It is not uncommon for investigators to be anxious when seeking information from victims, witnesses, or suspects. Issues relating to self-esteem may be at stake. Most people want to be viewed positively by their employers and peers. They are motivated by the truth, but if an interview goes poorly, investigators do not want it to be a result of poor listening skills, a badly chosen question, or failure to appropriately respond to a subject’s emotions or answers to investigative questions.
Planning is a significant phase of the investigative interview. During this phase, among other tasks, interviewers seek background information on the subject under investigation. They decide upon the best location for the interview, witness selection, and create a strategy for their approach to the person’s unique identity. It is not uncommon for individual investigators to prepare a “cheat sheet”, noting questions to ask during the interview. The purpose of this list is to avoid neglecting to ask important questions. It is a benefit as a reminder, but it may also be a disadvantage when the investigator, anxious to ask the next question, does not listen intently to the subject’s response. Some individuals are very talented when responding to questions they do not want to answer. They format their responses evasively to make it appear the question is answered. If the investigator is not listening intently, they will fail to realize the critical question goes unanswered fully and truthfully.
When responding to a direct question, an immediate answer is usually the most effective way of communicating a truthful and precise response. The answer given may be untrue, but the person is committed to their response. This response, if untrue, may be impeached by further investigative facts. A truthful response to a direct question is best related in a short, complete sentence, with no additional words to change the response’s meaning. The response is clear. The following questions and answers are examples:
Question: “Did you see John at any time last Friday?”
Answer: “No”
Question: “Where were you last Friday night?”
Answer: “I was home all night.”
Question: “Who prepared breakfast this morning?
Answer: “My husband John prepared breakfast.”
Question: “What is your opinion of Joe?”
Answer: “He is a good guy.”
Question: Do you know who took the money out of the cash register?”
Answer: “No”
Each of these responses is short and to the point. There are no additional words that would change the meaning of the answers. Individuals who are skillful at deception format their answers to appear as if they are giving a full and truthful response, when in actuality, they are evasive. Their responses are not direct, and often contain additional words, unnecessary to answer the immediate question. These additional words change the meaning of the response and must be further explored. The investigator must probe these areas of concern to get a complete and accurate response.
An example of how individuals respond evasively is better explained by recalling a routine visit to the doctor’s office. Modern Preventative Care often requires a patient to fill out a form listing how many servings of vegetables they consume each day. They may also ask how many alcoholic drinks the patient consumes in a day, and in a week. These questions appear to be personal and people have been known to answer evasively.
Questions: How many alcoholic drinks do you consume during a day?
How many alcoholic drinks do you consume during a week?
Answer: “I don’t drink.”
A doctor with an investigative mindset may see the answer as possibly evasive. To further explore the response, the doctor may ask a follow-up question.
Question: When did you stop drinking?
The subject is now forced to tell the truth or lie. A truthful answer may be:
Answer: “When I walked into this doctor’s office.”
Question: “And when are you going to start drinking again?”
Answer: “When I walk out the door.”
The word “don’t” only indicates the present time. This response to the doctor may be true, but further probing may get a more complete indication of the situation. Other indications of possible evasiveness may include the below:
Question: “Did you see John at any time last Friday?”
Answer: “John and I spoke on Tuesday and decided we would not meet last Friday.”
John spoke with the subject of the interview on Tuesday and decided they would not meet last Friday. The word “decided” does not indicate completion of the decision. Did something change between Tuesday and Friday? The subject of the interview did not respond directly to the question. This area must be probed.
Question: “Where were you last Friday night?”
Answer: “I was probably home all night.”
In the above example, “I was home all night” would be a short and direct response. The additional word “probably” suggests uncertainty about the statement. This area must be probed for a more direct response. Can the subject positively commit to his location last Friday night? Investigators should not blindly accept victim, witness, and suspect statements as true. If possible, all statements should be corroborated to determine their validity.
Question: “Who prepared breakfast this morning?”
Answer: “I have always been the first to rise and prepare breakfast”.
The subject of the interview may have always been the first to rise and prepare breakfast in the past, but did not directly answer the question regarding “this morning”. The interviewer must probe this area.
Question: “What is your opinion of Joe?”
Answer: “Basically, Joe is a good guy.”
This response shouts for a follow-up question. The additional word “basically” suggests that there are times when John is not a good guy. This area must be probed regarding when John is not a good guy. If the question is not asked, the answer may never be known.
Question: “Do you know who took the money out of the cash register?”
Answer: “I don’t know for sure.”
A direct response to this question would be “No” or “I don’t know.” The extra words “for sure” suggests there is some information that may be withheld. This area must be probed.
This author has previously indicated that some investigators use a “cheat sheet”, noting questions to be asked to avoid missing essential questions. These reminders may be beneficial towards the end of the interview to make sure the necessary questions are asked.
When the interviewer begins an investigative interview, the only relevant question, is the first question. The person conducting the interview must listen intently to the subject’s response. Was the question fully answered? Were additional words unnecessarily added to the response? Did these words change the meaning of the response? If so, probe the response further until the question is fully answered. Only after each question is fully answered may the interviewer move on to the next question.
If the person conducting the interview follows the above-mentioned procedure, they will be focused on the subject’s responses. This will lead to additional questions not previously prepared. Towards the end of the interview, the investigator may choose to refer to his pre-prepared “cheat sheet” to make sure everything has been covered.
In conclusion, investigators have a purpose in mind when they ask investigative questions. Special attention should be focused on the responses to the questions, seeking to determine if the question was directly answered. It should be noted that the shortest, most direct answer is the best. If additional words are added, unnecessary to complete the thought, they often change the meaning of the response. These areas must be probed before moving on to the next question.
Thomas F. McGreal is a Certified Forensic Interviewer employed by Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates. He was previously employed by the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office as an investigator in the Post Conviction / Conviction Integrity Unit. Thomas F. McGreal was also employed by the Chicago Police Department, assigned to the Detective Division.
June 4, 2020, 4:14 pm
Great reminders! Question… Who is “John” and what did he do with “Joe”? 🙂
July 8, 2020, 4:19 pm
This article, along with our phone conversation and information you sent me are going to be an excellent resource.
As I collect intelligence on my case, and the investigative interview date is set, I will be reaching out to you again.
July 10, 2020, 11:19 am
Great post. I was checking continuously this blog
and I’m impressed! Very helpful info particularly the last part 🙂 I
care for such info much. I was looking for this certain information for a very long
time. Thank you and good luck.
July 13, 2020, 7:18 pm
Thank you for your positive comments.
I never know how my articles will be
accepted by the audience I am trying to
reach. Your reaction to my writing is inspiring
Thank you.
Tom McGreal