traditional structured, and inferential interviewing with statement analysis techniques chapter 4

Traditional Structured, and Inferential Interviewing with Statement Analysis Techniques

Chapter 4

Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and InterrogationBy 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.



4-3

Identify the Sources Side-tracker

One who falsely claims involvement as a witness or suspect to a crime



4-4

Identify the Sources Complainant

A person who reports a crime or accuses another of an offense

Victim or witness



4-5

Traditional Interviewing: Just-the-facts approach

Use for witness evaluationPreliminary assessmentsTo obtain emergency

response informationFor field interviewing with

limited time



4-6

Guidelines for Traditional Interviewing Ask

questions to answer in any order What, who,

when, where, why, how



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



4-8

Determine the Actus 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



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



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?



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?



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



4-13

Establish the mens reaRefers to

the state of mind of the perpetrator, not the victim



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



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



4-16

Tools

Use sketches & drawings

Take photographs

Use audio or video recording



4-17

Indirect Approach

Exploratory to find out what they know Use open-

ended questions

Clarifying questions

Avoid leading questions



4-18

Direct Approach

Ask specific closed-ended questions Avoid leading

questions Use with an

uncooperative person Determine any

source of difficulty



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 Rapport2. Obtain narrative

description from non-leading and open questions

3. Allow ample interviewee response time



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



4-21

Inferential Interviewing4 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



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



4-23

Components of Statement Analysis

1. Parts of speech

2. Extraneous information

3. Lack of conviction

4. Statement balance



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



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.



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.



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



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



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



4-30

Field Statement Analysis

A shortened version of the Statement Analysis

Uses two rather than four components Lack of conviction Extraneous

information



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



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

traditional structured, and inferential interviewing with statement analysis techniques chapter 4

Documents

contemporary interviewing

upper saddle river

inferential interviewing

accusatorysmart talk

crimesmart talk

offensesmart talk

witnesssmart talk

howsmart talk