innocent people from guilty;
to obtain a valid confession
to convince the confessor to sign a
written statement acknowledging the facts
124
The Admission-seeking interview should be scheduled when
the interviewer can control the situation. It
| normally should not be conducted on the accused’s turf, and is best conducted by surprise
125
Admission-seeking Interview Room
The location should establish a sense of privacy. The door should be closed but not locked, there should be no physical barriers preventing the target from leaving, and the suspect should be made aware that he is free to leave. Distractions should be kept to a minimum. Chairs should be placed about four to six feet apart, and the accused should not be permitted to sit behind any physical barriers
126
When conducting an admission-seeking interview, note taking should be kept
to a minimum. In some cases, taking notes should be altogether avoided.
127
Other than the subject and two examiners, ___
no other observers should be permitted in the admission-seeking interview (attorney, union
representative can)
128
It is generally legal to accuse innocent
| people of misdeeds they did not commit as long as:
• The accuser has reasonable suspicion or predication to believe the accused has
committed an offence.
• The accusation is made under conditions of privacy.
• The accuser does not take any action likely to make an innocent person confess.
• The accusation is conducted under reasonable conditions.
129
Steps in the Admission-Seeking Interview
```
Direct Accusation
Observe Reaction
Repeat Accusation
Interrupt Denials
Establish Rationalisation
Diffuse Alibis
Present Alternative
Reinforce Rationalisation
Verbal Confession
Motive for Offence
```
130
Interrupt Denials
DELAYS
One of the most effective techniques to stop or interrupt the denial is through a delaying
tactic. The interviewer should not argue with the accused, but rather attempt to delay the
outright denial.
INTERRUPTIONS
Occasionally, it might be necessary to interrupt the accused’s attempted denial repeatedly.
Because this stage is crucial, the interviewer should be prepared to increase the tone of the interruptions to the point when he is prepared to say: “Linda, if you keep interrupting, I am going to have to terminate this conversation.” The guilty individual will find this threatening, since he wants to know the extent of incriminating evidence in the interviewer’s possession.
REASONING
If the above techniques are unsuccessful, the interviewer might attempt to reason with the
accused, and employ some of the tactics normally used for diffusing alibis. Under these tactics, the accused is presented with evidence implicating him; however, the interviewer normally should not disclose all the facts of the case, but rather small portions here and there.
131
Establish Rationalisation
```
UNFAIR TREATMENT
INADEQUATE RECOGNITION
FINANCIAL PROBLEMS
ABERRATION OF CONDUCT
FAMILY PROBLEMS
ACCUSER’S ACTIONS
STRESS, DRUGS, AND ALCOHOL
REVENGE
DEPERSONALISING THE VICTIM
MINOR MORAL INFRACTION
ALTRUISM
GENUINE NEED
```
132
Diffuse Alibis
DISPLAY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
DISCUSS WITNESSES
DISCUSS DECEPTIONS
133
Present Alternative
One alternative allows the accused a morally acceptable reason for the misdeed; the other paints the accused in a negative light. Regardless of which answer the accused chooses, he is acknowledging guilt.
134
Benchmark Admission
Either way the accused answers the alternative question—either yes or no—he has made a
culpable statement, or a benchmark admission. Once the benchmark admission is made, the
miscreant has made a subconscious decision to confess. The questions above are structured
so that the negative alternative is presented first, followed by the positive alternative. In this
way, the accused only has to nod or say “yes” for the benchmark admission to be made. The
accused also commonly will answer in the negative.
“Then it just happened on the spur of the moment?”
OR
“Then you did it to take care of your financial problems?”
OR
“Then you did it because of the way you’ve been treated here?”
Should the accused still not respond to the alternative question with the benchmark
admission, the interviewer should repeat the questions or variations thereof until the
benchmark admission is made. It is important for the interviewer to get a response that is
tantamount to a commitment to confess. Because only a commitment is sought at this point, the questions for the benchmark admission should be constructed as leading questions, so they can be answered “yes” or “no,” rather than requiring any sort of explanation.
135
The following items of information should be obtained during the verbal confession:
```
THE ACCUSED KNEW THE CONDUCT WAS WRONG
FACTS KNOWN ONLY TO CONFESSOR
ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF INSTANCES/AMOUNTS
Motive for Offence
WHEN OFFENCE COMMENCED
WHEN/IF OFFENCE WAS TERMINATED
OTHERS INVOLVED
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS
LOCATION OF ASSETS
SPECIFICS OF EACH OFFENCE
```
136
The interviewer will typically want to ask the confessor to surrender his banking records voluntarily for review. It is recommended that either
(1) a separate written authorisation be created, or (2) specific language be added to the confession
noting the voluntary surrender of banking information.
137
In determining the specifics of the offence, the interviewer should usually should ask:
* Who has knowledge of this transaction?
* What does this document mean?
* When did this transaction occur?
* Where did the proceeds of the transaction go?
* Why was the transaction done?
* How was the transaction covered up?
138
In the book The Kinesic Interview Technique, authors Frederick C. Link and D. Glen Foster
define the kinesic interview technique as:
“[An interview technique] used for gaining information from an individual who is not willingly or
intentionally disclosing it.”
139
meaningful behaviour
activities that may suggest that an interviewee is
| under stress
140
Link and Foster identify three distinct categories into which meaningful behaviour can be divided:
* Self-initiated verbal statements that the interviewee initiates without prompting
* Prompted verbal responses or statements made by the interviewee in response to structured questions asked by the interviewer
* Nonverbal behaviour or body language, which includes body positioning movements, lack of movement, and observable physiological changes
141
Structured Questions
• Punishment question. The interviewer will casually discuss the punishment of the crime’s
perpetrator with the subject, asking, for example, “What do you think should happen to the criminal?” When posed with this sort of question, generally the innocent person, having nothing invested in the crime, will answer that the criminal should be severely punished, saying something like, “Lock him up and throw away the key.” However, the interview subject, if guilty of the crime, will generally answer that the criminal should be treated
fairly, saying for example, “The person who stole that money is very sick and probably needs mental
help.” In essence, the guilty person is more likely to answer “Don’t hurt me.”
• Physical evidence question. This type of question is meant to jar the suspect into making a
mistake. The interviewer will suggest that there is a piece of evidence that might link the
interviewee to a crime, asking, “Is there any reason that your fingerprints might have been found
near the crime scene?” This question does not assert that there is any evidence. The innocent
person, knowing that he or she had nothing to do with the crime, will simply answer “No,” unconcerned about the possible evidence. The guilty party will often become concerned with this possible evidence and attempt to cover for it with another lie.
• Crime existence question. A variation on this question would be “Do you think that this crime
was even committed?” The guilty party will see this as a possible way out, and answer “no,”
while the innocent person will likely answer “yes.”
142
Several facial traits or expressions can be read by the interviewer, among them:
• Eyes.− The single most important nonverbal sign that an interviewer must look for and
recognise are breaks in eye contact by the subject. The subject might close his eyes, cover his eyes, or turn or lower his head. Any of these breaks in eye contact during the interview can suggest a subject’s deceit.
• Eyebrow movement. When a subject displays disbelief or concern during an interview, it is
often a false or deceptive reaction to the interviewer’s questioning.
• Touching the face. Many subjects, when under stress, resort to repeatedly touching the tip
of the nose or rubbing the chin. This is often a nervous reaction to a threatening situation.
• Blushing. A person whose face or cheeks become red is generally experiencing increased
blood pressure, indicating pressure or stress.
• Adam’s apple. The subject’s larynx will quite often move up and down when he is concerned or nervous.
• Carotid arteries. Often the veins in a person’s neck will become exposed when he becomes
nervous.
143
Several factors should be considered when applying kinesic techniques:
* No single behaviour, by itself, proves anything.
* Behaviours must be relatively consistent when the stimuli are repeated.
* The interviewer must establish what is normal or baseline behaviour for each subject and then look for changes from the baseline. These observed changes in the subject’s baseline behaviour are diagnosed in clusters, not individually.
* Behaviours must be timely.
* Observing behaviour and interpreting it are hard work.
* The subjects are watching us while we are watching them.
* Kinesic interviewing is not as reliable with some groups as with the general population.
144
Pronouns
When describing an incident or situation, a truthful subject will most likely use the pronoun “I.” If the subject is guilty of an offence or involved in some fashion, that person will attempt to distance himself from the situation by removing the “I” from his statement. Often, the “I” will be replaced by “we,” as though the subject had little involvement in or
was not responsible for the situation.In a situation in which the subject uses “we” constantly, the subject is indicating to the
interviewer that the subject has some sort of relationship with another party in the situation.
If, for example, the subject continually uses impersonal pronouns, such as “my girlfriend and
I” rather than “we,” this indicates a lack of personal involvement with the girlfriend.
145
Possessive Pronouns
When an interviewee is giving bogus testimony concerning an event, he will often drop the
possessive pronoun to shift the blame to an exterior force.
146
Verbs
However, the deceptive interviewee will often change the verb tense at precisely the moment at which he or she is no longer recalling, but rather improvising the event.
147
Balance of the Statement
The subject will spend a fairly equal amount of time telling what happened before the event, what
took place during the event, and what happened during the aftermath. Fraud examiners
should look at the sheer amount of time or number of sentences a subject spends on each
topic to get a rough estimate of how balanced the account is. If any of the portions of the
account are exceptionally short, the subject is almost certainly lying.
148
Logical structure
The fraud examiner first examines the statement for “plot holes,” checking to ensure that the recounting of events is chronologically correct and does not
contain contradictions.
149
Unstructured production.
The fraud examiner should examine this criterion at the beginning of the interview by allowing the subject to recount the event without influence or
questioning. Generally, an honest person will not tell an interviewer exactly what has taken place in complete chronological order, from start to finish. It is much more likely that the initial recounting of events will be told in a scattershot fashion, but that these facts and details will eventually mesh into a complete version. When an interview subject
is able to sit down and initially describe the events that have taken place in complete detail, from beginning to end, it is likely that the story has been rehearsed.
150
Quantity of details
An honest subject is more likely to be able to recall many details within an interview than a dishonest subject. When most subjects fabricate a story, they are unable to bolster the story with very many details.
151
Contextual embedding.
This criterion suggests that a truthful subject’s statement will be tightly woven with incidental details, such as the subject’s daily routine, habits, or family relationships. A deceptive subject is much less likely to associate an event with seemingly
insignificant details such as these, choosing to focus only on covering up the major event that is being discussed.
152
Descriptions of interactions
The truthful subject is likely to have some description of the actions and emotions involved with the described incident or people involved in the
incident.
153
Reproduction of conversation.
Often, the witness will become animated when repeating any conversation related to the incident. When this occurs, the subject is generally telling the truth, as it is difficult for a fraudster to create cohesive dialogue on the spot.
154
Unexpected complications during the incident.
Descriptions of incidents that disrupt the event,
| such as a sudden halt or interruption of the event, indicate that the subject is speaking truthfully.
155
Unusual details.
The appearance of quirky but believable details lends credibility to the subject. Fabricated statements rarely contain these types of descriptions.
156
Superfluous details.
A subject who provides details that are not essential or even related to the recalled event are most often speaking truthfully. A deceitful subject is so preoccupied with not telling the truth that he will excise this type of information from the story.
157
Accurately reported details misunderstood
When a witness describes details that he does not
| understand or comprehend, but the details do make sense to the interviewer, the witness is most often telling the truth
158
Related external associations.
In this criterion, the interviewer looks for points at which the interview subject relates the particular experience with some personal or external
experiences. When the subject makes a relationship between the event and something
that has previously occurred in his life, he is very likely being honest.
159
Accounts of subjective mental state
The subject who fills the interview with descriptions of feelings and emotions is very likely being truthful. When a subject cannot provide such feelings during the interview, this suggests that the subject has not thought through his deceptive story very thoroughly.
160
Attribution of perpetrator’s mental state
The honest subject will often recount the perceived
mental state of the perpetrator, suggesting what they believe the perpetrator was thinking
or feeling at the time of the event
161
Spontaneous corrections
An interview subject may often correct himself during the course of the interview, making alterations to earlier details or events. When a subject does this, he or she is most often giving truthful testimony. The deceptive subject wants to project as honest a façade as possible and does not want to correct himself, because his mind this
gives the appearance of deceit.
162
Admitting lack of memory.
This criterion works closely with the previous one, in that an honest interviewee will often admit to not remembering certain details. When the
interviewee is lying to the interviewer, he wants to be as complete as possible in covering
the fraudulent tracks.
163
Raising doubts about one’s own testimony.
A deceitful interviewee will almost never raise any
concerns about whether the testimony given is absolutely correct. If the subject raises
concerns that he is correct, he is probably telling the truth.
164
Self-deprecation.
The mention of any self-incriminating or personally unflattering details during the interview suggests that the interviewee is credible. A person who attempts to fabricate a story will not want to paint an unsavoury picture of himself.
165
Pardoning the perpetrator
Should the interviewee attempt to excuse the perpetrator or avoid “bashing” the fraudster, the interviewee is likely being honest.
166
Dr. R. Edward Geiselman and Dr. Ronald P. Fisher write in the National Institute of Justice article
Interviewing Victims and Witnesses of Crime that
“most victims and eyewitnesses ... are so occupied with the event that they do not have the time to try to learn or memorise details about a suspect at the time of the crime.”
167
The cognitive interview technique was established, researched, and fine-tuned by
Dr. Geiselman, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles
168
Geiselman believes that the cognitive interview should be split into two distinct phases
the narrative phase and the specific-detail phase.
169
The Narrative Phase
The first portion of the cognitive interview is the narrative phase, in which the witness tells
the “whole story.” The investigator should first allow the witness to recount the situation, using several steps to guide the narrative portion. There are four primary steps in the narrative phase of the cognitive interview:
• Reconstruct the circumstances of the event
• Instruct the eyewitness to report everything and be complete
• Recall the events in different orders
• Change perspectives
170
Reconstruct the Circumstances of the Event
In this first, important step, the interviewer should ask the eyewitness to describe the context
in which the incident occurred. The interviewer should ask the witness to describe
everything, including the weather, time of day, and look and feel of the environment in which the incident took place. What did the people and/or objects in the surroundings look like?
The objective of this step is to mentally return the witness to the scene so that he will vividly
recall the unfolding events. Asking the witness to describe the emotional state he was in at
the time of the occurrence often helps accomplish this first step.
171
Instruct the Eyewitness to Report Everything and Be Complete
In this stage, the interviewer should ask the eyewitness to recount every last detail as
completely as possible. Geiselman says that a witness will often withhold information that he
thinks may be relevant to the investigation. Therefore, the investigator should instruct the
witness not to omit anything when giving testimony, no matter how trivial the information
might seem. The small details that the witness remembers during the interview may not be
directly beneficial to the investigation, but they will be important to helping the witness
remember the events descriptively and thoroughly.
172
Recall the Events in Different Orders
Constructing the event in a different order will give the witness the freedom to completely
recreate the event. When recounting the event in sequential order, the witness may very wel
forget minute details in an effort to describe what happened next. If the witness constructs
the event from the single moment or thing that left the greatest impression on him, the
interviewer may gain a foothold on the witness’s perspective.
173
Change Perspective
The final step of the cognitive interview process is to get the witness to alter his perspective
of the event. The investigator should ask him to reconstruct the scenario and assume a
different position within the situation. For instance, ask the witness to pretend to be a
different person within the event, and recount the event from that perspective. What was the
other person thinking or feeling? This technique may seem a bit odd, but it may allow the
witness to consider various elements of the event that he previously had not.
174
Specific Details
```
The five categories are:
• Physical appearance
• Names
• Numbers
• Speech characteristics
• Conversation
```
175
Physical Appearance
The investigator can often elicit additional information about the event by asking the witness
to describe the suspect. A particularly effective technique is to ask the witness whether the
suspect reminded the witness of anyone he knows. Often, physical descriptions, such as the
type of clothing a suspect was wearing or the particular way a suspect walked or looked, will
not be presented during the narrative phase of the interview. This additional information, however, can be key to linking a suspect with a specific crime.
176
Names
Often, the name of the suspect or another person will be spoken during an event, but many
times the event proves too traumatic or happens too quickly for a witness to recall. If a
witness cannot remember any names spoken during the event ask him to attempt to recall
the first letter of the suspect’s name (or any other names spoken) by going through the
alphabet one letter at a time.
177
Number
Once the witness has possibly established the first letter of the suspect’s name, the investigator should ask the witness how many syllables or letters were in the name. Establishing whether the name was long or short may effectively jar the witness’s memory.
178
Speech Characteristics
The investigator can also ask the witness what types of speech characteristics the suspect
has. Geiselman again suggests asking the witness whether the suspect’s speech reminds the
witness of anyone else. The interviewer should also determine whether the suspect had any
specific accent, an awkward or unusual voice, or used any words repeatedly during the event.
179
Conversation
The witness should be asked whether anything that the suspect or anyone else said during
the event elicited an unusual response. Did the suspect or any other witnesses react in a
strange manner to anything that was said?
