Investigative interviewing

Investigative interviewing
 a non-coercive approach using open questions to improve
the flow of communication and information.
All interviews, whether with victims, witnesses or
suspects, are termed “investigative interviews”.
 The information gathered in interviews is tested against
available facts
Distinct interviewing protocol

•Step-wise
Approach
 Develop for interviewing child witnesses as
•National young as 3 years of age as well as other
Institute of Child vulnerable or intimidated witnesses
Health and
Human  The procedure encourages and facilitates
Development
(NICHD) the child's recall of events. Every
•Guidance for opportunity is provided to obtain the child's
Achieving Best
Evidence in version.
Criminal
Procedure
•Conversation
management
•Cognitive Interview
Distinct interviewing protocol

•Step-wise Approach  Designed to provide interviewers with the

•National Institute of
Child Health and
skills needed to elicit more information
Human from a hostile witness
Development
(NICHD)  It assists the interviewer to understand the
•Guidance for witness’s motivational blocks to volunteer
Achieving Best information and to parry the witness’s
Evidence in
Criminal Procedure conversation-diverting tactics by redirecting
•Conversation the conversation to the task at hand
management
•Cognitive Interview
Distinct interviewing protocol

•Step-wise Approach  Develop for the interviewing of cooperative

•National Institute of
Child Health and
adult
Human  Contains some provisions for interviewing
Development
(NICHD) children. It is used primarily in situation in
•Guidance for which the witness is genuinely attempting
Achieving Best to recall and describe what he or she
Evidence in
Criminal Procedure knows, but need assistance to overcome the
•Conversation difficulties of remembering and describing
management the alleged offense in detail.
•Cognitive
Interview
Common elements of a good
investigative interview protocol
 Good rapport between the interviewer and interviewee
 A clear description of the interviewer’s investigative
needs
 An open-ended questioning style
 A willingness to explore alternative hypotheses
Common elements of a good
investigative interview protocol
•Good rapport  Requires the development of trusting
between the
interviewer and relationship
interviewee
 Establishing good rapport should not
•A clear description
of the interviewer’s compromise professionalism or impartiality
investigative needs  Acceptance is displayed by a sensitive and
•An open-ended
questioning style
flexible response to the interviewee’s need,
•A willingness to showing goodwill, listening carefully to the
explore alternative interviewee
hypotheses
Common elements of a good
investigative interview protocol
•Good rapport  Three aims of the rapport-building phase.
between the
interviewer and  The interviewee does most of the talking.
interviewee  The interviewer conveys understanding,
•A clear description
acceptance, non coerciveness and non
of the interviewer’s
investigative needs judgmental perspective.
•An open-ended  The interviewer creates an informal and
questioning style relaxed context.
•A willingness to
explore alternative
hypotheses
Common elements of a good
investigative interview protocol
•Good rapport  Establishing proper interview environment
between the
interviewer and also involve
interviewee  Recognizing signs of awkwardness,
•A clear description
intimidation, embarrassment, and discomfort
of the interviewer’s
investigative needs  Eliciting from interviewees ideas about how
•An open-ended to make the interview process easier for
questioning style them
•A willingness to
explore alternative
hypotheses
Common elements of a good
investigative interview protocol
•Good rapport  The interviewer
between the
interviewer and
interviewee
•A clear
description of
the interviewer’s
investigative
needs
•An open-ended
questioning style
•A willingness to
explore alternative
hypotheses
Common misunderstandings in
investigative interviews
Instruction for overcoming
Misunderstanding misunderstanding
 Interviewees may be  The interviewer needs to
hesitant to correct the stress that he or she does
interviewer because they not know what has
believe the interviewer happened and that, if the
knows best. interviewers says
something wrong, the
interviewee should correct
him or her
Common misunderstandings in
investigative interviews
Misunderstanding
 Interviewees often do not
know the level of detail
that is required on
investigative interviews
and may believe that minor
descriptive details are not
important
Instruction for overcoming
misunderstanding
 The interviewer should
explicitly state that he or she
was not there when the alleged
event happened and that the
more the interviewee can
report, the better. Anything the
interviewee remembers could
be useful, even little things that
the interviewee does not think
are important, and even if
something is not the “whole”
answer.
Common misunderstandings in
investigative interviews
Instruction for overcoming
Misunderstanding misunderstanding
 Interviewees may believe  The interviewee should be
that it is acceptable to encouraged to say “I don’t
make up a response. know” or “I don’t
remember” when
applicable
Common misunderstandings in
investigative interviews
Misunderstanding
 When a question, or part
thereof , is repeated in an
interview, the interviewee
may assume that his or her
initial response was
incorrect and should be
changed.
Instruction for overcoming
misunderstanding
 The interviewer should say,
“if I ask a question again, it
doesn’t mean I want you to
change your answer. Just
tell me what you
remember the best you
can.”
Common misunderstandings in
investigative interviews
Instruction for overcoming
Misunderstanding misunderstanding
 The interviewee may  The interviewee should be
believe that it is not informed that he or she can
acceptable to use slang or use any words that work,
swear words or sexually and that the interviewer
explicit language, even will not be shocked, angry,
when those words are the or upset.
only words available to
describe the offense.
Common misunderstandings in
investigative interviews
Misunderstanding
 Sometimes interviewees
will say they do not know
the answer to a question
when, in fact, they do not
understand the question.
Instruction for overcoming
misunderstanding
 The interviewer should
explicitly state that he or
she does not mind
rephrasing questions.
Common misunderstandings in
investigative interviews
Misunderstanding
 Interviewees may not
report information if they
think the interviewer know
the information already
Instruction for overcoming
misunderstanding
 The interviewer should say,
“even if you think I already
know something, please
tell me anyway.”
Common elements of a good
investigative interview protocol
•Good rapport  Free narrative account should be obtained
between the
interviewer and prior to asking any specific questions
interviewee
 It is obtain when interviewees are
•A clear description
of the interviewer’s encouraged to provide an account of the
investigative needs event or situation in their own words at
•An open-ended their own pace and without interruption
questioning style
•A willingness to  Allows the interviewee time to collect his
explore alternative or her thoughts and consequently promotes
hypotheses
more elaborate memory retrieval
Common elements of a good
investigative interview protocol
•Good rapport  Any interview conducted for the purpose of
between the
interviewer and gathering accurate and reliable information
interviewee should be regarded as exercise in testing
•A clear description
alternative hypotheses.
of the interviewer’s
investigative needs  Interviewers should also attempt to rule out
•An open-ended alternative hypotheses, rather than simply
questioning style
•A willingness to
trying to confirm what they already believe.
explore
alternative
hypotheses
Common elements of a good
investigative interview protocol
•Good rapport  A bias interviewer tend to:
between the
interviewer and  Inaccurately report the contents of the
interviewee interview so that these contents are
•A clear description consistent with their own prior beliefs.
of the interviewer’s
investigative needs  Overlook, screen out, or ignore relevant and
•An open-ended vital information.
questioning style  Shape witnesses’ report to be consistent
•A willingness to
with their hypotheses about what happened.
explore
alternative
hypotheses
Common elements of a good
investigative interview protocol
•Good rapport  Interviewers who are not open-minded risk
between the
interviewer and losing their professional credibility and also
interviewee risk the inadmissibility of the information
•A clear description
obtain.
of the interviewer’s
investigative needs
•An open-ended
questioning style
•A willingness to
explore
alternative
hypotheses
Biased interviewers
 Gather predominantly confirmatory evidence and avoid
avenues that may produce negative or inconsistent evidence
 Engage in a rigid form of questioning , interrupt the
interviewee’s account, and fail to summarize the
interviewee’s response
 Ignore information that does not fit with their perceptions or
assumptions
 Fail to encourage interviewees to say “I don’t know” or
establish a relationship in which interviewees feel thy can
correct misunderstandings in the interview
Biased interviewers
 Overlook or ignore the degree to which the interviewee’s
responses are constrained by limited language skills or desire
to please the interviewer
 Fail to esblish the source of reported information
 Ask leading and other questions that control the
interviewee’s answers by implying an answer or assuming
facts that might be in dispute
 The essential elements of a good
investigative interviewer training program
Open –ended questions
 It is one of the main components that distinguishes effective
and ineffective police interviewers

 There is abundant experimental research supporting the

effectiveness of this question

 Open ended questions should be relatively easy toimplement,

because they can be memorized

 When used properly , they reduce the negative consequences

of other interviewing errirs