The Investigative Interview Method
6. Successful investigative interviewers are professional, ethical, and honest with whom they interview
4.2 Eight Phases of the Investigative Interview
4.2.4 Phase IV: Admission
not so easily convinced that an interviewer has evidence of their guilt simply because he says he does. Most people, even those who have no intention of lying, want to be convinced that evidence exists. Only by explaining how an investigation might be conducted and offering some detail regarding the methods of investigation can we hope to convince a reluctant interviewee to come clean and make an admission.
Again, without being accusatory, the interviewer tells the interviewee that he knows he committed an offense. Experience shows that most interviewees at this point will agree to be truthful. Whether they will is another matter. If the inter-viewer offered a convincing presentation using a credible theme and communicated a willingness to listen, the interviewee will likely conclude that honesty is now his only choice. If at this point, the interviewee is agreeable and agrees to be truthful, the interviewer can then begin to explore the matter in question. Suggesting the subject start at the “beginning,” the interviewer can methodically move from the events leading up to the incident to the actual incident.
The first step involves asking the subject some simple, nonincriminating ques-tions. These questions are called truth-tellers. They should be questions of which the interviewer already knows the answers. Asking truth-tellers, the interviewer attempts to build rapport, relax the interviewee, and observe him when responding truthfully. Examples of effective truth-tellers I have used in the past include:
◾ What is your current position?
◾ How long have you worked here?
◾ Where did you work previously?
◾ Compare for me the style of management there to that here?
◾ Do you agree that safety, hard work, integrity, loyalty, respect for others, etc.
(pick one that is applicable to the case) is important here?
The interviewer should record the responses to each question in his notes. It creates the appearance that the answers to the questions are somehow important and that maybe the decision makers will use them in deciding the interviewee’s fate. Instead, the interviewer is carefully making mental (not written) notes of the interviewee’s demeanor and behavior when not hiding the truth. The interviewer should be professional and personable.
The interviewer should not:
◾ Joke or attempt to humor the subject
◾ Comment on the subject’s physical appearance
◾ Say something that is untrue
◾ Attempt to diminish the seriousness of the offense, issue, or topic of discussion Now the interviewer is ready to obtain an admission. This is done methodically and carefully. It typically involves asking three simple questions in a very precise order. Using the facts of the case appropriately, the questions unfold as follows:
◾ When did you first realize other employees were doing ?
◾ When was the first time you had the opportunity to join them (or some varia-tion of this)?
◾ When was the first time you participated?
The first two questions are designed to allow the interviewee to acknowledge the offense or offenses in question occurred, without incriminating himself or any-one else. The third question calls for the actual admission. If he hesitates to answer it, the interviewer can assist him by stressing the need to understand the motives behind the subject’s every action; the interviewer can adhere to his conviction of the subject’s guilt without being accusatory. While understanding motive and intent are not necessary for the employer to achieve a standard of proof, asking questions about the subject’s thought processes and intentions allows him the opportunity to save face by rationalizing his behavior. The interviewer can even help in this regard.
The interviewer might suggest:
I have no reason to believe you did this to hurt . Sometimes people do things they later regret. I think the reason this happened was because you did not think it through. You had good reason to be angry and just made a bad decision. Is that not correct?
Another approach I often use at this critical moment during the interview is to ask this question:
Would I be truthful if I told management that you only one time?
Insert into this question the appropriate offense. Note that if the inter-viewee answers affirmatively, he has made a significant admission. If he answers no, the immediate response is to ask: What number would be more accurate? If he offers the unlikely response, never immediately move his attention back to the two commitments and indicate that his response never was not consistent with those commitments. Do not tell him that he is a liar or that he is lying. If he claims that you are, remind him the question was not regarding his truth-fulness, but instead asked only: Would I be truthful if I told management …”
[emphasis added].
Once an admission is made, ask these important follow-up questions:
◾ When was the last time you ?
◾ How many times did you ? Dos and don’ts:
◾ Do not exaggerate the quality or quantity of evidence you have.
◾ Do not claim to have evidence you do not.
◾ Do not show your proof or reveal the identity of any sources.
◾ Discourage the subject from challenging your evidence or the quality of your investigation.
◾ Do not threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate.
◾ Demonstrate confidence and do not allow challenges to cause you to doubt the accuracy of your information.
◾ Do not allow the subject to think you are a decision maker.
◾ Do not make promises you cannot keep.
◾ Do not offer immunity.
◾ Demonstrate compassion, not arrogance.
Throughout, manage your tone and body language, remain firm and confident.
Demonstrate empathy and avoid any appearance of being judgmental. Look the subject in the eye. Use body language that is sympathetic, but confident. Observe the body language and behavior of the interviewee. Move into his intimate space in order to communicate your compassion. However, do not touch him. Do not pat his knee, put your hand on his shoulder, or touch his hands. Some interview methods call for this form of intimacy at this moment. DO NOT do it. Unwanted touching may later be regarded as battery. Battery in many jurisdictions is consid-ered both a crime and tort. To commit it exposes the interviewer to both prosecu-tion and a lawsuit. DO NOT touch the interviewee.
During this entire exchange, the interviewer and his witness should be taking notes. The date, start time, and the time of any breaks should be documented.
All notes should be neat and legible. They should be retained and become part of the permanent case file. Even if one’s notes are used to generate a report and then destroyed, the interviewer or fact finder could face the claim of spoliation. If your organization has a policy of not retaining investigative notes, change the policy.
Destroying one’s notes also creates the appearance that the interviewer/fact finder is hiding something. It also could give rise to the claim the interviewer is unprofes-sional and acted unethically. Here’s how.
Suppose the interviewee cooperated fully, made an admission, but did not pro-vide a written statement regarding his guilt. After the interview, the interviewer pre-pares his final report and destroys his notes. Postdiscipline, the interviewee recants his admission and claims he’s innocent. He asserts the interviewer also thought he was innocent and was observed documenting it in his notes. He now demands the interviewer produce his notes to prove it. Do you see the problem? Without his notes, the interviewer has only his final report. Absent other circumstance (a wit-ness for example), the matter is reduced to deciding who to believe, the accused or the unprofessional, paid fact finder.