Interviewing Witnesses

From: John E. Reid & Associates, Inc.

 

A witness is anyone who possesses direct information pertinent to an investigation. Developing accurate and complete information from witnesses is critical to any criminal investigation. This information may determine whether or not a crime was committed, the direction in which an investigation goes and the identification of the perpetrator of a crime.

 

Sometimes witnesses are forthcoming and fully cooperative, other times they are reluctant to get involved and occasionally they are deceitful in an effort to protect themselves, an accomplice or loved one. There are many factors that may influence the accuracy of a witness' statement including trauma, passage of time, prejudices, influences of drugs or alcohol, age, and psychological/ physiological disorders. Finally, witnesses are interviewed in a number of different settings, ranging from a totally uncontrolled setting (outside a bank that was just robbed) to a semi-controlled environment (the witness' home or office) or in a controlled setting (the investigator's office).

 

With all these variables, obviously there is no single best technique to develop information from a witness; there is, however, a single underlying principle that does apply. This web tip will present a number of different concepts relating to witness interviews which investigators need to appropriately apply.

 

Continue reading for more 'Interviewing Witnesses' information as well as answers to the following questions.

 

1. How can an investigator identify a good witness within a group of people?
2. Three individuals witnessed the same incident, what important procedure should the investigator use when interviewing these witnesses?
3. When, during an interview, should the investigator elicit personal information from a witness?
4. What are some simple techniques the investigator can use to enhance a witness' memory?

The Danger of Threatening Inevitable Consequences During an Interrogation

From John E. Reid & Associates:

 

A recent Frontline episode dealt with interrogation techniques and false confessions. The presented case involved the 1997 rape and murder of Michelle Bosko from Norfolk, VA. The following is a synopsis of facts as reported by Frontline:

 

The victim's husband, who was a sailor in the navy, discovered her body and sought help from the next door neighbor, a fellow sailor named Daniel Williams, who then contacted the police. While the husband had an air-tight alibi, suspicion focused on Williams. Therefore, they asked him to come to the station for a voluntary interview which eventually turned into an 11 hour interrogation. During the interrogation, Williams was administered a polygraph examination which he was falsely told indicated deception. After being threatened with the death penalty, Williams confessed to the rape and murder to avoid execution. In his initial confession he stated that he struck the victim with a shoe and beat her to death. Following the autopsy it was determined that the victim died from stab wounds and strangulation. Williams was re-interrogated and, after the detective revealed the victim's actual cause of death, gave a second confession consistent with the autopsy findings.

 

Four months later, the crime lab determined that Williams' DNA did not match crime scene evidence. Rather than doubt the integrity of Williams' confession, the police were convinced that there must have been another perpetrator.

 

Ultimately this case would consist of eight men being charged; five of them confessing but only one DNA match would be found. This case became known as the Norfolk Four.

 

Continue reading the Norfolk Case information for answers to the following questions and more.

 

• Why did four innocent suspects confess to murder and rape?
• What tactic should never be employed during an interrogation?

 

 

Research Review: The Lie, The Bluff and False Confessions

From John E. Reid & Associates:

 

One of the most controversial aspects of criminal interrogation involves the use of trickery and deceit.

While Federal and State Supreme Courts routinely uphold confessions that were obtained from interrogations during which the suspect was falsely told that there was incriminating evidence, academicians and psychologists have argued that lying to a suspect about having incriminating evidence is unethical, erodes the integrity of the criminal justice system and may induce an innocent suspect to confess.

 

Considering the necessity of dealing with criminal suspects on a somewhat lower moral plane than the average public, Supreme Court justices have rejected the ethical arguments. While there have been some restrictions placed on the use of trickery and deceit during an interrogation, e.g., manufacturing evidence against a suspect, the prevailing logic has been that merely lying to a suspect about having incriminating evidence would not be apt to cause an innocent person to confess. As a recent appeals court ruled, "such misrepresentations (lying about having evidence), of course may cause a suspect to confess, but causation alone does not constitute coercion..."

A recent study challenges this basic premise.  Read more regarding Research Review: The Lie, The Bluff and False Confessions, the reported research study and find answers to the following questions and more:

 

• In light of new research, should investigators be prohibited from lying to suspects about incriminating evidence?
• What is a clearly improper technique to introduce incriminating evidence during an interrogation?
• Why is it often improper to generalize laboratory research findings to field situations?

 

Investigating Attention-Motivated Fabricated Crimes

From John E. Reid & Associates, Inc.:

Every year there are a dozen or so incidents involving fabricated crimes that make national headlines because the motive behind the reported crime fascinates the general public. Recently a woman in Vancouver, Washington reported that she was the victim of an acid attack, where a black woman threw acid onto her face. After an extensive investigation which first focused on trying to find the perpetrator and then explored the possibility that the claim was falsified, the woman was eventually confronted and confessed to staging the attack herself. Her reported motive for doing so was because she was unhappy with her appearance.

There are a number of possible motives for making a false claim of being a crime victim. The most common is to conceal another crime such as a homicide, theft, or infidelity. However, when the "victim" receives psychological gain as a result of reporting the crime, it falls into the category of an attention-motivated crime.

The Investigation - While all reported crimes must be initially approached as legitimate, many false reports are considered suspicious at the start. Perhaps something does not make sense within the victim's account, or physical evidence does not support the description of the crime. In the previously mentioned case, for example, it was considered suspicious that there were chemical burns only on the woman's face, and none on her clothing. In addition, the woman's eyes were supposedly protected by sunglasses which were miraculously purchased shortly before the attack, even though the woman was not in the habit of wearing sunglasses.

Read more regarding the attentioni-motivated fabricated crime 'Investigation' and the related 'Interview and Interrogation' to find answers to the following questions and more.

What are possible indications of a fabricated claim?

What is the significance of crisscross scratch marks on a victim?

What are the common characteristics of individuals who fabricate a claim for attention?