1. Traditional Structured, and Inferential Interviewing with Statement Analysis Techniques Chapter 4

2. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-2 Source Identification Information typically comes from multiple sources that must be approached to determine their willingness to provide information.

3. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-3 Identify the Sources Side-tracker One who falsely claims involvement as a witness or suspect to a crime

4. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-4 Identify the Sources C omplainant A person who reports a crime or accuses another of an offense  Victim or witness

5. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-5 Traditional Interviewing: Just-the-facts approach  Use for witness evaluation  Preliminary assessments  To obtain emergency response information  For field interviewing with limited time

6. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-6 Guidelines for Traditional Interviewing Ask questions to answer in any order  What, who, when, where, why, how

7. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-7 What happened ? What offense was committed? What happened? What weapon was used? What was said? What did the eyewitness hear or see? Avoid leading questions Avoid sounding accusatory

8. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-8 Determine the A ctus reus Actus reus is a term which means the “guilty act” Is the act a violation of the law? Has a crime been committed? What is the nature of the offense

9. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-9 Who is involved ? Who is the victim? Who is the perpetrator? Who are the witnesses? Get names, addresses, telephone numbers and physical descriptions Find out if there any family relationships Obtain prior record information Search records for outstanding warrants

10. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-10 When did this incident occur? When was the event reported? When did injuries occur? When did the injured seek medical attention? Is the incident still ongoing? How old or new is the complaint? Has this type of offense ever occurred against the victim in the past?

11. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-11 Where was the location of the incident? Where did the event begin and where did it end? Where were the witnesses located in relation to the offense? Determine the jurisdiction of the crime Does the event cross multiple jurisdictions? How were the witnesses located to accurately view or hear what they report? Were there indications of force or forced entry?

12. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-12 Why did this occur?  Purposefulness  Knowing  Reckless behavior  Neglect What is the reason or goal of the act? Was the activity something that the person should have known would bring consequences? Was the behavior one that increases the risk of harm? A failure to act where a duty of care exists

13. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-13 Establish the mens rea  Refers to the state of mind of the perpetrator, not the victim

14. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-14 How did it happen? How was the victim approached? How did the perpetrator gain access? How often has a similar even occurred? Include information leading up to the event and after the event Determine the sequence of events

15. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-15 Conducting the Traditional Interview Treat all with dignity Be courteous and professional Avoid professional jargon Do not make ANY promises Never suggest confidentiality Establish rapport

16. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-16 Tools Use sketches & drawings Take photographs Use audio or video recording

17. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-17 Indirect Approach Exploratory to find out what they know  Use open- ended questions  Clarifying questions  Avoid leading questions

18. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-18 Direct Approach Ask specific closed-ended questions  Avoid leading questions Use with an uncooperative person  Determine any source of difficulty

19. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-19 How does Structured Interviewing differ from Traditional Interviewing? Structured interviewing is a method that builds on the traditional interview by adding three steps 1. Build Rapport 2. Obtain narrative description from non-leading and open questions 3. Allow ample interviewee response time

20. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-20 Structured Interview Components  Incorporate active listening skills  Use of open-ended questions  Appropriate non-verbal behavior  Encourage active participation by the interviewee  Do not interrupt narratives  Record accurately & completely

21. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-21 Inferential Interviewing 4 principles to discover dishonesty 1. Coherency: A statement should make sense by not violating the rules of nature or contradict itself 2. Response Rate: Deception is associated with shorter response length, a slower rate of speech, and more speech errors (verbal leakage) 3. Type-Token Ratio: Unique words divided by total words in a statement 4. Verbal Hedging: verbal techniques used to avoid answering and buy additional processing time

22. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-22 Definition of Statement Analysis A word-by-word examination of the grammar within a statement  Can be used with any method of interviewing as an assessment of deception  Both written and oral statements can be evaluated

23. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-23 Components of Statement Analysis 1. Parts of speech 2. Extraneous information 3. Lack of conviction 4. Statement balance

24. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-24 Methods for Evaluating the Parts of Speech Evaluate pronoun, noun, verb, adjective  Establish the norm in the statement  Look for changes to the norm, evaluate why Example in rape case: My story (noun) has never changed; I would never hurt (verb) the child (adjective), I love (verb) him

25. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-25 Pronouns Truthful persons provide statements using the pronoun “I”, first person singular  Overuse of “we” indicates a lack of commitment and unwillingness to take responsibility Example of truthfulness: I woke up and went to school. I met some friends and we went to class together. At noon we all left. Example of lack of commitment: I woke up. We all met and went to class. We left when the lunch bell rang.

26. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-26 Nouns A change in noun use signifies a change in the reality of the suspect Example of the norm: I loved my baby. I did not mean to hurt my baby, but I drowned her. Example of a deviation: I loved my baby. I did not mean to hurt my baby, she went under the water and something kept her down.

27. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-27 Verbs It is normal to use the first person, singular past tense to recall past events  Change in the tense of the verb signals possible deception Example of the norm: I saw the shooting I was so scared that I ran as fast as I could Statements which contain verbs such as “tried” or “started” represent a weakened assertion of the facts

28. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-28 Adjectives Use of “that” and “those” to refer to a person suggests distancing Example of the norm: I did not hurt David Example of a deviation: I did not hurt that child

29. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-29 Statement Balance A truthful statement contains three parts; prior to the event, the event, and afterwards  They should contain roughly the same amount of information  A truthful person will provide these events in a chronological order

30. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-30 Field Statement Analysis A shortened version of the Statement Analysis Uses two rather than four components  Lack of conviction  Extraneous information

31. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-31 Lack of Conviction The lack of conviction refers to words that are used to label or change the meaning of something Frequent “I don’t remember” or “I believe” or “kind of surprised” are suspect

32. Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and Interrogation By Denise Kindschi Gosselin PRENTICE HALL ©2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 4-32 Extraneous Information The person who attempts to justify their actions will give extraneous information, statements that does not answer the question To measure extraneous information count the statement’s total number of lines, identifying which contain unnecessary information