David Thompson, CFI’s Post

The “Why” Question – Its Pitfalls in Interviews As investigators, your ultimate goal is to understand WHY something has happened. By determining this, it can direct the line of questioning of future witnesses, it can provide a clearer picture of the lead-up to the event, or it can even shift the direction of an entire investigation. But simply asking “why did this happen” to a witness will rarely get you a complete understanding. Why is “why” wrong? As much as this sounds like a paradox, there aren’t overly complicated explanations to it. In short, asking “why did this happen” will only get you part of the story. Often times you’ll get an overly simplified answer that is shrouded in overly-complex words. For example, let’s say a person is a witness to a robbery. Asking them “why did this happen” will probably get you simple answers like “they probably needed money” or “he had a vendetta with the victim”. Conversely, you could get an overtly intellectualized answer like “because society has victimized this person, and he believes he needed to get revenge on the system which has kept him down for years!”. But the actual content of the “why” question isn’t the whole problem; asking someone “why” under certain contexts will garner a negative reaction from a witness. If posed incorrectly, the witness could feel as if they are being accused of something. This, in turn, could derail your interview all together. Asking the victim of a scam, for instance, “why did this happen” could make them feel as if this was somehow their fault. Or asking someone who was sexually assaulted “why did this happen?” could make the interviewer seem heartless and accusatory, thus re-victimizing them. Why use “how”? There are many ways to re-formulate “why did this happen?”. One effective way is to ask “how did this happen” instead. Just this seemingly minor change will spur the witness to dive into areas that would never have been examined by just asking “why”. “How” will often stimulate a witness’ vocal cords, and they will go on, and on, and on. As an investigator, this should be your goal. And don’t interrupt! Let them continue on until they say “that’s it”... or run out of saliva! “Anything else?” versus “What else?” Even if the witness says “that’s it”, it’s NEVER the end of their story. Follow this up with “What else?”. Take a deep dive into their life, be curious. That is what we, as investigators, should be doing. Get to the bottom of things and then work your way up. Chances are, if you’ve asked the right initial questions you won’t have to probe into specifics too much! Do we eliminate “why” from our vocabularies? Absolutely not. There is a time and place for explicitly asking “why”. The more experience you gain as an interviewer and investigator, the more you will be able to read people and situations. As a result, you will be better able to recognize times that asking a direct “why” question would be necessary.

Failing to extract complete and accurate information during interviews can expose organizations to significant risks. Why it's a problem: Incomplete or inaccurate information can lead to legal liabilities, reputational damage, misallocation of resources, and suboptimal outcomes. Solution: 1. Recognize the legal risks associated with incomplete or inaccurate information, such as liability for the organization, risks to investigations and prosecutions, and potential legal consequences for the interviewer. 2. Understand the reputational risks for the organization, the interviewer, and the potential long-term damage caused by reputational harm. 3. Acknowledge the strain on further resources that ineffective investigative interviewing can create. https://buff.ly/3XgfcgK https://buff.ly/3KAd2Ba

Subject interviews are critical to investigations, as they cover the “other side of the story” from the report and can help you determine if misconduct occurred. To ensure accuracy and fairness to all parties, investigators must adopt the right mindset, strategies, and values. In our latest article, you’ll find best practices for interviewing the implicated employee, plus common questions and answers on the subject, from investigations expert and author Meric Craig Bloch. Read it now: https://lnkd.in/ektbAazh #workplaceinvestigations #investigations #investigationinterview

The timing of this appliedpolicebriefings.com update is perfect given that the International Investigative Interviewing conference is happening as we speak Carleton University. And it just so happens that this conference was organized by the one and only Kirk Luther, my co-editor at APB. The brief was written by Ruth Horry and is titled, Improving Memory Recall with the Self-Administered Interview ©. It summarizes a wonderful meta-analysis that was conducted to examine the effectiveness of the SAI. Some key takeaways: (1) The Self-Administered Interview © (SAI©) is a tool that was designed to elicit comprehensive and accurate accounts from witnesses in the immediate aftermath of an incident. (2) The source article analyzed the results of 19 experiments and found that the SAI© elicits more comprehensive initial witness accounts than simply asking a witness to report what they can remember, and that completing an initial SAI© enables witnesses to provide more complete and accurate reports during follow-up interviews. (3) The SAI© is a valuable investigative tool which can minimize information loss in cases where there is likely to be a substantial delay before a formal witness interview can be conducted. Kirk and I would like to thank Ruth for contributing such a great brief. It can be downloaded here: https://lnkd.in/eehg_HgZ. Bruce Pitt-Payne QTiPP, CPII, LPI, RCMP retired (Sgt) Lorraine Hope Fiona Gabbert Kerry Watkins Brent Snook Joseph Eastwood Tim Moore/GL/York/CA

I've learned a few things from 30 years of internal investigations. Among them is that the completion of the interviews, document reviews, and data analysis does not mark the end of the project. Check out the article below by my Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP partner Joseph Jay and me regarding a number of important steps to take before closing the investigation file. Thanks David Douglass for your contributions, as always. I'm interested to hear if anyone out there has other activities you would add to this list. #organizationalintegrity #internalinvestigations

FAILURE IS A DETOUR –  NOT A DEAD END STREET. (Zig Ziglar)   Many people call me after the first attempt at the Phase II interview, and are almost “ashamed” that they FAILED!   First of all, it is not a FAILURE in the true sense of the word – they just didn’t PASS.  I have read that the “pass rate” is quite low.   Why does this happen? Two reasons in particular that I can see. They fail to be “themselves” (written on the FBI website)   They fail to prepare because they don’t know what to prepare. Having “stories” prepared is the secret. If you are interviewing with a federal agency (FBI, Intelligence Analyst, Federal or State), I can help you pass the first time. Visit my website at fbiinterviewcoach.com

After my recent post on a court case involving close analysis and a court report of forensic (#ABE) interviews with children, a few people asked me about the ChIPP case profiling app. I thought I would start by sharing an example of an interim case profile. That is to say, a snapshot of a preinterview planning and assessment case-in-progress. ChIPP works as a checklist to make sure investigative interviewers have considered all important points. It also offers an audit trail of same. So you can see the factors that have been considered and deemed absent, as well as those that may be present, are definitely present to some degree, and the status of each with respect to interview planning. This is a free tool for all bona fide professionals undertaking investigative interviewing of children. If enough people are interested, I can run an online demo session, before sharing a download link. Any questions in the comments or DM me if you prefer.

Finished the course "Introduction to the Non-Confrontational Investigative Interviewing Approach" The National Center for Policing Innovation (NCPI) and supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). Target Audience The course is designed for law enforcement officers and aims to introduce the concept of non-confrontational interviewing rather than teaching mastery of the skills. As a police officer, you face many challenges interviewing subjects. Having a strategy helps you to obtain actionable information. Skillful police interviews include positive communication skills, empathy, flexibility, open- mindedness, clear structure, and open questions. Resistance is a normal by-product of interviewing. By recognizing the type of resistance you encounter, you can adjust your approach to ensure you overcome resistance and gain information. This course offers strategies for preparing and executing a non-confrontational interview through questioning, building rapport, and developing a safe environment. This course serves primarily as a concept introduction and is not intended to teach mastery of the skills and techniques of non-confrontational interviewing. Instead of asking a leading question and interpreting physical behavior as indication of guilt, use open-ended and probing questions. This makes the interview more direct and clear for the subject and extracts more actionable information. In any interview you should actively listen, take appropriate notes, and clarify when needed while being conscious of maintaining the relationship and rapport.

📢 There's still time to book your place on one of our FREE sessions taking place in October. 📢 📆 9 October 2024 @ 2pm ❗️PEACE model of investigative interviewing The PEACE model is key when conducting investigative interviews. It looks at how interviewers can gather information from victims, witnesses and suspects in a non-confrontational way using conversational management. This session will look at the stages of the PEACE model and how they are used within investigative interviewing. 📆 24 October 2024 @ 9:30am ❗️How do we prevent and reduce fly tipping This webinar has been designed for those who work within organisations responsible for reporting, investigating and clearing fly tipped rubbish. The session will provide information and a discussion surrounding ways we can prevent, reduce and tackle fly tipping. Book your place to avoid missing out on these free sessions (links in the comments). #training #free #webinar #investigation #enforcement

One way to assess the credibility of a witness during an investigation is to look for inconsistencies in their account. If the interviewee has already supplied a written account, is their verbal account consistent with their written account? Ask the same question multiple times during an interview and see if their answer changes. But beware! An inconsistency is not necessarily an indication of dishonesty. An account can change for reasons other than dishonesty. On hearing the same question multiple times, some people will think you’re looking for a different answer. So they will alter their response. They’re trying to give you the answer they think you’re looking for. You might think they’re trying to deceive you. Some people will elaborate on their previous answer, adding more and more details to be helpful. The more detail is added, the more potential there is for inconsistency. What looks like a lack of credibility is an attempt to be more helpful. Inconsistency often signals credibility issues. But don’t jump to conclusions. Take the time to consider alternative explanations for the inconsistency. And make use of other means of assessing credibility. #investigations —- Find this helpful? Check out what we’re doing at Basalt Solutions Ltd.