The Interview
An interview is a conversation held to generate information from persons who have
knowledge of a situation or crime so that an investigation can be continued or
concluded. The purpose of an interview is to gather information from people who have
knowledge of the crime or an incident that may be the focus of your investigation. 90%
of an investigator's job is to gather information, only 10% or less is to physically put
people in jail. So, if you think being an investigator is running around grabbing up bad
guys and putting them in jail, you will be sorely disappointed. Conducting an Investigation
is the process of solving a puzzle. The most valuable tool of the investigator is the ability
to talk to people. This is why we say in the definition that an interview is a conversation
instead of saying it is asking questions to gather information. An investigator must be
skilled in interview techniques to get information from people. The skills and techniques
of interviewing is the subject of this book. An investigator cannot gather information
without people. Sure we can gather physical evidence of the scene and form a picture of
what happened. But, the information we gather from the people we interview is the glue
that holds it together and provides the color that gives the picture definition. Not all
people want to give us the information, surprise! surprise! This reluctance to talk to us is
not always because they had a hand in the crime either directly or indirectly. There are
many reasons why people do not want to give us information; the reasons vary from a
dislike for our profession to just a “nun yo bidness” attitude. The people may use a
variety of methods to keep information from the investigator, from lying about the facts, to
claiming no knowledge. It is up to the investigator to sort it out and glean the truth. The
investigator must be able to get the information, sort is out, determine it's validity, and
draw a conclusion, all of this so the investigator can do the final 10% of the job, locking
up the bad guys.
An “interview” has characteristics which make it different from an interrogation. An
interview is looking for general information about an incident and it usually takes place
soon after the incident has occurred. We are seeking general facts, basically asking the
question “what happened?” We are talking to witnesses, victims, complainants,
informants and others to get an idea about what happened. In some cases we may
unknowingly be talking to the perpetrator or accomplice of the incident in our initial
interviews. The status of the interview is usually non-custodial. The interview is
generally relaxed or even calming depending on the type of incident that has occurred.
In a traumatic event it necessary to calm our subjects to gather our information.
An investigation is similar to the solving of a jig-saw puzzle; the interview is the first step
where we have poured the entire puzzle onto the table and begin to count and sort the
pieces before we to put it together. You never know, some of the pieces may be missing
and some may be from a different puzzle.
The Interrogation
An interrogation is asking questions of a person suspected of having committed an
offense or a person who is reluctant to make full disclosure of information that is
pertinent to an investigation. An interview occurs soon after the event and is the
gathering of general information to determine what happened. The interrogation is more
focused on the information that is being sought. In an interrogation we have formed a
picture of what happened and we are searching for information to support that picture.
The interrogation deals with two types of people. The first type is the perpetrator or co-
perpetrator of the event who has been identified. With this person we are seeking
specific information about their involvement. Of course the goal is to obtain a full
confession or, failing that, at least a partial confession. In some cases the result of the
interrogation may be to eliminate the subject from suspicion, for example: the case of a
false confession. More on the dynamics of the interrogation will come later. The second
type of person we are dealing with is less familiar to the investigator but is just as
important. This is the interrogation of the reluctant or hostile witness. It is an
interrogation of a person that has information and does not want to reveal it to the
investigator. The reasons to conceal the information vary, but the goal of the
investigator is the same, to obtain the facts being withheld. The interrogation is focused
on specific information that the subject may have about the incident. Many investigators
become frustrated with this type of person. The person is not in custody, they are not
the perpetrator but have relevant information about the case. Some investigators resort
to threats of arrest for withholding information or derogatory remarks about a person that
will not help to solve the crime. This usually results in alienating the witness and hardens
their resolve not to speak, thereby frustrating and causing the investigator to give up.
An investigator skilled in interrogation techniques will usually have greater success in
getting the information sought by using proper and effective interrogation techniques.
Characteristically an interrogation is more formal. It is usually in a setting established
and controlled by the interrogator. We are seeking specific information about the event
that we believe the subject has and is not revealing to us. The interrogation may be
confrontational. This does not mean violence, yelling, screaming, threats and physical
restraints to force information. These techniques are outdated, ineffective and in most
cases illegal, rendering any information gained inadmissable and useless.
Confrontational means that the subject has information they do not want to share with the
investigator. Often, they are in custody and not free to leave. It is up to the investigator
to use proper techniques to get the subject to open up and share the information. I often
compare these techniques to a sales pitch. We are trying convince the customer
(subject) that the best decision is to buy our product (give us the information) and they
will be better off for it.
The first and foremost purpose of the interrogation process, of course, is to obtain
admissions or confessions from the perpetrators of the incident. After the first admission
and in the course of the confession we want to expand our inquiry to identify other
participants, principals or accessories involved in the incident. The subject may not have
acted alone in the primary incident. In addition, the perpetrator may have had help in the
preparation of the crime; suppliers of equipment, confidential information, vehicles, keys,
codes and other materials necessary to execute the plan. I have seen cases where the
perpetrator has put off his crime because he did not have the proper tool to open a car
door or information about when his target was going to be out of town. In property cases,
the subject needs a place to sell the stolen merchandise. It may be a store, a dealer, or
just a location where people do not ask questions. The interrogation can bring out this
information. For instance, in one case we had a burglar stealing sterling silver. His
buyer was the owner of a car repair shop. The interrogation revealed that the silver was
sold and melted down into ingots within hours of the burglary. This information allowed
investigators to watch the shop for other thieves and build a case on the shop.
The interrogation may help to recover evidence or property related to the incident. In a
shoplifting case a thief was detained by a store loss prevention agent for stealing some
clothing. In the initial interview, the shoplifter claimed she took the clothing on impulse
and it was her first time. The loss prevention agent stopped there with that admission. In
the interrogation by the police officer that followed, she revealed that she had been
shoplifting at a variety of stores in the mall and putting the merchandise in a car in the
parking lot. The merchandise in the car was recovered and matched up with the stores
from where it had been taken. The end result was the solution of over 20 theft cases
from the different stores in the mall. This information would not have been obtained
without the successful interrogation of the shoplifter.
As we expand our questions we will want to try and discover other criminal involvement.
Many perpetrators may be involved in a variety of related crimes or similar past incidents.
They could have knowledge of others in the same business and be convinced to share
that information. In another case, a woman supporting her drug habit by stealing was
arrested for shoplifting. In her interrogation she revealed she was part of a till tapping
ring responsible for stealing thousands of dollars a week from the cash drawers of local
grocery stores. This information would not have been discovered had it not been for the
information she gave during the interrogation.
In many cases we start out looking at a wide variety of suspects for the crime. In the
interrogation we can get our subject to help eliminate people that are not involved. Also,
during the course of an investigation we have many facts that we have gathered.
Because we are not sure of exactly what happened, we may have many facts that are not
part of the current case or may be in error.
We can use the results of the interrogation to verify or disprove the facts that we have
collected. For example, In the case of over 110 burglaries committed by one person, it
was discovered by interrogation of the perpetrator that one of the burglaries was faked
by the home owner to get a cash payoff from the insurance company. The home owner
faked the theft of his property and reported it to the insurance company. Two weeks
later the burglar broke in and actually took the property the home owner had reported
stolen to the insurance company. It was the only house out of 110 break-ins that was
reported hit twice and in fact had only been hit once.
The interrogation can also fill gaps in the evidence you have on hand. The subject can
reveal where weapons, property or other evidence has been placed. A confessor
revealing movements during a crime can point out the possible location of evidence such
as fingerprints, footprints or other trace evidence left at the time of the incident.
As we can see, the interrogation does not stop at “I killed Mr. Green.” We want to
continue on to get all the facts and eliminate irrelevant information as well as other
suspects. We want the whole thing. We want...“ I killed Mr. Green in the kitchen at
midnight, with the candlestick and Mr Mustard was not involved.”
Why Do Interviews Fail
Cases are solved more often by interviews of victims and witnesses than by confessions
or physical evidence. We fail because we do not take the time to conduct a good, well
thought out interview with the expectation that we will get valuable information for our
case. This text will go into great depth on how to overcome each of the these issues.
However, here is a list of our pitfalls and a brief description of how we fail.
Poor Planning
Poor planning is one of the biggest holes we fall into as we climb the trail looking for
information. We are in a hurry up, rush, rush environment where we have to get it done
now. We are told, “time is money, more work to do, hurry up.” This is a television
society where we watch from the comfort of our couch at home as New York’s finest ace
detectives go to work on their weekly episode, solving another case. In one hour, with
commercials, they are able to discover a murder, interview the witnesses, identify and
interrogate the suspect, get a confession and put someone in jail. It does not happen
that way in real life. In comparison, I have worked an attempted murder case were the
perpetrator was identified and arrested within 30 minutes of the shooting. From the first
arrival on the scene to the final signature on the last report it was just over 12 hours.
And that was a short one.
In this hurry up world we fail to plan our interviews and interrogations. We do not look at
who we are talking to and determine the correct approach. Taking a little time to plan the
interview can yield big results. There are many sayings that express this philosophy,
“Penny wise and a pound foolish”, “Pay me now, pay me later” and my favorite that my
father was often fond of saying “The faster I go, the behinder I get.” Take your time and
plan your interviews. You rarely get a second chance to do it right.
Poor Technique
There are many techniques and approaches to use in the interrogation. In our planning
we need to analyze what type of person we are going to talk to and what would be the
right technique. A first time burglary offender, afraid of the system, may need the caring
big brother approach to help him confess. A tough rapist that has done hard time in the
state pen, has seen it all and knows the system, may respond better to a factual
approach. A spouse abuser will respond better to comments about how it was his wife’s
fault she got hit, not his fault. This approach would work much better than pointing out
how horrible he is for hitting a woman. Remember, we want them to tell us what they did
and why. Using the wrong technique can shut them down and make them ask for a
lawyer, then you are truly finished.
There are other poor techniques that have been around for years that are illegal and
inadmissible. The good-guy bad-guy technique we have all seen on TV. If you have
seen it, so has your subject. If you use it, and it works, you may loose anything you
gain. Many courts have determined that this technique is illegal and coercive. How
about the smack technique. The one you see on TV and the detective says, “I just gave
him a little smack.” This is illegal, it will render any information inadmissable and subject
the user of this technique to criminal charges. Stay away from these bad techniques.
There are many acceptable and effective techniques that we can use, many that rarely
appear on television.
Personality Conflicts
Thieves, murders, sex offenders, pedophiles, spouse abusers and many others are the
object of our interviews and interrogations. They are a sorry group without remorse or
caring for anything outside of their own wants and desires. It is a difficult task to walk into
a room with a mother that has just killed her two children so she can be with her
boyfriend; to sit and calmly and drink a cup of coffee while looking compassionately at
her. And then to appear that you understand the feelings she has and make her feel
she is not alone in how, she feels, that you understand her motives. Your skin will crawl
and it will seem that you may never again be clean, no matter how much you scrub. This
is the job you have chosen. The goal is to get the information and make the case. Do
not make it personal, make it your job. If the witness to your murder is a homosexual
male prostitute and you have issues with his chosen way of life, you have to leave it
behind to do the job. I have met many investigators that cannot separate their feelings
about the person from the purpose of the interview, to get the information. If it happens
to you, get another interviewer that can. An obvious personality conflict leaking out of
your persona can prevent you from getting the information you need for your case.
Race or Sex
It is not racism or sexist to recognize there is a difference between people. The people
that are the target of our interviews and interrogations are often racist or sexist. When
we interview these people we must be the skilled craftsman that chooses the correct tool
for the task at hand. You do not pound a nail with a screwdriver, you use a hammer. A
racist will be reluctant to talk to a person of the opposite race. A full member of a biker
gang will not confide in a woman, they view women as property to be exchanged for a
pack of cigarettes. Extremists may not talk to those outside of their cause. If possible
pick the best person to do the interview. If race, sex, religion, national origin or other
similar factors are an issue for the subject, use it to your advantage and pick the best
interviewer with the necessary background and physical presentation. Male psychos will
not talk to women and some people refuse to be interviewed by a person of another
race. In one armed robbery case I was interviewing a black male that had robbed a
convenience store. He would not talk to me as a white male, no matter what I said. I
recognized from the few comments he made that my race represented everything that
had gone wrong in his life. I contacted a friend, a black detective, and explained my
problem. He agreed to talk to my suspect. I watched from the next room, through the
one way mirror. As soon as the detective walked in I saw the suspect relax and move to
a more open body position. The detective asked, “What’s up?” The suspect answered,
“They always cummin’ down on me.” The detective sighed a sigh of recognition and
understanding and said, “I know what you mean, me too.” There was a look of
recognition in the eye of the suspect. His head and shoulders drooped as he began to
talk to the detective about life and eventually the robbery. In less that an hour the
suspect was writing a confession for the detective. I could not have accomplished this
feat with my white skin and brown hair. This example is not discrimination, it is strategy.
A good interviewer must recognize this fact.
The Confession Point or an Admission is Missed
I will discuss later in great detail the confession position, admissions and other behavior
that indicates a person is ready to confess or has, in fact, just admitted in some subtle
way that they did it. Investigators are often like the hounds after a fox. They get so
caught up in the chase they miss the fox hiding in the bushes. Many investigators can
relate to this feeling. The investigator must recognize when the person is ready to
confess and know when to move in with the right question. Many interrogators miss it.
Here is an example of missing the confession position:
You are interrogating a man, Bob, about beating his wife, Mary, and putting her in the
hospital. She is in a comma and may not live through the night. You have been talking
to Bob for an hour. You began well by establishing a rapport with him. You both like
fishing and you started out your conversation with a discussion about chasing that ever
elusive big mouth bass. As you speak you see he has warmed up to you, nodding his
head appropriately, moved to an open body position and appears at ease. You ease
into the subject of the fight he had with his wife by discussing your marriage, your wife,
how you love her and last but not least, how sometimes she makes you crazy. He nods
slightly as you talk, indicating he understands. You go on and tell stories about how you
and your wife have fought in the past over things that all couples fight about, how she
drives you crazy, sometimes, you think on purpose. Bob gives a sheepish grin and
nods again. As you talk, Bob leans forward, his head and shoulders began to slump
forward. You move on, hinting that he also loves his wife. You point out all the nice
things he gave her, how he takes time away from fishing to spend with her and once, he
even took her with him. He continues to nod as you speak. You move on to the fight,
and discuss how she had done it to him again, forcing his anger, making him mad. You
mention how hard it is to be so angry at the one you love. He nods again his head is
down, his shoulders are slumped, his arms are on his knees......
At this point you have Bob in the confession position. Leaning forward, head down,
nodding and agreeing with what you are saying. This is the confession position. Now is
the time to ask the alternative question. Some investigators miss this, failing to
recognize the confession position. They know they have Bob on the ropes, and he is
ready to talk, they just don’t know what to say. As a result they continue the dialogue
with Bob. This opening will not last long before Bob will pull back and close up. Many an
investigator will say “I almost had him, he was ready to confess and changed his mind.” It
is true. Bob was ready to confess. The investigator did not ask the right question when
the signals were there and missed the opportunity, missed the confession position. The
next point missed is the admission. Here again is the continuing example:
...You recognize that Bob is in the confession position and is ready for the alternative
question. You set it up by asking Bob if he loves his wife. He nods yes. You state to
Bob “You don’t hate your wife do you?” He nods no to your question. You repeat this
again and ask him, “Bob did you hit your wife because you love her or did you hit her
because you hate her?” Bob Pauses and you state “Bob, you love your wife don’t you?”
He nods yes. You state, “You don’t hate her, do you?” he nods no. You ask again, “You
hit her because you love her, didn’t you?” At this point you see a slight shrug of Bob’s
shoulders. Bob says nothing and you continue on and on and on, missing the little
signals he gives you until he backs off, crosses his arms and clams up. You wonder,
what happened?
Bob was in the confession position. You asked the alternative question. What
happened? The answer, you missed the answer, a small admission, and kept asking
the question until Bob quit. The shoulder shrug was one of many tiny admission signals
that need to be rewarded and cultivated like a little seed trying to take root in a rock
garden. You should have reached out at that shoulder shrug, patted him on the back
and rewarded him with a message, “that’s what I thought Bob, you only did it because
you love her,” or a similar message.
Many investigators see this behavior and in looking back on past cases realize they
missed the subtle admission. What the investigator is are looking for in the interrogation
is an obvious statement like, “I hit her across the face with my fist.” The fact is, we rarely
hear this in the beginning. We see the nod, the shrug, hear the sigh, the verbal squeak
or other behavior and disregard it, not realizing this was an admission that needs
rewarding and developing. An investigator has to recognize the confession position, ask
the right question and pick up on the tiny admission signals and act.
Lack of Control over the Suspect and the Situation
The interrogator must be in control of the interrogation. There are many things that we
do to establish control. We select the room, the decor, the chairs, the time, and set the
mood. It is easier to do when you are on your own turf in the interrogation room. It is
harder on the subject’s turf, their office, house or location. You must take steps to
minimize outside distractions such as radios, telephones, people intruding and other
interruptions. I will discuss the interview environment in more detail later in the text.
Question, “Who is in control?” Answer, “The person that asks the questions.” The most
powerful tool we have is the question. When we ask the questions, we guide the
conversation and maintain control. The subject may try to take that control away from
you by asking you questions. They could be personal questions about you or questions
about the case. Take care to maintain control or the interrogation will fail.
Inability to Adjust to the Subjects Responses and Continue the Interview
One of the signs that you are getting close to the truth is when the subject tries to
change the subject. They may do this by asking questions, making gestures or rude
comments. A classic example is a sexual advance by the subject towards the
interrogator. A buxomness female may partially unbutton her blouse and lean forward
providing a full view all the way down to the navel trying to rattle a male interrogator. A
handsome man will make complementary comments to a female, overtures to a date. Or,
you may have a homosexual male make an explicit comment to the detective about how
he would like to take him to bed and have his way with him, describing this in explicit
detail. I have seen this technique used with great effectiveness causing the detective to
leave the room to regroup. There are many more avenues a subject may take, sex,
race, religion, national origin, family, and so on. The trick is to be able to take this in
stride. Let is roll off your back and move on. A great teacher and mentor of mine C.H.
VanMeter put it this way
" The right technique will allow you to un-zipper his facade
and let his poor tortured soul pour out in front of you. "
Comparison of Interviews and Interrogations
The following descriptions are general guidelines that describe the three major phases of
interviews and Interrogations. They will not apply in every situation, however, they give a
general idea of the differences in the three phases of interviews and interrogations.
Each investigation will have its own unique set of circumstances and require adapting
technique to circumstances.
An interview is a conversation held to generate information from persons who have
knowledge of a situation or crime so that an investigation can be continued or
concluded. The purpose of an interview is to gather information from people who have
knowledge of the crime or an incident that may be the focus of your investigation. 90%
of an investigator's job is to gather information, only 10% or less is to physically put
people in jail. So, if you think being an investigator is running around grabbing up bad
guys and putting them in jail, you will be sorely disappointed. Conducting an Investigation
is the process of solving a puzzle. The most valuable tool of the investigator is the ability
to talk to people. This is why we say in the definition that an interview is a conversation
instead of saying it is asking questions to gather information. An investigator must be
skilled in interview techniques to get information from people. The skills and techniques
of interviewing is the subject of this book. An investigator cannot gather information
without people. Sure we can gather physical evidence of the scene and form a picture of
what happened. But, the information we gather from the people we interview is the glue
that holds it together and provides the color that gives the picture definition. Not all
people want to give us the information, surprise! surprise! This reluctance to talk to us is
not always because they had a hand in the crime either directly or indirectly. There are
many reasons why people do not want to give us information; the reasons vary from a
dislike for our profession to just a “nun yo bidness” attitude. The people may use a
variety of methods to keep information from the investigator, from lying about the facts, to
claiming no knowledge. It is up to the investigator to sort it out and glean the truth. The
investigator must be able to get the information, sort is out, determine it's validity, and
draw a conclusion, all of this so the investigator can do the final 10% of the job, locking
up the bad guys.
An “interview” has characteristics which make it different from an interrogation. An
interview is looking for general information about an incident and it usually takes place
soon after the incident has occurred. We are seeking general facts, basically asking the
question “what happened?” We are talking to witnesses, victims, complainants,
informants and others to get an idea about what happened. In some cases we may
unknowingly be talking to the perpetrator or accomplice of the incident in our initial
interviews. The status of the interview is usually non-custodial. The interview is
generally relaxed or even calming depending on the type of incident that has occurred.
In a traumatic event it necessary to calm our subjects to gather our information.
An investigation is similar to the solving of a jig-saw puzzle; the interview is the first step
where we have poured the entire puzzle onto the table and begin to count and sort the
pieces before we to put it together. You never know, some of the pieces may be missing
and some may be from a different puzzle.
The Interrogation
An interrogation is asking questions of a person suspected of having committed an
offense or a person who is reluctant to make full disclosure of information that is
pertinent to an investigation. An interview occurs soon after the event and is the
gathering of general information to determine what happened. The interrogation is more
focused on the information that is being sought. In an interrogation we have formed a
picture of what happened and we are searching for information to support that picture.
The interrogation deals with two types of people. The first type is the perpetrator or co-
perpetrator of the event who has been identified. With this person we are seeking
specific information about their involvement. Of course the goal is to obtain a full
confession or, failing that, at least a partial confession. In some cases the result of the
interrogation may be to eliminate the subject from suspicion, for example: the case of a
false confession. More on the dynamics of the interrogation will come later. The second
type of person we are dealing with is less familiar to the investigator but is just as
important. This is the interrogation of the reluctant or hostile witness. It is an
interrogation of a person that has information and does not want to reveal it to the
investigator. The reasons to conceal the information vary, but the goal of the
investigator is the same, to obtain the facts being withheld. The interrogation is focused
on specific information that the subject may have about the incident. Many investigators
become frustrated with this type of person. The person is not in custody, they are not
the perpetrator but have relevant information about the case. Some investigators resort
to threats of arrest for withholding information or derogatory remarks about a person that
will not help to solve the crime. This usually results in alienating the witness and hardens
their resolve not to speak, thereby frustrating and causing the investigator to give up.
An investigator skilled in interrogation techniques will usually have greater success in
getting the information sought by using proper and effective interrogation techniques.
Characteristically an interrogation is more formal. It is usually in a setting established
and controlled by the interrogator. We are seeking specific information about the event
that we believe the subject has and is not revealing to us. The interrogation may be
confrontational. This does not mean violence, yelling, screaming, threats and physical
restraints to force information. These techniques are outdated, ineffective and in most
cases illegal, rendering any information gained inadmissable and useless.
Confrontational means that the subject has information they do not want to share with the
investigator. Often, they are in custody and not free to leave. It is up to the investigator
to use proper techniques to get the subject to open up and share the information. I often
compare these techniques to a sales pitch. We are trying convince the customer
(subject) that the best decision is to buy our product (give us the information) and they
will be better off for it.
The first and foremost purpose of the interrogation process, of course, is to obtain
admissions or confessions from the perpetrators of the incident. After the first admission
and in the course of the confession we want to expand our inquiry to identify other
participants, principals or accessories involved in the incident. The subject may not have
acted alone in the primary incident. In addition, the perpetrator may have had help in the
preparation of the crime; suppliers of equipment, confidential information, vehicles, keys,
codes and other materials necessary to execute the plan. I have seen cases where the
perpetrator has put off his crime because he did not have the proper tool to open a car
door or information about when his target was going to be out of town. In property cases,
the subject needs a place to sell the stolen merchandise. It may be a store, a dealer, or
just a location where people do not ask questions. The interrogation can bring out this
information. For instance, in one case we had a burglar stealing sterling silver. His
buyer was the owner of a car repair shop. The interrogation revealed that the silver was
sold and melted down into ingots within hours of the burglary. This information allowed
investigators to watch the shop for other thieves and build a case on the shop.
The interrogation may help to recover evidence or property related to the incident. In a
shoplifting case a thief was detained by a store loss prevention agent for stealing some
clothing. In the initial interview, the shoplifter claimed she took the clothing on impulse
and it was her first time. The loss prevention agent stopped there with that admission. In
the interrogation by the police officer that followed, she revealed that she had been
shoplifting at a variety of stores in the mall and putting the merchandise in a car in the
parking lot. The merchandise in the car was recovered and matched up with the stores
from where it had been taken. The end result was the solution of over 20 theft cases
from the different stores in the mall. This information would not have been obtained
without the successful interrogation of the shoplifter.
As we expand our questions we will want to try and discover other criminal involvement.
Many perpetrators may be involved in a variety of related crimes or similar past incidents.
They could have knowledge of others in the same business and be convinced to share
that information. In another case, a woman supporting her drug habit by stealing was
arrested for shoplifting. In her interrogation she revealed she was part of a till tapping
ring responsible for stealing thousands of dollars a week from the cash drawers of local
grocery stores. This information would not have been discovered had it not been for the
information she gave during the interrogation.
In many cases we start out looking at a wide variety of suspects for the crime. In the
interrogation we can get our subject to help eliminate people that are not involved. Also,
during the course of an investigation we have many facts that we have gathered.
Because we are not sure of exactly what happened, we may have many facts that are not
part of the current case or may be in error.
We can use the results of the interrogation to verify or disprove the facts that we have
collected. For example, In the case of over 110 burglaries committed by one person, it
was discovered by interrogation of the perpetrator that one of the burglaries was faked
by the home owner to get a cash payoff from the insurance company. The home owner
faked the theft of his property and reported it to the insurance company. Two weeks
later the burglar broke in and actually took the property the home owner had reported
stolen to the insurance company. It was the only house out of 110 break-ins that was
reported hit twice and in fact had only been hit once.
The interrogation can also fill gaps in the evidence you have on hand. The subject can
reveal where weapons, property or other evidence has been placed. A confessor
revealing movements during a crime can point out the possible location of evidence such
as fingerprints, footprints or other trace evidence left at the time of the incident.
As we can see, the interrogation does not stop at “I killed Mr. Green.” We want to
continue on to get all the facts and eliminate irrelevant information as well as other
suspects. We want the whole thing. We want...“ I killed Mr. Green in the kitchen at
midnight, with the candlestick and Mr Mustard was not involved.”
Why Do Interviews Fail
Cases are solved more often by interviews of victims and witnesses than by confessions
or physical evidence. We fail because we do not take the time to conduct a good, well
thought out interview with the expectation that we will get valuable information for our
case. This text will go into great depth on how to overcome each of the these issues.
However, here is a list of our pitfalls and a brief description of how we fail.
Poor Planning
Poor planning is one of the biggest holes we fall into as we climb the trail looking for
information. We are in a hurry up, rush, rush environment where we have to get it done
now. We are told, “time is money, more work to do, hurry up.” This is a television
society where we watch from the comfort of our couch at home as New York’s finest ace
detectives go to work on their weekly episode, solving another case. In one hour, with
commercials, they are able to discover a murder, interview the witnesses, identify and
interrogate the suspect, get a confession and put someone in jail. It does not happen
that way in real life. In comparison, I have worked an attempted murder case were the
perpetrator was identified and arrested within 30 minutes of the shooting. From the first
arrival on the scene to the final signature on the last report it was just over 12 hours.
And that was a short one.
In this hurry up world we fail to plan our interviews and interrogations. We do not look at
who we are talking to and determine the correct approach. Taking a little time to plan the
interview can yield big results. There are many sayings that express this philosophy,
“Penny wise and a pound foolish”, “Pay me now, pay me later” and my favorite that my
father was often fond of saying “The faster I go, the behinder I get.” Take your time and
plan your interviews. You rarely get a second chance to do it right.
Poor Technique
There are many techniques and approaches to use in the interrogation. In our planning
we need to analyze what type of person we are going to talk to and what would be the
right technique. A first time burglary offender, afraid of the system, may need the caring
big brother approach to help him confess. A tough rapist that has done hard time in the
state pen, has seen it all and knows the system, may respond better to a factual
approach. A spouse abuser will respond better to comments about how it was his wife’s
fault she got hit, not his fault. This approach would work much better than pointing out
how horrible he is for hitting a woman. Remember, we want them to tell us what they did
and why. Using the wrong technique can shut them down and make them ask for a
lawyer, then you are truly finished.
There are other poor techniques that have been around for years that are illegal and
inadmissible. The good-guy bad-guy technique we have all seen on TV. If you have
seen it, so has your subject. If you use it, and it works, you may loose anything you
gain. Many courts have determined that this technique is illegal and coercive. How
about the smack technique. The one you see on TV and the detective says, “I just gave
him a little smack.” This is illegal, it will render any information inadmissable and subject
the user of this technique to criminal charges. Stay away from these bad techniques.
There are many acceptable and effective techniques that we can use, many that rarely
appear on television.
Personality Conflicts
Thieves, murders, sex offenders, pedophiles, spouse abusers and many others are the
object of our interviews and interrogations. They are a sorry group without remorse or
caring for anything outside of their own wants and desires. It is a difficult task to walk into
a room with a mother that has just killed her two children so she can be with her
boyfriend; to sit and calmly and drink a cup of coffee while looking compassionately at
her. And then to appear that you understand the feelings she has and make her feel
she is not alone in how, she feels, that you understand her motives. Your skin will crawl
and it will seem that you may never again be clean, no matter how much you scrub. This
is the job you have chosen. The goal is to get the information and make the case. Do
not make it personal, make it your job. If the witness to your murder is a homosexual
male prostitute and you have issues with his chosen way of life, you have to leave it
behind to do the job. I have met many investigators that cannot separate their feelings
about the person from the purpose of the interview, to get the information. If it happens
to you, get another interviewer that can. An obvious personality conflict leaking out of
your persona can prevent you from getting the information you need for your case.
Race or Sex
It is not racism or sexist to recognize there is a difference between people. The people
that are the target of our interviews and interrogations are often racist or sexist. When
we interview these people we must be the skilled craftsman that chooses the correct tool
for the task at hand. You do not pound a nail with a screwdriver, you use a hammer. A
racist will be reluctant to talk to a person of the opposite race. A full member of a biker
gang will not confide in a woman, they view women as property to be exchanged for a
pack of cigarettes. Extremists may not talk to those outside of their cause. If possible
pick the best person to do the interview. If race, sex, religion, national origin or other
similar factors are an issue for the subject, use it to your advantage and pick the best
interviewer with the necessary background and physical presentation. Male psychos will
not talk to women and some people refuse to be interviewed by a person of another
race. In one armed robbery case I was interviewing a black male that had robbed a
convenience store. He would not talk to me as a white male, no matter what I said. I
recognized from the few comments he made that my race represented everything that
had gone wrong in his life. I contacted a friend, a black detective, and explained my
problem. He agreed to talk to my suspect. I watched from the next room, through the
one way mirror. As soon as the detective walked in I saw the suspect relax and move to
a more open body position. The detective asked, “What’s up?” The suspect answered,
“They always cummin’ down on me.” The detective sighed a sigh of recognition and
understanding and said, “I know what you mean, me too.” There was a look of
recognition in the eye of the suspect. His head and shoulders drooped as he began to
talk to the detective about life and eventually the robbery. In less that an hour the
suspect was writing a confession for the detective. I could not have accomplished this
feat with my white skin and brown hair. This example is not discrimination, it is strategy.
A good interviewer must recognize this fact.
The Confession Point or an Admission is Missed
I will discuss later in great detail the confession position, admissions and other behavior
that indicates a person is ready to confess or has, in fact, just admitted in some subtle
way that they did it. Investigators are often like the hounds after a fox. They get so
caught up in the chase they miss the fox hiding in the bushes. Many investigators can
relate to this feeling. The investigator must recognize when the person is ready to
confess and know when to move in with the right question. Many interrogators miss it.
Here is an example of missing the confession position:
You are interrogating a man, Bob, about beating his wife, Mary, and putting her in the
hospital. She is in a comma and may not live through the night. You have been talking
to Bob for an hour. You began well by establishing a rapport with him. You both like
fishing and you started out your conversation with a discussion about chasing that ever
elusive big mouth bass. As you speak you see he has warmed up to you, nodding his
head appropriately, moved to an open body position and appears at ease. You ease
into the subject of the fight he had with his wife by discussing your marriage, your wife,
how you love her and last but not least, how sometimes she makes you crazy. He nods
slightly as you talk, indicating he understands. You go on and tell stories about how you
and your wife have fought in the past over things that all couples fight about, how she
drives you crazy, sometimes, you think on purpose. Bob gives a sheepish grin and
nods again. As you talk, Bob leans forward, his head and shoulders began to slump
forward. You move on, hinting that he also loves his wife. You point out all the nice
things he gave her, how he takes time away from fishing to spend with her and once, he
even took her with him. He continues to nod as you speak. You move on to the fight,
and discuss how she had done it to him again, forcing his anger, making him mad. You
mention how hard it is to be so angry at the one you love. He nods again his head is
down, his shoulders are slumped, his arms are on his knees......
At this point you have Bob in the confession position. Leaning forward, head down,
nodding and agreeing with what you are saying. This is the confession position. Now is
the time to ask the alternative question. Some investigators miss this, failing to
recognize the confession position. They know they have Bob on the ropes, and he is
ready to talk, they just don’t know what to say. As a result they continue the dialogue
with Bob. This opening will not last long before Bob will pull back and close up. Many an
investigator will say “I almost had him, he was ready to confess and changed his mind.” It
is true. Bob was ready to confess. The investigator did not ask the right question when
the signals were there and missed the opportunity, missed the confession position. The
next point missed is the admission. Here again is the continuing example:
...You recognize that Bob is in the confession position and is ready for the alternative
question. You set it up by asking Bob if he loves his wife. He nods yes. You state to
Bob “You don’t hate your wife do you?” He nods no to your question. You repeat this
again and ask him, “Bob did you hit your wife because you love her or did you hit her
because you hate her?” Bob Pauses and you state “Bob, you love your wife don’t you?”
He nods yes. You state, “You don’t hate her, do you?” he nods no. You ask again, “You
hit her because you love her, didn’t you?” At this point you see a slight shrug of Bob’s
shoulders. Bob says nothing and you continue on and on and on, missing the little
signals he gives you until he backs off, crosses his arms and clams up. You wonder,
what happened?
Bob was in the confession position. You asked the alternative question. What
happened? The answer, you missed the answer, a small admission, and kept asking
the question until Bob quit. The shoulder shrug was one of many tiny admission signals
that need to be rewarded and cultivated like a little seed trying to take root in a rock
garden. You should have reached out at that shoulder shrug, patted him on the back
and rewarded him with a message, “that’s what I thought Bob, you only did it because
you love her,” or a similar message.
Many investigators see this behavior and in looking back on past cases realize they
missed the subtle admission. What the investigator is are looking for in the interrogation
is an obvious statement like, “I hit her across the face with my fist.” The fact is, we rarely
hear this in the beginning. We see the nod, the shrug, hear the sigh, the verbal squeak
or other behavior and disregard it, not realizing this was an admission that needs
rewarding and developing. An investigator has to recognize the confession position, ask
the right question and pick up on the tiny admission signals and act.
Lack of Control over the Suspect and the Situation
The interrogator must be in control of the interrogation. There are many things that we
do to establish control. We select the room, the decor, the chairs, the time, and set the
mood. It is easier to do when you are on your own turf in the interrogation room. It is
harder on the subject’s turf, their office, house or location. You must take steps to
minimize outside distractions such as radios, telephones, people intruding and other
interruptions. I will discuss the interview environment in more detail later in the text.
Question, “Who is in control?” Answer, “The person that asks the questions.” The most
powerful tool we have is the question. When we ask the questions, we guide the
conversation and maintain control. The subject may try to take that control away from
you by asking you questions. They could be personal questions about you or questions
about the case. Take care to maintain control or the interrogation will fail.
Inability to Adjust to the Subjects Responses and Continue the Interview
One of the signs that you are getting close to the truth is when the subject tries to
change the subject. They may do this by asking questions, making gestures or rude
comments. A classic example is a sexual advance by the subject towards the
interrogator. A buxomness female may partially unbutton her blouse and lean forward
providing a full view all the way down to the navel trying to rattle a male interrogator. A
handsome man will make complementary comments to a female, overtures to a date. Or,
you may have a homosexual male make an explicit comment to the detective about how
he would like to take him to bed and have his way with him, describing this in explicit
detail. I have seen this technique used with great effectiveness causing the detective to
leave the room to regroup. There are many more avenues a subject may take, sex,
race, religion, national origin, family, and so on. The trick is to be able to take this in
stride. Let is roll off your back and move on. A great teacher and mentor of mine C.H.
VanMeter put it this way
" The right technique will allow you to un-zipper his facade
and let his poor tortured soul pour out in front of you. "
Comparison of Interviews and Interrogations
The following descriptions are general guidelines that describe the three major phases of
interviews and Interrogations. They will not apply in every situation, however, they give a
general idea of the differences in the three phases of interviews and interrogations.
Each investigation will have its own unique set of circumstances and require adapting
technique to circumstances.
| Interviews & Interrogations |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| by John Bowden |