As a part of the three
pillars of the criminal investigative process, a thorough and complete
interview provides greater insight into the psychological elements of the
suspect or even victim's behaviors during the commission of the crime.
The interview can also provide understanding of and give a clear definition to
the evidence isolated by the forensic investigation of the case. In spite
of its importance however, the value of the interview alone can be nil without
the psychological and forensic pillars. By the same token a poorly
executed interview along with a flawed effort to assess credibility can degrade
if not destroy the efforts in the forensic and psychological portions of the
investigation and any subsequent prosecution.
A complete and
successful interview will almost always be characterized by four basic
elements: orientation, narration, cross-examination and resolution. In its own
way, each of these four elements is unique and accomplishes specific
goals. Without all four elements no interview will be complete.
Orientation is
accomplished on both an overt and covert level. Overtly the function of
the orientation period is to establish some form of dialogue with the subject
being interviewed. This can be achieved through personal introductions
and possibly some form of brief light conversation if conditions and time
permit. It is also the period during which the interviewer advises the
subject as to the purpose of the interview, its importance, and the necessity
to be totally forthcoming, honest and cooperative. Granted in many cases this
is not going to be a socially comfortable situation nor
will it always intended to be so. Covertly the
objective of the investigative interviewer to establish some form of
understanding of the person baseline or "constant" of normal verbal
and non-verbal behaviors. It is with "constant" in mind
the interviewer will be able to readily identify significant changes in the
subject�s emotional and mentally status which may need further exploration at
a later point during the interview.
The next phase of the
interview is the narration. In this segment the subject of the interview
is offered the opportunity to relate the facts and information within their
realm of knowledge that they believe is most important to them. It is critical
at this point for the interviewer to permit the subject the opportunity to
fully disclose all the information that feel
critical. The subject may be asked to described
what they have heard about the incident or possibly their opinion about what
they think might have happened. The interview will also offer encouragement for
a subject to continue their narration if at some point they appear to have run
out of steam and their narration is incomplete.
The interviewer's task during the narration is to make an assessment of the
subject behavior to determine the degree of credibility to the subject
remarks. Having already established a
"constant" from the orientation portion the interviewer looks for
significant "changes" in the subject's demeanor that suggest
an increase in stress on both the mental and emotional level. These
"changes" suggest that the topic area is significant to the speaker
and may in fact be locations where there may be deception on the part of the
subject. The investigative interviewer will also make note of any
inconsistencies in the description of events and the exiting forensic details
and the contents of any other previous interviews with other subjects, victims,
or witnesses.
Once armed with
the information gained during the narrative and an analysis of possible
deception the interviewer then moves into the "cross-examination"
phase. The task before the interviewer now is to address the inconsistencies
identified in the subject's narrative and attempt to ascertain the full details
omitted or altered and clarify the true facts. It is also the opportunity
for the investigative interviewer to revisit any topic areas during which the
subject exhibited significant stress changes to determine the cause of those
changes in behavior. Did they occur because the subject is embarrassed
about disclosing certain details? Was it because they have been
traumatized by the events? Have these behavioral symptoms occurred
because the subject has either withheld details or fabricated information in an
attempt to deliberately mislead the interviewer? The objective is to
obtain truthful and accurate information from the subject.
It is during the
narration and cross-examination phases that the productive investigative
interviewer may be able to accurately make and assessment of the available
verbal and nonverbal cues of behavior. In general, the general population
as well as police officers, lawyers, judges, juries, and all other areas of
society are poor judges of deception and historically only correctly identify
about fifty percent of the lies to which they are exposed. This poor
detection of deception- performance is the result of three elements. First, we
traditionally label the wrong behaviors as deception signals because of a lack
of knowledge of what are reliable cues. Second, we fail to recognize
reliable cues to deception. Finally, we may overlook the reliable
symptoms or dismiss our instinctive suspicions because we have "fallen in
like" with the person. In other words, we have developed a
subjective or personal connection with the individual that can bias our
analysis. It's obvious that similarly a strong dislike for an individual can
also bias the observer in the direction of claiming symptoms of deception when
none have been exhibited or expressed by the subject.
Extensive research has
been conducted in the area of the identification of deception behaviors as it
is observe under various conditions. Nonverbally deception behaviors
include negation, aversion, performance and contradiction cues with some
incriminating value being found in control behaviors. Negation is
identified as any contact with the head that covers any of the orifices of the
head (eyes, nose, mouth and ears) including scratching, rubbing, or even all
out covering or hiding. Aversion behaviors include any major aggressive
movement of the body away from the interviewer. This would include total
body leans, turning of the torso away, turning of the head away or throwing the
head back and away and even changing the position of the legs by pointing or
stretching them away from the interviewer.
Contradiction behaviors
can be seen on any of three levels. There may be a disagreement or
"conflict messages" verbal signals, body language signals, or between
verbal and nonverbal cues. A simple verbal contradiction may a subject
saying that they are not upset but yet the voice pitch and volume are both very
high. A contradiction in nonverbal signals could be a subject who is smiling
while at the same time is engaging the interviewer with a hard, piercing stare.
Finally a contradiction between verbal and nonverbal cues could be saying
"No" while at the same time shaking the head yes or verbalizing words
and voice quality that would be seen as a sing of depression but yet exhibiting
high anxiety by showing three whites of the eyes called "san paku."
"Performance"
behaviors and "control" behaviors are on the opposite ends of the
behavior activity continuum. "Performance" symptoms identified
as very long head shaking of yes or no, or over exaggeration of responses or
physical gestures as a means to "over sell" the response to the
listening. On the other hand "control" cues are an obvious
attempt be the subject to suppress normal gestures. These may include
sitting on the hands at certain points of the interview. It can be
exhibited by jamming the hands in the pockets, tightly gripping the arms of a
chair or even hand wringing.
In all the above
instances the interviews must remember critical guidelines to make an accurate
analysis. First, no single symptom or behavior proves anything because
even truthful subjects can generate a random symptom that is of no
consequence. It is important therefore to look for a "cluster"
of symptoms - two or more behaviors occurring at the same moment. Finally the
behaviors should be "timely" in that they should occur or will occur
at the same moment the mental and emotional stress level of the subject either
peaks or dramatically ceases.
Without the knowledge of
which behavioral cues are reliable markers of deception, the interviewer will
not be able to conduct a successful analysis of the subject's narrative nor
will they be effective at unlocking the truth during the cross-examination
phase.
The final element of a
successful interview will be the "resolution" phase. It is
during this portion of the interview that the subject after effective
cross-examination acknowledges their responsibility in the commission of the
act or in the least that they had a motive to at least deliberately lead or
outright lie to the interviewer. For these acts they must accept the
consequences and provide truthful information to the interviewer.
It is through a
"narrative based" interview that the investigative interviewer will
be able to obtain the largest quantity of information as well as the highest
quality. Without dedication by the investigator to attain these goals
their efforts in the psychological assessment and the forensic identification,
collection, preservation and analysis may suffer severely and ultimately the
satisfactory conclusion of their case. Invariably there will also be only
one real good opportunity to achieve these goals. It is imperative that
the interviewer gets it right the first time.
_________________________
Stan B. Walters is
President of Stan B. Walters & Associates, Inc. and is located in the
United States. He is actively involved in the teaching, research, and
practice of Practical Kinesic Interview &
Interrogation®. He is the author of Principles of Kinesic
Interview & Interrogation text that is used by law enforcement worldwide.