<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" > <channel> <title>interrogation Archives - Wicklander-Zulawski</title> <atom:link href="https://www.w-z.com/tag/interrogation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://www.w-z.com/tag/interrogation/</link> <description></description> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2023 22:20:30 +0000</lastBuildDate> <language>en-US</language> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency> <generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.2.6</generator>  <item> <title>Netflix’s Making a Murderer: An Interrogator’s Perspective</title> <link>https://www.w-z.com/2016/01/28/netflixs-making-a-murderer-an-interrogators-perspective/</link> <comments>https://www.w-z.com/2016/01/28/netflixs-making-a-murderer-an-interrogators-perspective/#comments</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Wicklander-Zulawski]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2016 04:18:23 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Bias]]></category> <category><![CDATA[False Confessions]]></category> <category><![CDATA[false confession]]></category> <category><![CDATA[interrogation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Interview]]></category> <category><![CDATA[lie catching]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Loss Prevention Interviewing]]></category> <category><![CDATA[making a murderer]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Negotiation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[netflix]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates]]></category> <category><![CDATA[WZ]]></category> <category><![CDATA[WZ Blog]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.w-z.com/?p=5053</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>The Netflix documentary “Making a Murderer” is causing an outcry for justice in a perceived unjust system.  The 10-part documentary depicts for the viewer a perspective of Wisconsinite Steven Avery, and his nephew Brendan Dassey as they travel through the many layers of the criminal justice system.  This series has taken social media by storm, creating several discussions on interview or interrogation techniques, false confessions and alleged corruption in the criminal justice system. It is an incredible example of how quickly and easily our society becomes divided and blinded when discussing potential injustice and impropriety. As a Certified Forensic Interviewer (CFI®) it is imperative to take a critical look at the series and separate truth or evidence from drama and conspiracy.  The documentary produced by Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos begins in 2003 and is broken down over 10 different episodes that all leave the viewer hanging and salivating to watch the next one.  Since the documentary aired on December 18, 2015, almost 400,000 people signed a petition to the White House asking for the Federal Government to take another look at the Avery case.  Justice, in the eyes of some viewers, has not been served.  However, it is interesting...</p> <p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2016/01/28/netflixs-making-a-murderer-an-interrogators-perspective/">Netflix’s Making a Murderer: An Interrogator’s Perspective</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p> ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Netflix documentary “Making a Murderer” is causing an outcry for justice in a perceived unjust system. The 10-part documentary depicts for the viewer a perspective of Wisconsinite Steven Avery, and his nephew Brendan Dassey as they travel through the many layers of the criminal justice system. This series has taken social media by storm, creating several discussions on interview or interrogation techniques, false confessions and alleged corruption in the criminal justice system. It is an incredible example of how quickly and easily our society becomes divided and blinded when discussing potential injustice and impropriety.</p> <p>As a Certified Forensic Interviewer (CFI®) it is imperative to take a critical look at the series and separate truth or evidence from drama and conspiracy. The documentary produced by Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos begins in 2003 and is broken down over 10 different episodes that all leave the viewer hanging and salivating to watch the next one. Since the documentary aired on December 18, 2015, almost 400,000 people signed a petition to the White House asking for the Federal Government to take another look at the Avery case. Justice, in the eyes of some viewers, has not been served. However, it is interesting that a series which highlights injustices and biases, is unequivocally mirroring that same behavior. Ricciardi and Demos have made several appearances and interviews since the release of the documentary and have stated <em>“We’re not prosecutors, we’re not defense attorneys, we do not set out to convict or exonerate anyone”</em>. If not meant to convict nor to exonerate, a critical review of this documentary should make the viewer question the intent of this film.</p> <p>As we continue to take a critical view of this documentary and the claims and allegations it has so widely publicized, it’s important to review the information presented. It is an interesting observation that in the Avery case a jury heard weeks of testimony and then deliberated for days prior to making a decision. However, upon watching the 10 hour documentary, it seems as though the decision has already been made for you. Before a viewer decides on a verdict, maybe it would be appropriate to take a step back and deliberate this from an unbiased perspective.</p> <p>If there was one word to describe the selection of content provided during this documentary as well as the actual investigation that took place, “bias” would be a perfect description. There are several types of biases that we all fall victim to in different circumstances. A personal bias is obvious, and the basis of this documentary is an alleged personal bias against the Avery family by the criminal justice system and specifically the Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department. Based on the information provided in the documentary, the viewer is led to believe that the entire homicide investigation of Teresa Halbach has been focused on Steve Avery predicated on his history with the department. Avery was in the process of settling a large lawsuit based off of his wrongful conviction that placed him behind bars for 18 years of his life. There are several allegations of wrongdoings by the Sheriff’s Department including the planting of evidence, lack of due diligence and misleading interviews. This series begs the viewer to question the integrity of the investigation, the ethical and moral violations by the Sheriff’s Department and the unjust nature of the resulting verdicts.</p> <p>Trust in the criminal justice system, and specifically law enforcement, has significantly eroded over the last several years. Without any doubt, there are flaws in the system, but they are publicized through the foggy lens of media persuasion and bias. When broadcasting incidents of alleged police brutality or misuse of force the media tends to have selective publishing. A routine, police involved traffic stop that leads to the recovery of drugs may not be headline material. However, showing the last 10 seconds of video footage with the subject being restrained on the pavement turns into a real provocative story. The Making a Murderer documentary even delivers this message for the viewer when they show a clip of an interview with a producer from Dateline NBC. The producer makes a comment about the Avery case, <em>“This is the perfect ‘Dateline’ story…Right now murder is hot, that’s what everyone wants…we’re trying to beat out the other networks”</em>. We can’t blame the filmmakers of this documentary for taking the same approach, after all they are <em>“not putting on a trial, but a film”</em> as stated by Ricciardi.</p> <p><strong>Documentary versus Due Process</strong></p> <p>Armchair jurors are quickly and loudly voicing their opinions on both the Avery and Dassey verdicts, but there are stark differences between watching through the narrow angle of a filmmaker’s lens versus the panoramic view from a jury box. The documentary aids the defense in making several claims of police misconduct by highlighting one side of the argument. When discussing biases and perception, viewers need to recognize the difference between the burden of proof of the prosecution versus the defenses ability to make unfounded claims or arguments. In a court of law, the prosecution is tasked with proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, the several elements of each crime the defendant is charged with. On the opposing side, the defense simply has to cast doubt by poking holes in the evidence presented. In this documentary, the viewer is provided with several claims that could result in reasonable doubt, however they are not presented with the entire story that the jurors had access to. In essence, the defense is able to provide theories and present claims without as much supporting evidence as the prosecution would need to prove the same. As we look at several examples from the documentary, the filter that the viewer is subject to should become more obvious.</p> <p>In the very beginning of the series, the viewer is enlightened with information about the wrongful conviction of Avery as well as some vague details on his history with the police. One of the incidents the viewer is exposed to involves Avery pleading guilty to animal cruelty for accidentally setting his cat on fire. However, as reported by the Associated Press, Avery had actually poured gasoline on a cat and intentionally threw it into a bonfire. The severe punishment and disgust for those who commit acts of animal cruelty is a widely supported feeling. This omission of facts could have changed the perspective the viewer has of Avery starting from episode one. However, if the viewer has animosity towards Avery and assumes he is guilty in the first hour than there would be no reason to further dedicate themselves to nine more hours of confirming that thought. Instead, the documentary portrays Avery as an innocent person with a troubled past.</p> <p>One of the major turning points in the documentary, and appropriately staged at the end of an episode, is the suggestion that the Sheriff’s Department planted Avery’s blood inside the vehicle of the victim, Teresa Halbach’s Toyota RAV4. Encouraging the viewer to watch the next portion of the series, we are still left without answers to many questions. We see, in dramatic fashion, Avery’s attorney inspect an evidence box that has been ripped open, and a needle-sized hole is seen in the top of a tube of blood. There isn’t much that would be more controversial and climactic than planted evidence in a murder case, so that’s exactly what the viewer is shown. What the viewer isn’t told, is that Avery’s DNA was found in several locations on Halbach’s vehicle. There was DNA extracted from Avery’s sweat on the hood latch of the Toyota. Ironically, this piece of evidence corroborates other testimony that is never heard during the series. Avery’s nephew, Brendan Dassey, had informed the investigators that he had assisted Avery in relocating Halbach’s Toyota into the junk yard, and that Avery had removed the battery cable from under the hood. This evidence and information, which would significantly sway the viewers’ opinion of the case, is not shown in the documentary.</p> <p>Further evidence presented in the documentary involves Halbach’s cell phone, including allegations of harassing calls and deleted voicemails. This sequence of events in the documentary include testimony from Halbach’s co-worker, her ex-boyfriend, and her brother. During this portion of the film, there is information provided that Halbach was receiving harassing calls from a blocked number, and that her ex-boyfriend and brother had hacked into her phone to listen to voice messages. This leads the viewer to draw a conclusion that there are other suspects, and therefore, reasonable doubt. This has also started a widely supported opinion by viewers that Halbachs ex-boyfriend could have been involved in the murder or the conspiracy. Continuing with the theme of omission, and selective editing, the documentary does not discuss the fact that the prosecution presented other evidence relative to these claims. District Attorney Ken Kratz has stated that Avery called Halbach’s cell phone three times, twice attempting to block his number on the phone call. Avery also contacted Halbach’s employer, specifically requesting that she be the representative that comes to his house. This information may have helped the jury in deliberations, but the omission of such detail in the documentary makes it very easy for viewers to find reasonable doubt.</p> <p>As we have reviewed the omission of evidence and the skewed perspective the documentary gives its viewers, it is vital to realize two other points. First, this is a documentary, not a trial in the court of law but more importantly, a trial in the court of public opinion. Because of this fact, there are no rules of law, no suppression hearings and no full disclosure of evidence. There is also nothing requiring the filmmakers to adhere to those regulations and self-admittedly, Ricciardi has even stated <em>“Of course we left out evidence”</em>. Second, and most ironic, is that the documentary clearly establishes a bias for the viewer with limited information provided and a one-sided narrative, which is exactly the issue they are focused on targeting.</p> <p><strong>Body Language, Baselines and Bias</strong></p> <p>Some of the most common feedback from those that have watched the interrogation footage of Avery, Dassey or other witnesses revolves around the behavioral cues seen during their respective conversations. Many viewers have observed erratic eye movement, fidgety or uncomfortable gestures as well as changes in verbal behavior or responses. One of the major issues with behavior interpretation is confirmation bias. If an interviewer, or viewer, believes that the subject is guilty then they are more likely to identify several behaviors supporting that claim. A subject that consistently looks away and scratches their leg would serve as confirmations that the subject is guilty. This confirmation bias is a detriment to the accurate evaluation of someone’s behavior. If we observe someone hoping that they look guilty, ultimately they will.</p> <p>There are several rules when attempting to interpret behavior, and one of the most important is to recognize that there is no single behavior that is fully indicative of truth or deception. In other words, simply because a subject blinks excessively, brushes lint off of their shoulder or crosses their arms does not necessarily indicate deception. If the behavior is on time to a stimulus, such as the interrogator stating the subject’s name then we can at least start to correlate the behavioral response to a trigger. However, this still doesn’t indicate that the suspect is lying or hiding something, it is very possible they may have anxiety or concern for a different reason. Imagine if someone had to speak in front of a large audience, and weren’t prepared for it. When they first stand in front of the group they would show several signs of anxiety, possibly increased respiration or perspiration, excessive blinking or manipulators. In this context, these behavioral cues are not due to deception, but rather due to anxiety. In an effort to identify the difference between anxiety and deception, it is imperative that the interrogator establish a behavioral norm of the subject they are interviewing.</p> <p>This important element of establishing a behavioral norm, or baseline for behavior interpretation is indirectly referenced during the documentary. As claimed by Dassey’s attorney in the documentary, Dassey is alleged to have a 4<sup>th</sup> grade reading level and a limited cognitive ability. This is important information to an interviewer as it is essential that the subject does not misinterpret the interviewer, nor does the interviewer misread the subject. This is also important to recognize as an interviewer, as it could increase the likelihood of a false confession or misrepresentation of the facts. The suggestion provided by the defense of Dassey is that the interrogators led Dassey to a false confession because of his vulnerability. During the trial, Dassey’s attorney cross-examined the agent that led the interrogation. In the line of questioning, the interrogator tells the court that he observed abnormal behavior from Dassey. He further discusses specifics about the behavior he observed and stated that he felt as though Dassey was hiding something. The defense attorney quickly reacted to these behavioral assessments by challenging the interrogator to his knowledge of Dassey prior to this observation. The attorney questions if the interrogator had ever spent time with Dassey at school, or in any other circumstance to establish his normal behavior. This serves as an excellent observation of the importance of establishing a behavioral norm before attempting the already challenging task of interpreting behavior. Non-verbal indicators may be starkly different based on the context of the situation, the culture or demographic of the subject and many other variables that would be nearly impossible to list. To properly assess and interpret any behavior in a conversation, it is essential for the interviewer to be aware of these surrounding variables.</p> <p><strong>Interrogation or Intimidation</strong></p> <p>There are several theories and strategies when it comes to the practice of investigative interviewing and interrogations. In the past several decades this industry has undergone several changes and will continue to adapt based on legality and research. It is imperative however, that any interview or interrogation is conducted with integrity and with the intent to determine the truth and the substantiation of such. Commonly known methods being applied across several industries and some countries include The Reid Technique the PEACE Model, and the WZ Method of Non-Confrontational Interviewing. This documentary directly cites “Reid” when the defense team of Brendan Dassey discusses their claims against the interrogation that was conducted. It is important to understand that different approaches or techniques of questioning may be more relevant and successful in some interviews versus others. It is even more vital to observe the facts of this case; a young subject who is known to have limited cognitive ability, and the approach used when law enforcement representatives talked with him. Academics have argued that a direct, confrontational approach increases the likelihood of a false confession especially with a subject that may be susceptible and vulnerable to such an accusatory conversation. In listening to excerpts from this four hour interrogation, it is observed that the law enforcement agents told Dassey that he was involved in criminal acts and re-accused him several times with limited or potentially zero evidence to support that claim. It is an unfair critique of the interrogation with hindsight as a valuable resource, however in retrospect there are several other techniques that may have been better suited when interviewing a subject such as Dassey. Alternative methods may have provided Dassey with the ability to provide an honest and truthful response with substantiation of any said facts, without the use of intimidation or promises of leniency.</p> <p>Most important is the interrogation which ultimately led to Dassey’s confession and subsequent trial. In this interrogation it is observed that Dassey is a quiet, withdrawn and vulnerable subject. When Dassey is asked several questions, his answers almost sound like he is guessing as to the correct response to satisfy the interviewer. Dassey admits during this interview that he was involved in the rape and murder of Teresa Halbach, and depicts a gruesome scene of the incident. Later in the documentary Dassey is asked by his Mother how he came up with such a story, and Dassey replied, <em>“I guessed.</em>” Dassey’s Mother then challenged him with this response, stating <em>“You don’t guess with something like this, Brendan</em>” to which Dassey replied <em>“Well, that’s what I do with my homework, too.”</em></p> <p>The major issue with this interrogation is the release of information by the investigators that ultimately contaminates Dassey’s confession. Most investigations will contain a piece of evidence or information that is kept from the general public, with the intention that it prevents false confessions and will substantiate a true admission of guilt from the responsible party. Unfortunately, false confessions happen for a variety of reasons, and sometimes it is simply because a subject wants notoriety for the horrific crime, causing them to take credit. By not releasing specific facts, or a piece of evidence to the public, it is assumed that only the actual guilty party will be able to provide it. This vital information in the Halbach case was the fact that she was shot in the head prior to having her body burned in a fire. If Dassey or Avery had stated, without being prompted, that Halbach was shot in the head it would be a solid substantiation of such admission that they could speak to the intentionally omitted details. However, the investigators that spoke with Dassey revealed this information and therefore reduced all of its potential value. The investigators led Dassey down a path, like a game of Taboo, where they gave him all of the clues hoping he would pick the right answer. <em>“What happened to her head Brendan?”</em> to which he replies that Avery cut her hair, and that Avery punched her. The viewer can sense the investigator becoming anxious, finally saying <em>“I’m just going to come out and ask you; Who shot her in the head?”</em> The valuable piece of evidence that was intended to prevent false confessions had just been given to the most vulnerable subject in the entire investigation.</p> <p>As noted throughout the documentary, there are four different occasions when Dassey is interviewed without an attorney or a guardian present. Depending on the custodial nature of each conversation, there may not be any legal obligation to provide Dassey with this assistance, however it may have prevented any misrepresentation of what occurred in those interviews. Most ironic is the interrogation that occurs with Michael O’Kelly, the investigator that had been hired by Dassey’s court appointed attorney, Len Kachinsky. During this interrogation, O’Kelly is clearly pursuing an admission of guilt from Dassey as he threatens him with <em>“spending the rest of your life in prison”.</em> O’Kelly continues to persuade Dassey by asking if he wants a chance to get out one day and have a family. Ultimately, after many challenges and changes to his story, Dassey confesses to the crime. An investigator and attorney that are supposed to be uncovering the truth on behalf of Dassey, instead appears to have a goal of implicating him. Since the documentary has aired, Kachinsky has spoken to the media claiming that <em>“In 20/20 retrospect, I [Kachinsky] should have never hired or fired O’Kelly.”</em> Kachinsky also speaks about the potential of a plea deal that may have been reached with the prosecution had Dassey wanted to testify against Avery.</p> <p>Even with all the aforementioned errors in the Dassey interrogations, it is still possible that he was involved in the rape and murder of Halbach. Any misapplications of methods used when interviewing Dassey do not necessarily prove his innocence, however it does cast doubt on the validity of his confession in its entirety. Investigators, whether they work for the prosecution or the defense should always have the same intent, and that would be to extract and reveal the truth without prejudice. When planning an interview or interrogation, it is essential to understand the moral and ethical obligations one has for justice and for the subjects involved.</p> <p><strong>A Search for Truth</strong></p> <p>When reviewing this case, as well as reflecting on the criminal justice system as a whole, it is evident that there is a clear distinction between the goals of obtaining the truth versus simply obtaining a confession. In the documentary, it is mentioned that the interrogators had been trained to elicit a confession, rather than the truth. Without knowledge of their respective training, or intent, it’s difficult to validate or dispute that claim. To further differentiate these two terms, it’s important to recognize the fact that the subjects’ innocence or lack of involvement may very well be the truth. Regardless of the specific facts of the Avery case, or any other investigation, the most important piece of evidence will always be the truth. It is the ultimate goal for any interrogator or investigator, on either side of the courtroom to uncover the truth. If an interview is conducted with the sole purpose of a confession, especially with limited evidence, then the perception is that the conversation is conducted with a critical bias. In regard to the documentary, we have to recognize the fact that biases may very likely be derived from both parties, prosecution and defense. The critical differences between what the documentary tells its viewers and the actual totality of evidence in the trial illustrates the bias in the filmmakers intent; a search for the truth or the pursuit of publicity.</p> <p><strong>Moral of the Story</strong></p> <p>Without this presentation of potential impropriety it is debatable whether or not this series would have taken off as quickly in popularity as it has. This fact alone should make the viewer question if there is full transparency in the documentary. The millions of viewers, and now self-proclaimed legal experts, are deriving opinions and signing petitions with a small sample size of the entire case. What many viewers have now come to realize is the possibility that law enforcement could have acted improperly and simultaneously, Steve Avery could also be guilty. Demonizing one side of the argument does not, and should not be a direct correlation to believing or disbelieving the other</p> <p>Without thorough in-depth knowledge of the case and all of its surrounding facts and evidence, it would be ethically irresponsible to come to a conclusion of truthful or untruthful, guilty or innocent. However, it is perceived that those producing the documentary as well as those prosecuting the case may have had equal, but opposing intent in the investigation of the Avery case. If nothing else, this documentary stirs up a conversation as to the ethical and legal limitations and responsibilities by the criminal justice system as well as the ease of persuading and dividing the general public through the media. Moving forward, interviewers and investigators alike should remind themselves of the high ethical standard they are held to and they must act accordingly while performing the very challenging task of bringing down the full weight of justice by obtaining the truth from sometimes untruthful subjects.</p> <p><strong>About Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates</strong></p> <p>Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates, Inc. (WZ) continues to be recognized as the premier consulting and training company on interview and interrogation techniques. We are dedicated to assisting public and private sector professionals to improve their ability to obtain the truth through legally acceptable techniques. To this end, WZ continues research to provide the highest quality training, products and professional services to an ever-increasing number of organizations throughout the world. Learn more at <a href="https://www.w-z.com">www.w-z.com</a> or follow @WZ_Training.</p> <p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2016/01/28/netflixs-making-a-murderer-an-interrogators-perspective/">Netflix’s Making a Murderer: An Interrogator’s Perspective</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p> ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.w-z.com/2016/01/28/netflixs-making-a-murderer-an-interrogators-perspective/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>2</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Top 5 Ways to Build Rapport: Whether It’s an Interview or a First Date</title> <link>https://www.w-z.com/2015/05/13/top-5-ways-to-build-rapport-whether-its-an-interview-or-a-first-date/</link> <comments>https://www.w-z.com/2015/05/13/top-5-ways-to-build-rapport-whether-its-an-interview-or-a-first-date/#comments</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave Thompson CFI]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2015 03:00:40 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Interview Strategies]]></category> <category><![CDATA[interrogation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Interview Training]]></category> <category><![CDATA[rapport]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates]]></category> <category><![CDATA[WZ]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.w-z.com/blog/?p=1465</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Are you one of those people that can connect with anyone?  Do you know someone that seems to make friends anywhere they go?  Sure, this could be for a number of reasons – but most importantly these people have a skill in building rapport. People relate with other people who are like them. Whether you are fans of the same sports team, enjoy similar hobbies or share political interests, it is easier to connect with someone like you.  Think about it this way; if you are traveling far away from your hometown and you bump into somebody wearing a hat with your home team sports logo, all of a sudden you feel comfortable saying hello. Developing rapport with your subject in an interview builds trust and likability as well as identifies possible rationalizations to use.  This skill is not limited to interviews or interrogations however, as it is a vital part of many conversations such as a job interview, a sales pitch or even a first date.  While a large part of my job is to train on interviews, I’ve also had my fair share of first date experiences so I thought I would combine the two and give you...</p> <p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2015/05/13/top-5-ways-to-build-rapport-whether-its-an-interview-or-a-first-date/">Top 5 Ways to Build Rapport: Whether It’s an Interview or a First Date</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p> ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are you one of those people that can connect with anyone? Do you know someone that seems to make friends anywhere they go? Sure, this could be for a number of reasons – but most importantly these people have a skill in building rapport.</p> <p>People relate with other people who are like them. Whether you are fans of the same sports team, enjoy similar hobbies or share political interests, it is easier to connect with someone like you. Think about it this way; if you are traveling far away from your hometown and you bump into somebody wearing a hat with your home team sports logo, all of a sudden you feel comfortable saying hello.</p> <p><span id="more-1465"></span></p> <p>Developing rapport with your subject in an interview builds trust and likability as well as identifies possible rationalizations to use. This skill is not limited to interviews or interrogations however, as it is a vital part of many conversations such as a job interview, a sales pitch or even a first date. While a large part of my job is to train on interviews, I’ve also had my fair share of first date experiences so I thought I would combine the two and give you my list of the top 5 things to consider when developing rapport.</p> <ol> <li>Don’t Sound Like an Interrogator</li> </ol> <p><strong>Interview:</strong> <em>This is one of the first steps in an interview, you don’t want the subject feeling accused or targeted as you are trying to develop a baseline and obtain information without coming across like an interrogator.</em></p> <p><strong>Date:</strong> <em>If you keep firing off questions you will condition your possible mate to stop answering. Developing rapport should be a natural dialogue rather than a cross-examination.</em></p> <ol start="2"> <li>Always be Yourself</li> </ol> <p><strong>Interview:</strong> <em>Sure, I just told you that people like people that are like themselves – but if you pretend to be someone you’re not and the subject identifies that, then your entire strategy becomes irrelevant.</em></p> <p><strong>Date:</strong> <em>If you start to pretend you’re interested or passionate about something that you’re not just to make a connection this could be a major problem down the road. All of a sudden you’re going to yoga classes, reading poetry and watching chick-flicks because “you have that in common”. Remember, sometimes opposites do attract.</em></p> <ol start="3"> <li>Show Sincerity</li> </ol> <p><strong>Interview:</strong> <em>A major factor in developing rapport and rationalizing is the ability to show empathy and place yourself in your subject’s shoes. Show sincerity by the tone of your voice, active listening and displaying non-verbal cues such as nodding of the head and smiling when the subject speaks about their background</em>.</p> <p><strong>Date:</strong> <em>Don’t just act like you care – actually do so. This will score you some big points during the rapport building stage. If she tells you that story about some argument she had with her co-worker, listen and then ask follow-up questions to show your interest. If he tells you the story about how he injured himself in a big football game and that’s why he can’t play anymore, well… he’s probably lying.</em></p> <ol start="4"> <li>Pay Attention to Order</li> </ol> <p><strong>Interview: </strong><em>When you ask a question “What do you like to do outside of work?” pay attention to the order of their response. “Well, I really enjoy spending time with my wife and kids, hanging out with friends and going to the gym”. If you are making assumptions during this stage, I would assume that family is top priority to this person meaning they may be concerned about embarrassment or shame if they admit to their wrongdoings in the interview.</em></p> <p><strong>Date: </strong><em>“What do you like to do for fun?” or “What are you most likely to do on a day off?” are great conversation starters on a first date. Listen carefully to the order of their response. “I like to go out on the weekends and hang out with friends, watch any games if they are on and sometimes go to the gym”. The first answer is probably the most accurate and the most often of activities, whereas the last answer may have just slipped in there to impress or satisfy you.</em></p> <ol start="5"> <li>Identify Possible Hurdles or Rationalizations</li> </ol> <p><strong>Interview:</strong> <em>Your subject can be a great help to the interview strategy during this stage. If your subject tells you they like to go golfing, but it got too expensive, you may have just identified a financial rationalization. Maybe your subject tells you that they hang out with friends a lot and sometimes they come visit your subject at work – you may have identified peer pressure. Your subject may also tell you that they love their job or that they really enjoy working for their boss in which they are also telling you the greatest obstacle standing between you and the admission.</em></p> <p><strong>Date:</strong> <em>Similar to an interview, your prospective partner may be giving you information on reasons to run away without even knowing it. If they start talking about how close they are with their friends, their parents or their ex-boyfriends family you may start to determine who you need to impress if you want to keep this one. They may even tell you the reasons their last relationship didn’t work out. That is a tricky one, but remember that past performance is usually the best indicator of future behavior.</em></p> <p>Developing rapport is a vital step in any conversation whether it is an interview or a first date. Make sure to spend the appropriate amount of time making that connection with your subject. Feel free to reach out to discuss your methods of developing rapport or making a connection – just please, no “Dear Abby” letters. This is about as far as my dating advice should go.</p> <p> </p> <p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2015/05/13/top-5-ways-to-build-rapport-whether-its-an-interview-or-a-first-date/">Top 5 Ways to Build Rapport: Whether It’s an Interview or a First Date</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p> ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.w-z.com/2015/05/13/top-5-ways-to-build-rapport-whether-its-an-interview-or-a-first-date/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>1</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Go Behind the Scenes with WZ: Assigning the Best Interviewer</title> <link>https://www.w-z.com/2015/04/10/go-behind-the-scenes-with-wz-assigning-the-best-interviewer/</link> <comments>https://www.w-z.com/2015/04/10/go-behind-the-scenes-with-wz-assigning-the-best-interviewer/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave Thompson CFI]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2015 18:11:36 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Interview Strategies]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Certified Forensic Interviewer]]></category> <category><![CDATA[CFI]]></category> <category><![CDATA[interrogation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Interview and Interrogation Training]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.w-z.com/blog/?p=1455</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>A large source of Wicklander-Zulawski (WZ) training material and ongoing research comes from our very own Investigative Division. Within this division, we get contacted by organizations, both private and public, to assist or lead in an investigation. Once we take on the investigation, part of the process includes deciding who would be the best interviewer for the case. All of the investigators at WZ are CFI’s and experienced interviewers; however, some cases may dictate one interviewer is better suited for the case than another. Taking into consideration that schedules, geographic location, and other logistics may impact the selection process; let’s assume that none of that is relevant for the sake of understanding the real basis for selecting the right interviewer. Here are some of the topics we consider when assigning an investigation to a WZ Interviewer: Biographical Some types of cases may be better suited for a specific gender or age of the interviewer. For example, if we were hired for a possible sexual harassment investigation and the alleged harasser was a male subject I would prefer a male interviewer. In this scenario, it may be easier for the interviewer to develop a rapport and rationalize with the subject. On...</p> <p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2015/04/10/go-behind-the-scenes-with-wz-assigning-the-best-interviewer/">Go Behind the Scenes with WZ: Assigning the Best Interviewer</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p> ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A large source of Wicklander-Zulawski (WZ) training material and ongoing research comes from our very own Investigative Division. Within this division, we get contacted by organizations, both private and public, to assist or lead in an investigation. Once we take on the investigation, part of the process includes deciding who would be the best interviewer for the case. All of the investigators at WZ are CFI’s and experienced interviewers; however, some cases may dictate one interviewer is better suited for the case than another.</p> <p>Taking into consideration that schedules, geographic location, and other logistics may impact the selection process; let’s assume that none of that is relevant for the sake of understanding the real basis for selecting the right interviewer.</p> <p>Here are some of the topics we consider when assigning an investigation to a WZ Interviewer:<br /> <span id="more-1455"></span></p> <ol> <li><strong>Biographical</strong> <ul> <li>Some types of cases may be better suited for a specific gender or age of the interviewer. For example, if we were hired for a possible sexual harassment investigation and the alleged harasser was a male subject I would prefer a male interviewer. In this scenario, it may be easier for the interviewer to develop a rapport and rationalize with the subject. On the other hand, it may be better suited for a female interviewer to talk to the alleged complainant if they are also a female for the same reason.</li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>Ability to Develop Rapport</strong> <ul> <li>A good interviewer can develop rapport with almost anyone, but let’s make it easier. People like people that are like themselves; so if you can identify that the subject has a passion for sports, cooking, has a family or loves to travel, then you need to be able to connect with that. Based on the subjects’ background, we may select a specific interviewer who can more easily develop a personal connection.</li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>Knowledge of Case</strong> <ul> <li>This doesn’t necessarily mean that the interviewer is the same as the primary investigator on the case. Even if one of the investigators has done the majority of the research doesn’t mean they have to do the interview. However, the interviewer should have a thorough understanding of the facts of the case, but also the methods of investigative tools available. For example, we may be involved in a cash theft case at a restaurant one week, an embezzlement investigation at a bank another week and a criminal case the following week. The interviewer needs to be aware of how each environment operates, and how each investigation could be conducted. At WZ, we may be assigned an investigation into Gang related cases, Drug issues, or Child Abuse. We have a variety of contracted WZ investigators that specialize in these fields that may be used for those cases. Understanding exception reporting and key performance indicators is different than applying the knowledge of fingerprint and DNA analysis.</li> </ul> </li> </ol> <ol start="4"> <li><strong>Reputation</strong> <ul> <li>Some of our investigations are provided for clients that have used WZ multiple times. Over time, a reputation may be established about that interviewer. For example, if Wayne conducts multiple investigations at the same location then employees may start to think “Every time that guy comes here, people get fired”. If the interviewer has established their own baseline or norm, then we may change interviewers to adjust the perspective among the other employees.</li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>Professional</strong> <ul> <li>We take all of the above into consideration when selecting our interviewer. However, it’s also important to remember that if you are a professional interviewer that you can overcome any of those perceived obstacles. Gender, age, background and knowledge of the case can all be a non-issue if the interviewer appropriately develops rapport, establishes credibility and shows understanding. When selecting our interviewer for a case, I feel confident that any WZ investigator could fit in to any type of case with the right preparation.</li> </ul> </li> </ol> <p>To give the interviewer the best chance of obtaining the truth, ensure you are reviewing all of the above when identifying who the case should be assigned to. Ultimately, always remember that if you take the time to prepare for the case appropriately and develop a thorough understanding of the relevant details that you can overcome all the other obstacles.</p> <p>If you want more information about the Investigative and Consulting Division at WZ please contact Dave Thompson, CFI at 800-222-7789 (x125) or via email at <a href="mailto:DThompson@W-Z.com">DThompson@W-Z.com</a>.</p> <p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2015/04/10/go-behind-the-scenes-with-wz-assigning-the-best-interviewer/">Go Behind the Scenes with WZ: Assigning the Best Interviewer</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p> ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.w-z.com/2015/04/10/go-behind-the-scenes-with-wz-assigning-the-best-interviewer/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Skilled Interviewers Only: “The Walk & Talk” Method</title> <link>https://www.w-z.com/2014/08/19/skilled-interviewers-only-the-walk-talk-method/</link> <comments>https://www.w-z.com/2014/08/19/skilled-interviewers-only-the-walk-talk-method/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Wicklander-Zulawski]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2014 16:33:10 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Interview Methods]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Certified Forensic Interviewer]]></category> <category><![CDATA[interrogation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Interrogation Training]]></category> <category><![CDATA[interview technique]]></category> <category><![CDATA[investigation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Loss Prevention]]></category> <category><![CDATA[walk and talk]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.w-z.com/blog/?p=1383</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>This article discusses a theory and approach to a modified form of general loss interviews.  Before making any practical use of this theory please partner with your respective supervisor and decision- makers at your company to ensure it complies with their guidelines.  This is an approach that takes a skilled, experienced interviewer to maneuver through the conversations appropriately. We have so many resources nowadays to help us identify internal theft or dishonesty.  Now we see IP cameras, remote monitoring, exception reporting, biometrics and other technology that provides us with alerts and reports pointing us to who the bad guys are in our company.  However, regardless of what technology is out there; sometimes the best resources to identify issues are the employees themselves.  They are a wealth of information; anything from knowing who is dating whom or which employee just got a DWI and is in some serious financial trouble.  Our employees can provide us with invaluable information initiating an otherwise vague investigation. Normally we would get a call from the boss regarding an awful shrink number and start scrambling, hoping that the answer is hidden in some exception report.  After looking for a few hours, calling your peers freaking out...</p> <p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2014/08/19/skilled-interviewers-only-the-walk-talk-method/">Skilled Interviewers Only: “The Walk & Talk” Method</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p> ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This article discusses a theory and approach to a modified form of general loss interviews. Before making any practical use of this theory please partner with your respective supervisor and decision- makers at your company to ensure it complies with their guidelines. This is an approach that takes a skilled, experienced interviewer to maneuver through the conversations appropriately.</p> <p>We have so many resources nowadays to help us identify internal theft or dishonesty. Now we see IP cameras, remote monitoring, exception reporting, biometrics and other technology that provides us with alerts and reports pointing us to who the bad guys are in our company. However, regardless of what technology is out there; sometimes the best resources to identify issues are the employees themselves. They are a wealth of information; anything from knowing who is dating whom or which employee just got a DWI and is in some serious financial trouble. Our employees can provide us with invaluable information initiating an otherwise vague investigation.</p> <p><span id="more-4362"></span></p> <p>Normally we would get a call from the boss regarding an awful shrink number and start scrambling, hoping that the answer is hidden in some exception report. After looking for a few hours, calling your peers freaking out and maybe doing some video review, odds are that you haven’t identified the problem. If it was that obvious, shouldn’t we have found it months ago?</p> <p>My suggestion is we start talking to people. Normally this would be a great time to initiate selective or general loss interviews. But we all live in the real world, and especially in retail, it may be difficult to schedule 8-12 people and pull them out of the store. Maybe you’re in a drugstore or a specialty retailer and you only have 3 people working all day! Don’t let that scare you away… that’s when we implement “the walk and talk.”</p> <p>Hopefully when you are visiting stores you are taking time to talk to everybody, whether it’s the General Manager, the cashier or the receiving team. If you’re not, you need to start. This will help you develop rapport and minimize any reputation you may already have of being the “terminator.”</p> <p>During these quick meetings and touch-bases, let’s integrate a few selective interview questions. Now we don’t want to jump right into them, so calm their nerves a bit. Develop some rapport and explain that your job is to help identify the shrink issue in that location.</p> <p>You’ll be amazed what people will tell you. You just have to ask the right questions.</p> <p><strong>What do you think is the cause of the shrinkage?</strong></p> <ul> <li>9 times out of 10 times in a retail environment, you’re going to get an answer similar to this: “I think our shrink is bad because of shoplifting.”</li> <li>Agree with the employee that external theft is part of shrinkage, but now is a great time to give your sales pitch on internal theft and get their minds thinking in that direction.</li> </ul> <p><strong>What would be the easiest way for an employee to take merchandise/money from the store?</strong></p> <ul> <li>More than likely you’re going to get 2 different answers here:</li> </ul> <p style="padding-left: 60px;">– If they have some specific details, they are telling you either how someone in the store is already stealing, or even better, how they are stealing.</p> <p style="padding-left: 60px;">– If they are vague or give a few examples, these are probably good indicators of operational opportunities in your store that you need to clamp down on.</p> <p><strong>Who would have the best opportunity to cause a loss at the store?</strong></p> <ul> <li>Sometimes they will look at you like you have a horn coming out of your forehead, so you may need to follow up with a good probing question, such as: “If you were conducting the investigation, where would you start? Which department?”</li> <li>If and when they do answer the question, they are giving you a good idea of where you may want to start looking. Sometimes you’ll be lucky enough to get an actual name of somebody!</li> </ul> <p><strong>When is the last time you saw another employee cause a loss at the store?</strong></p> <ul> <li>Again, you don’t know unless you ask! We phrase this like an assumptive question to make it easier for the employee to tell us they do know something. It almost makes them want to give you an answer to satisfy your question.</li> <li>If they don’t have any examples, or claim to not know anything, follow up with “What would you do if you saw somebody doing something dishonest?”</li> </ul> <p>Depending on your relationship with the employee and the environment that you’re in, you will have to back out of the conversation after 10-15 minutes.</p> <p>There are two different ways that I end the “walk and talk”:</p> <ul> <li> <strong>WZ Method:</strong> If the employee gave you enough indications that they are up to no good, then this may be a situation where your “walk and talk” results in an actual interview back in the office.</li> <li><strong>Back-Out:</strong> Once you’ve collected your information you need to professionally and politely back out of the conversation without causing them to feel uncomfortable. I would suggest ending by describing your companies anonymous tip-line, and hand them a business card. You’d be surprised how many emails and calls I’ve received after these conversations where somebody happened to “remember” who they saw stealing.</li> </ul> <p>Remember, generally people want to help and people like to talk. It’s our job to reduce resistance, ask the right questions and elicit the truth. Keep in mind that you are in a public area, so you don’t want to discuss anything confidential or ask about anybody specific.</p> <p>Good luck out there, and after your next store visit… I think you’ll be happily surprised!</p> <p>To learn more about Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates visit our</p> <p>Web site: <a title="Main page" href="https://www.w-z.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">www.w-z.com</a> or follow us on twitter @WZ_Training.</p> <p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com/2014/08/19/skilled-interviewers-only-the-walk-talk-method/">Skilled Interviewers Only: “The Walk & Talk” Method</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.w-z.com">Wicklander-Zulawski</a>.</p> ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.w-z.com/2014/08/19/skilled-interviewers-only-the-walk-talk-method/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> </channel> </rss>