Traditional, Structural, and Inferential Interviewing with Statement Analysis Techniques

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

2. Traditional Interviewing • Just-the-facts approach • Use for witness evaluation • Preliminary assessments • To obtain emergency response information • For field interviewing with limited time

3. Identify the Sources • Side-tracker • One who falsely claims involvement as a witness or suspect to a crime

4. Complainant • The person who reports a crime or accuses another of an offense • Victim or witness

5. Guidelines for Traditional Interviewing • Ask questions to answer in any order • Who, what, when, where, why, how

6. Determine the Actus Reus • Determine if a crime has been committed • Determine the nature of the offense

7. Obtain an Admission Where Relevant • An admission is when a person gives information of having been involved in a crime but downplays their role or lies about the extent of their behavior

8. What? • What offense was committed? • What happened? • What weapon was used? • What was said? • What did the eyewitness hear or see?

9. What? • Avoid leading questions • Avoid sounding accusatory

10. Who? • Who is the victim? • Who is the perpetrator? • Who are the witnesses?

11. Who? • Get names, addresses, telephone numbers, and physical descriptions • Find out if there are any family relationships • Obtain prior record information • Search records for outstanding warrants

12. When? • When did this incident occur? • When was the event reported? • When did injuries occur? • When did the injured seek medical attention?

13. When • 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?

14. Where? • 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?

15. Where? • Determine the jurisdiction of the crime • Does the event cross multiple jurisdictions? • Were the witnesses located to accurately view or hear what they report? • Were there indications of force or forced entry?

16. Why? • Establish the mens rea • Perpetrator state of mind

17. Mens Rea • Purposefulness: What is the reason or goal of the act? • Knowing: What was the activity that the person should have known will bring consequences? • Reckless behavior: Is the behavior one that increases the risk of harm? • Neglect: A failure to act where a duty of care exists

18. How? • How did it happen? • How was the victim approached? • How did the perpetrator gain access? • How often has a similar event occurred?

19. How? • Include information leading up to the event and after the event • Determine the sequence of events

20. 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

21. Tools • Use sketches and drawings • Leave with the understanding they may be contacted again • Get contact information

22. Indirect Approach • Exploratory to find out what they know • Use open-ended questions • Clarifying questions • Avoid leading questions

23. Vs. Direct Approach • Ask specific questions • Avoid leading questions • Use with an uncooperative person • Determine source of difficulty

24. Structural Interview • Designed to maximize recall and minimize contamination • Adds rapport building, narrative description, and an ample interviewee response to the traditional interview method

25. Structural Interview • 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 and completely

26. Structural Interviewing Steps • Build rapport • Obtain narrative description from non-leading and open questions • Allow ample interviewee response time

27. Structural Interviewing Steps • Use specific probing questions to elaborate • Request the interviewee recount the entire event a second time

28. Inferential Interviewing:Four Principles to Discover Dishonesty • Coherency: A statement should make sense by not violating the rules of nature or contradicting itself

29. Discover Dishonesty 2. Response Rate: Deception is associated with shorter response length, a slower rate of speech, and more speech errors (verbal leakage)

30. Discover Dishonesty 3.Type-Token Ratio:Unique words divided by total words in a statement

31. Discover Dishonesty 4. Verbal Hedges: Verbal techniques used to buy additional processing time

32. Verbal Hedging • Methods to avoid answering and to buy time

33. Examples of Verbal Hedging • Unnecessary use of connectors— Uhs… ums… ands… ors… • Repeating all or part of the interviewer’s question before responding • Claimed lack of memory • I couldn’t see, wasn’t paying attention • Repeated extraneous information • He said, she said, he did, she did

34. 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

35. Components of Statement Analysis • Parts of speech • Extraneous information • Lack of conviction • Statement balance

36. Parts of Speech • Evaluate pronoun, noun, verb, adjective • Establish the norm in the statement • Look for changes to the norm, evaluate why

37. Example • Example in rape case: My story (noun) has never changed; I would never hurt (verb) the child (adjective), I love (verb) him

38. 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

39. Examples • 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.

40. Nouns • A change in noun use signifies a change in the reality of the suspect

41. Examples • 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.

42. 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

43. Examples • Example of the norm: I saw the shooting, I was so scared that I ran as fast as I could. • Example of a deviation: I saw the shooting. I am so scared that I run away as fast as I can.

44. Verbs • Statements which contain verbs such as “tried” or “started” represent a weakened assertion of the facts

45. Examples • Example of the norm: I screamed “no” over and over. • Example of a deviation: I tried to scream “no” over and over.

46. Adjectives • Use of “that” and “those” to refer to a person suggests distancing

47. Examples • Example of the norm: I did not hurt David. • Example of a deviation: I did not hurt that child.

48. Field Statement Analysis • A shortened version of the statement analysis • Uses two rather than four components • Lack of conviction • Extraneous information

49. Lack of Conviction • A truthful statement is given with conviction • Frequent “I don’t remember” or “I believe” or “kind of surprised” are suspect

50. Extraneous Information • A truthful person will provide events in a chronological order • A truthful statement contains three parts; prior to the event, the event, and afterwards • They should contain roughly the same amount of information