Somewhat like navigation, investigative interviewing is both an art and a science. Navigating our way across unfamiliar waters requires a great deal of careful preparation, information – in the form of tide tables and charts – and knowledge (namely the ability to measure direction and distance, and to interpolate and interpret one’s progress).
Managing an interview towards a successful outcome also requires planning, information – hopefully processed into intelligence – and knowledge (usually born from experience).
Most of all – and to continue the navigational analogies – it requires a ‘sixth sense’ to enable you to stay on course, to anticipate trouble ahead and steer an appropriate course through or around that trouble.
Like risk management, interviewing is all things to all people depending upon their point of view, experiences and objectives. I would go so far as to suggest that successful investigative interviewing is a by-product of personality and training in equal measure.
The best training in the world is wasted on an individual who cannot build empathy with the interviewee, or who doesn’t have the personality to enter the ‘discomfort zone’ of asking truly incisive questions with the correct timing, intonation, delivery and presence. Conversely, all the character and personality in the world will not make up for bad procedure.
For this reason I advocate an holistic approach to interviewing. Not one which simply regurgitates law enforcement procedure, rather one that embraces psychology in its widest forms, understands the art of deception and is open to lateral thinking-style approaches aimed at uncovering the truth.
A recent seminar run by IJA International at the British Museum in London summed up this approach quite nicely. Entitled ‘Telling lies’, and co-presented by Geoff Kay (a senior partner at IJA’s sister company Argent Associates), the seminar offered a practical introduction to some highly effective and sometimes surprisingly counter-intuitive methods for detecting deceit and eliciting half-forgotten truths from interview subjects.
For the sake of neutrality we now turn to Timon Malloy, the editor of Fraud Intelligence magazine, who has written an impartial overview of the seminar.
The psychology of deception
A former magician and current senior research fellow at the University of Hertfordshire, Dr Richard Wiseman opened proceedings with an examination of the psychology of lying, writes Timon Molloy. Are we able to tell when someone is lying from the words they use and their body language? Most people believe themselves to be reasonably good judges of the honesty of others, but studies consistently show that – in the absence of training in lie detection techniques – there is no significant relationship between confidence and accuracy.
Another commonly-held belief is that liars will betray themselves through specific behaviours. One might expect them to look away from their interlocutor, increase the number of times they change their posture and display a greater number of hand and foot movements than normal. Generally, they’d appear more shifty.
However, Dr Wiseman noted that, in practice, these are the exact opposite of the visual clues manifested by a real liar. He or she is much more likely to maintain strong eye contact with the questioner in order to check whether the latter suspects anything and also by way of compensation – since they may realise that the questioner will be looking out for standard evasiveness traits. This ‘over control’ will also be evidenced in reduced hand, foot and limb movements.
At the same time, the alert interviewer may note accelerated blinking and ‘adapter’ motions such as flicking of the hair and touching of the nose. Micro expressions, fleeting looks of panic or uncertainty also suggest an untruth.
Taken on their own merits, visual clues to honesty are not conclusive. That said, linguistic indicators may provide further evidence. Cues include an increase in voice pitch, greater use of "ah" as well as more slips and pauses. Taken together these may all signal uncertainty.
Response latency, a delay in replying to questions, shorter replies and a slower speech rate can all suggest that the subject is taking time to work through his or her answers in order to avoid inconsistencies. It takes effort and thought to lie efficiently. Genuine smiling (not just a creasing of the mouth) and laughter are also very difficult to fake.
Dr Wiseman was careful to emphasise that none of these ‘markers’ taken in isolation would be sufficient enough to guarantee that your subject is lying, but taken together they can provide a strong signal.
A question of suspicion
A police officer for 22 years and now a senior partner at training consultancy Argent Associates, Geoff Kay began his presentation by emphasising that, under English common law, an investigator may ask anything he or she likes of the interviewee. However, the subject is not obliged to answer. In spite of this, security managers should not be afraid to probe.
It may well be the case that the manager’s company operates a policy proscribing the use of caution on the grounds that it – ‘the company’ – does not wish to sound like the police when it conducts an internal inquiry. However, there is a paradox here in that, under the Code of Practice associated with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), a caution need only be given if the investigator seeks evidence which might be used in a prosecution. No caution is needed for a civil action.
Kay also noted that in Scotland – where PACE doesn’t apply – the situation is much more reasonable. The interviewer need only conduct his or her interrogation in a ‘fair and reasonable’ manner.
The major risk facing the interviewer is the trap of inducement. The suspect who says: "What would happen to me if I said that I did it?" The temptation is to strike a deal, but this may undermine the investigator’s case, as any information received must be freely given if it’s to be admissible.
On most courses to do with interviewer training the questioner is taught to establish a rapport with the subject. In his experience, Geoff Kay feels that a more business-like approach spelling out the purpose of the meeting is more effective. It’s also unlikely that one will be able to build a friendly relationship if a caution has been issued. There should be a specific focus to the interview – the aim is to find the truth, which doesn’t mean following a set pattern of questions.
The stress levels of the subject are likely to be exhibited by a higher-than-normal pitch to their voice, whether innocent or guilty. In the case of the ‘average honest thief’ – ie the individual who has to rationalise to him or herself why they’ve committed an offence, not least so that they can explain it to others – the stress will heighten during the interview.
After a number of questions, the interviewer may judge that the suspect is ready to admit to a misdemeanour, and will then have to decide the precise moment to ask softly: "Why did you do it?" The air will be electric with tension, and the investigator should not attempt to break the silence too soon. It’s very important that, once the admission of guilt is made, everything that the subject says is recorded with the utmost accuracy. If possible, the interview should be taped. Finally, when the interview has been concluded, it’s very important not to walk out on the subject. People have been known to attempt suicide in such circumstances.
Witness interviews and statements
Geoff Kay advocates a form of witness questioning termed ‘cognitive interviewing’. This entails "marrying known-memory retrieval techniques with your questioning".
The witness has to be trained to visualise the incident, and to gradually fill in missing details, however minor (eg concerning colours and physical position).
When former US President Richard Nixon was asked: "Did you know about Watergate?", he responded: "The President wouldn’t do such a thing." If he had been innocent he would have given a straight answer. Either a straight "No" or, even better, "No, I didn’t."
Why is the second of these two responses preferred? It implies an element of personal commitment. Pronouns – both in terms of their absence and use – are crucial in deciding whether a statement is truthful or deceptive.
The simple choice of words can reveal much, and there is the added advantage that
in a non-traumatic incident scenario one might be able to distinguish fact from lies merely through the use of a questionnaire. Needless to say, this is not the whole story and comprehensive statement analysis requires thorough training.
