The art of interviewing and interrogation

[Демитрий]

The Art of Interviewing and Interrogation

“The ultimate truth is always reported to a Russian person as obscene” Victor Pelevin.

By getting a confession we are usually accustomed to understand some kind of knocking out of evidence, interrogation with addiction and torture, with the use of physical force or the threat of its use. Today this is an erroneous opinion. Obtaining recognition is a special way organized psychological verbal-communicative method of interviewing or interviewing in order to obtain reliable, intentionally hidden information.

There are several approaches and authors describing their vision of the sequence of conducting such an interview. Among the first psychological methods of interrogation, the “9-step Reed technique” stands out. John Reid, a former policeman and lie detector specialist. He, along with the professor of law at Northwestern University and the head of the forensic laboratory, Fred Inbau, issued the manual “Criminal Interrogation and Confession”. This book appeared in 1962 and has withstood many editions. The methodology of Reed and Inbau is primarily based on psychology: the investigator is regarded as a hunter chasing his victim. The main purpose of interrogation using the “Reed technique” is to obtain confession from the accused by any means possible: investigators can lie to him, psychologically corner him, so that a person understands that confession is the only way out. The presumption of innocence during such an interrogation does not work - investigators, as a rule, openly state that they know evidence of a person’s guilt (they are bluffing). The criticism of this approach is that such aggressive tactics often lead to confessions that are “knocked out” even from innocent people, especially when it comes to young defendants.

Another method used by British investigators, the so-called PEACE (acronym for Planning and preparation, Engage and explain, obtain an Account, Closure, and Evaluation- Planning and preparation, interest and explain, ask questions to clarify, get recognition, close the conversation and analysis ) is much more effective than an approach based on the accusation of the suspect. PEACE implies that the investigator gives him the opportunity to speak out without psychological pressure.

Another method is described by Wicksland and Zulwski. Their idea of recognition is based on rationalization (lat. Rationalis - reasonable, lat. Ratio - reason) - a psychological defense mechanism in which only that part of the perceived information is used in thinking, and only those conclusions are drawn that make their own behavior appear to be well controlled and not contrary to objective circumstances. In other words, this is an attempt to post factum create harmony between the desired and the real situation and thereby prevent the loss of self-esteem. This is an attempt to explain behavior that cannot be explained using an objective analysis of the situation, or an attempt to justify failure or error. For example, passive behavior can be rationalized by caution, aggressive behavior by self-defense, and indifference by the desire to make others more independent. The specialist acts as a mediator, an assistant in a difficult life situation and helps to find a rational looking excuse designed to convince him and others of the reasonable and plausible reasons for the committed act or crime. At the same time, a person gradually begins to sincerely believe in his rationalizations.

Studying the work of the above authors and methods, we can distinguish common features and basic techniques that help to obtain reliable information:

• Direct accusation: “Our investigation showed that you were involved in this event”; “Do you know that you did it?” “Who asked you to do this?” “When did you strike first”, etc .;
  
  
• The threat of punishment, an exaggeration of the severity of the consequences, a description of the danger and the irreversibility of the consequences;
  
  
• Association - with the help of highway technology, the suspect plunges into a crime situation;
  
  
• Expression of sympathy for the interviewee;
  
  
• Weakening the guilt of the interviewed person;
  
  
• Offer moral motivation to the interviewee;
  
  
• Gaining recognition through blaming others
  
  
• Stimulating the interviewee’s pride;
  
  
• Recognition of a minor detail.

You can also develop a set of rules that will help to obtain reliable information:

1. “A man without a goal is like a ship without a helm, drifting aimlessly and constantly at risk of flying into reefs” Before starting an interview, determine the purpose or topic of conversation;
   
   
2. “Victory loves preparation” the better you are ready for an interview, the more your interlocutor, having noticed this, will be more open and frank. Gather as much information about the case and the person you are talking to. Keep your conversation private and intimate. The view of the room must be safe. There should be enough space and furniture for the participants in the conversation. The absence of distractions: drinks, items, a reminder of the punishment. Prepare the Do Not Disturb Sign. Carefully check the toolbox. Is there a notebook, notebook, pens, voice recorder, camcorder and batteries. Finally, make sure you don’t want to interrupt the conversation in the next two hours, you know ...
   
   
3. “Meet by clothes - see off by the mind” Clothes should not be noisy, or out of season, or uncomfortable, or inappropriate. The speech is professional, without jargon, generalized, the absence of such words as: killed, stole, shot.
   
   
4. Enter the conversation. Of course, you should start with a greeting. There are possible options, and much depends on the characters - yours and the interlocutor. A smile upon greeting is obligatory. Not a smirk, not a grin, not a grimace, but a slight smile. Ask the other person to tell you something about themselves. Tell yourself who you are and what you do, what business you have to deal with. Demonstrate understanding. The purpose of these and other (which intuition and experience will tell you) actions is the same - to “melt the ice”, to create the required atmosphere, to tune in a conversation together. A conversation should never be confrontational.
   
   
5. Give your interlocutor the opportunity to speak out as much as possible. Do not interrupt him. If in the course of the answer you have any additional or counter questions, write them down and ask later. Do the same if you do not understand something.
   
   
6. If you did not understand, but did not ask again (did not specify, did not ask to detail), you will not understand later. We'll have to either think it over, or meet again and clarify. You can interrupt the interlocutor only in exceptional cases. More precisely, not even to interrupt, but to stop. Your additional questions should mainly be formed around the words “how?”, “How?”, “Why?”, “For what purpose?”. Your questions are aimed at clarifying, deepening ... It is good from time to time when the interlocutor begins to speak too broadly, ask him: "please give an example."

Keep track of your questions. Remember the following “NOT”:

- The question should not be lengthy.

- The question should not contain two questions or more.

- The question should not contain an answer.

- Do not ask the next question until you are sure that the answer is received (or will not be received).

- When asking a question, do not use official, awkward language. (For example, it’s worthless: “Can you tell us more about this episode?” A much simpler request is: “Tell me more about this.”)

- Questions should not be chaotic. Either your question clings to the previous one, or it clings to the answer to the previous one. Any question-leap should be justified and properly furnished.

- The question should not last more than 10 - 15 seconds and should not contain more than two, maximum three sentences.

The more specific the question, the more meaningful the answer. A non-specific question almost inevitably pushes your interlocutor to fantasies and impromptu conclusions.

In case the interview deviates from the topic, have a question ready (in your head and in a notebook!) That will return the conversation to its original course.

Key questions used in conducting interviews and gaining recognition:

- simple and direct (closed) Not necessarily implying an answer of "Yes", "No". To obtain more complete information on such questions, there is a trick: for example, the interlocutor said “yes” and was silent - lean forward a bit and wait, without saying a word, pause in that position. It’s almost certain that your interlocutor himself will begin to explain his answer in order to fill this pause

- complex not direct (open) requiring a detailed answer: Tell us in detail how this happened? How can you explain this? Because of what happened ?;

- provocative, negative ; Have you tried drugs about 200 times in the last year? What is the biggest thing you took during your work at this enterprise? You won’t pass the polygraph test, will you? Property is unlikely to be returned, right?

- projective - situational "As if .." ; How many employees out of 100 commit theft, in your opinion? If we need to check the cameras, what will we notice on them? If we talk with the previous boss and subordinates, they will talk about you.

- alternative questions, “choice without choice” Did you plan or did it happen by chance? Did you make the whole amount on one day or on different? Will you first tell everything or write it down on paper? Did you take this amount to pay a debt or to buy drugs? Did you set fire to the car with matches or a lighter?

1. Beware of the situation when questions are asked of you! Other interlocutors like to ask in an unobtrusive way: “What do you think about this?” Bad situation. In addition, our roles are pre-allocated, and there is no need to change them. Keep in such a case, as the chess players say, “homework”. For example, a joke: “I have my own opinion on this, but I strongly disagree with him.” Or rephrase and return the speech spoken to the interlocutor: - Now think, why should I steal this money? - Indeed, why do you need to steal this money? Are you suspecting me? “But in fact, who should be suspected in this case?” Have you ever stolen yourself? Good question, can an honest employee commit theft? What do you think of it?
   
   
2. Remember: you are helping your interlocutor! Maintain impartiality. You do not have to agree with the interlocutor, but also demonstrate disagreement to nothing. You came to find out something from him - now find out! It happens, and often, that you don’t understand something or felt a catch. Ask to clarify, develop a thought that seemed to you controversial. Sometimes try to repeat what the other person just said and ask: “So?” Or spell out what you just said in your own words and ask: "Do I understand you correctly?"
   
   
3. Remember: no one can be delighted that the conversation is recorded. Therefore, despite the fact that you warned about the recording and do it by no means secretly, make a recording without drawing too much attention to it.

Try to make notes in a notebook without drawing attention to it.

A few practical tips in this regard:

- Better to have a conversation, holding a pen. Believe me, it makes an unpleasant impression or even alarms the interlocutor when you suddenly grab a pen from the table and frantically start writing.

- Draw from time to time in a notebook something (a pattern or little devils, anyway). In this case, the interlocutor gets used to the fact that you are constantly manipulating the pen, and no longer pays attention to it.

- Develop a skill - make short notes without looking at a notebook.

And one more thing: never look at your watch during a conversation!

1. Do not turn off the senses! Listen, watch, remember. It is not at all necessary to look intently at the interlocutor’s mouth or drill his eyes with his own. Observe the interlocutor, the situation. Remember the characteristic details: the interlocutor’s hairstyle, his gestures, posture, facial expressions, what changes are happening and what they say. Keep track of the state in which the person is ready to admit or decisively denies everything, explaining his position with the so-called “explanatory objection”.
   
   
2. Never trust the first recognition made. Remember that it is beneficial for the suspect to deceive you. Only as a pause and consolidation of the first recognition received can you recognize that the recognition made coincides with your assumptions. After the first confession, it is necessary to check the evidence you have, ask additional questions, bluffing and creating the impression that you have other information.
   
   
3. Exit the conversation. No matter how thoroughly you prepare and no matter how skillfully conduct the interview, something will surely be missed. Therefore, the last question may be: “Have you missed something? Perhaps you want to add something without a question ... "Or this:" What else have you not told me and is it important for me to know about this? " Thank and say goodbye - as friendly as greeted at a meeting. And maybe more affably - because your interlocutor placed you in his possession and told you his secret. And do not forget that you promised your interlocutor.

Interviews (talking with a person) is the main and most effective way of collecting information. Therefore, the ability to conduct an interview is useful to you, no matter what activity you do. It should be borne in mind that the ability to conduct a conversation generally distinguishes a cultured person from an uncultured person. Do not lose sight of the fact that it is through conversations that we get most of the information that is quite comparable with those portions that we draw from books, periodicals, and television.

Therefore - the rule is the thirteenth: train, improve in the art of conversation. Not everyday conversation, not idle talk, not swearing, not arguing (this is generally a special, distinct art from others) - it is conversation. There will be a skill - there will be good luck.

 

[Сергей Олегович Пшенов]

Fred Inbau and John Reid “Criminal interrogation and recognition” (Fred E. Inbau, John E. Reid “Criminal interrogation and succession”) as an example of the interrogation of Rodion Raskolnikov.
1. Show confidence in the suspect's guilt
This refers to the demonstration by the investigator of self-confidence and his innocence. The suspect must feel that you - know the truth for sure.

Porfiry sighed sadly, gazed steadily into Raskolnikov’s eyes and began:
“I know everything, Mr. Raskolnikov.” And how, and why, and why ...
2. Show some, but by no means all, evidence of the suspect's guilt
Often, investigators make this mistake, immediately laying out all the information that they possess. In this case, much can be lost, but it is unlikely to be gained. A special case of this error is the investigator’s too long monologues. Your task is to listen, not talk.

3. Indicate the physiological or psychological symptoms of the suspect's guilt
Indicate the symptoms of self-doubt that are visible in the suspect: increased pulse, frequent swallowing, looking at the floor or ceiling instead of the interlocutor's eyes, fingering, dry mouth, etc.

“I see how hard it is for you, Rodion.” You breathe heavily. Guilt puts pressure on your soul and I want to ease your suffering.
4. Sympathize with the suspect, saying that everyone in this situation would do the same
It will be much easier for the suspect to confess his deed if he understands that what he did is, if not acceptable, then the usual behavior in such a situation.

“Rodinka, I would have killed a reptile myself if I were you in your place,” said Porfiry Ivanovich sadly.
5. Reduce the suspect’s guilt by downplaying the gravity of the crime.
It will be easier for the suspect to confess if you tell him that the crime committed by him is natural for human nature.

“Moreover, Rodya,” Porfiry continued, “killing such old women is absolutely normal behavior of any decent person in our time.” A much bigger crime would be to watch such old women around and do nothing about it.
6. Tell the suspect a morally acceptable reason for the crime.
- I understand that you didn’t sob the reptile out of debt, but to rid society of such a parasite!
7. Sympathize with the suspect by blaming the victim
“Yes, and what an old woman!” Old hag, a bloodsucker, how many people from the world have squandered with their Panamanian offshore! You are the one to blame! This is not you, but she would have to be judged!
8. Demonstrate understanding and sympathy for the suspect to tell the truth.
According to the authors of the book, patting a suspect on the shoulder in time or covering his palm with his palm is very effective. You could also say that even if your brother or father were in place of the suspect, you would still be advised to tell the truth. To tell the truth is the best way to clear conscience.

“Yes, and I understand you very well, my dear.” Guilt does not crush you; there is no guilt in ridding society of such a creature. The inability to tell the truth puts pressure on you, to tell everyone what you have done. I want to help you with this. Tell the truth, you will immediately feel better!
9. Indicate that there is reason to suspect the accused of a more serious crime.
For example, a rape suspect can be said to have been found dead, and therefore he is suspected not only of violence, but also of murder. One can say to a theft suspect that much more was stolen than actually, and that it was not a theft, but a robbery.

“And our problem, Rodechka, was that this was the fifth old woman killed under similar circumstances ... But the same handwriting!” And the previous four old women were also raped. But one was eaten at all ... That’s the problem ...
10. Help the suspect put himself in the circumstances of the crime
This can be done with leading questions like:

- So, Rodion, that day you left your apartment in the morning on Dostoevsky Lane, right?
- Yes.
- And then they went to Gorokhovaya in the tavern, right?
- Yes.
- And from there, having thoroughly reinforced, to Ikea behind the ax?
11. Catch a suspect on a small lie
To subsequently return to this fact, saying:

“Well, why, Rodion Romanovich, do you deny having bought an ax in Ikea?” Here is a slip from your credit card ... We bought an ax and a pack of gingerbread cookies. Why are you kidding me?
12. Take the suspect “on weak”
It is common for every person to seek support and confirmation of their actions. Give this feeling to the suspect, they are so rarely supported!

“And how skillfully you did it, Rodion, my dear.” I even thought of asking you to give some practical exercises on ax fighting in our school of a young fighter. Clean, beautiful, I would even say artistically! Are you a nugget or did you learn this from someone?
13. Indicate the suspect of the danger of continuing a criminal career
Often criminals involve newcomers in their business, inviting them to participate in some kind of petty crime, such as theft, in order to gradually draw him deeper and deeper into their networks, using the fear of guilty plea. This can be helped to confess by talking about the dangers of continuing and suggesting a way to get rid of addiction.

14. Instead of immediately confessing to a crime, first ask about the details of the crime or its causes.
It will be easier for the suspect to confess gradually, if asked:

- And you first with a butt, and then with a blade or vice versa?
15. If there are partners and if previous techniques were ineffective, invite them to play against each other
I already spoke about the prisoner's dilemma in the article “On Altruism”. Please note that the authors of the book recommend provoking the suspects by offering them to hand over each other only if the previous techniques were ineffective. Even in such cases, altruism remains intrinsic to man.

If the suspect’s guilt is not obvious, a few more techniques will come in handy:

16. Ask the suspect why, in his opinion, he is being questioned.

17. Ask the suspect to tell everything he knows about the crime, the victim and the suspects

18. Ask the suspect in full detail about what he did before, during, and after the crime.

19. If you know any facts about the crime and the suspect, ask him about them as if they were unknown to you.

20. Periodically ask the suspect the same questions as if you already knew the answers.

21. Pretend that you have any evidence of guilt of the suspect. If the suspect begins to make excuses - this will be an indirect confirmation of guilt

22. Ask the suspect if he ever thought of committing such a crime.

23. In the event of theft, the suspect's offer of compensation is evidence of his guilt

24. Failure to pass a lie detector test is also a confirmation of guilt

25. If the suspect says “so be it, I will say what you want to hear, but I did not do it” - this is an accurate confirmation of guilt.