Wells Science-Based Interviewing

2nd Edition
1. Auflage 2025
ISBN: 979-8-31780010-9
Verlag: BookBaby
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 224 Seiten

Reihe: Science-Based Interviewing

This book is intended to help law enforcement officers and intelligence agents interview people (criminal suspects, witnesses, victims, or intelligence sources) who are assumed to have information relevant to an event in the past (e.g., a bank robbery) or an event in the future (e.g., intentions to bomb a shopping mall). In fact, the methods have broad application: they also are relevant to attorneys, Human Resource agents, insurance investigators, and bank auditors - to anyone with similar needs to acquire information from human sources in a reliable manner. The book provides specific, step-by-step advice for such interviews, from planning for the interview to closing an interview. The contents of the book are based on current science.

Simon Wells previously served with London's Metropolitan Police, retiring as a Detective Chief Inspector after 30 years' service. Accredited as an Offender profiler, he has profiled over 1000 cases, working throughout the world supporting investigations and operations. He was Course Director of the U.K. National Hostage Crisis Negotiation Course and Head of Operations for Crisis Negotiation in London. Between 2008 and 2013 he was seconded to the U.K.'s Civil Service to support the counter-terrorism effort within the U.K., Iraq, Afghanistan and other theatres of operation. Most recently he has been supporting the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) interrogation training, and currently is the Research to Practice Fellow for the Centre for Research and Evidence in Security and Threat (CREST) at Lancaster University (U.K.) and a Visiting Professor at Coventry University.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Wells, Simon

Leseproben

CHAPTER 2: PLANNING: THE BOARDS

We often hear interviewers (including police officers) say that they don’t have time to plan for an interview. But take a moment to think about what can go wrong in an investigation if erroneous or incomplete information is collected – how many wrong paths may be taken. In the long run, near-term planning translates into a greater likelihood of long-term success. What we know is that when an interview is not planned, (1) errors will be made that will impede the progress of an investigation, and (2) opportunities will be missed that could have facilitated the investigation (see Chapter 3, Errors and Opportunities).

The Boards is a method of planning for an interview. The term, “the Boards,” comes from the fact that much of this planning is conducted via poster boards or white boards so that the whole interview team can view what is written and share in the planning.

The Boards provides a method for organizing and updating what we know (case facts), identifying objectives, and deciding what we think information means as the interview proceeds. The Boards are continually updated, producing a log and a visual representation of progress and reminders of issues to follow up on or issues to avoid. The Boards also provide a framework for team roles and activities in support of an interview.

The Boards help the team think through four key topics:

1. What do we know? – Collect and collate the verified facts surrounding a subject we may be interviewing. Verified facts are those collected from trusted databases (e.g., court, employment, or bank records; License Plate Reader, GPS tracker).

2. What information do we need to verify? – Collect and collate additional information (“information”) that has yet to be verified. This may be information from victims, witnesses, sources, or social media; it may include details of items reportedly collected at a site but not yet examined.

3. What do we think? – Identify inferences the team is making based on both the verified and the yet-to-be-verified information.

4. What do we do? – Depending on the information and inferences, determine (i) information gaps and (ii) interview objectives.

What does the science say?

The Boards methodology per se has never been explicitly tested. However, the components of the Boards have support in research on teamwork, hypothesis testing and decision making, and have been an integral part of training law enforcement in science-based interviewing.1,2,3 In fact, the Boards is a method of hypothesis testing, the foundation of the scientific method.

The Boards within your organization

At the beginning of any decision to interview a subject, there is some level of pressure on the interviewer, and some level of uncertainty about how the process will play out. The pressure and/or uncertainty comes from many sources – the organizational hierarchies within a unit or agency, the media, family or friends of the subject, and one’s own colleagues. The number of people and entities impacted may increase as these individuals and entities become aware of the investigation or intelligence collection, thus increasing the pressure. Confusion may arise from the various entities involved in the investigation process and uncertainties about the roles each should play. The Boards is a way of dealing with both the pressures and the confusion.

The need to identify what has happened and separate facts from untested information is crucial for any number of reasons. Most important is that we do not want to make unjustified assumptions about who the subject is, what they may know (see Chapter 13, Memory Fundamentals) or how they may behave in an interview setting. There also may be a tendency either to see information already collected on the case as relevant or irrelevant or for there to be a lack of analysis and discussion regarding the case before the interview even begins. Using the Boards, we distinguish:

Verified Information (Facts)

Unverified Information (Information)

Inferences

What is the quality of this information and how much confidence do we have in it?

What is the quality of this information and what needs to be verified?

What are our inferences about the verified and unverified information?

What are the critical information gaps? These may be our initial interview objectives.

HOW TO USE THE BOARDS

Below we describe how The Boards should be used.

STEP 1: WHAT DO WE KNOW AS VERIFIED INFORMATION (FACTS)?

The first column of the Boards contains information that falls under the category of ‘What do we know as verified facts?’ This column should contain facts about the subject. Facts, in a criminal investigation or intelligence interview, are items such as:i

• Video footage (CCTV) – video records of a particular event

• Body worn camera footage (which may differ from an account provided by the wearer)

• Mobile phone/cell site data that geo-locates the phone at a location; third party conformation (e.g., a surveillance team) may locate the subject at the same place as his phone

• Finance – if there is independent evidence that the subject has access to an identified banking account, then banking activity in that account can be relevant; it is important to ascertain whether that access is unique to the subject

• Fingerprints/DNA

• Clothing worn, items detained gathered from the subject’s pockets, bags, handbags, etc. (‘pocket litter’)

• Details about the location of arrest and/or detention

• Houses, businesses, and vehicles registered or owned

• Eyewitness reports – but only if reinforced by video/audio recordings

The list will vary case by case. Note: all facts should be treated with caution unless they are cross-referenced. For example, eyewitness testimony is unreliable unless cross-checked against video or audio recordings.

STEP 2: WHAT DO WE KNOW THAT IS UNVERIFIED (INFORMATION)?

One issue that a team may face when preparing for an interview, particularly if the person has been a subject of interest for some length of time, is that there is an overwhelming amount of information already in the case files. This could be witness or victim statements, forensic evidence, notes from sources, or police or intelligence agents’ interpretations of subject, victim or witness behavior. However, if it is not an independently observed fact, the information should be included under the heading, ‘What do we know that is still unverified?/Information’ This can include:

• Cell site data that geo-locates the subject at a location without third party conformation

• Reports from witnesses as to behavior and reaction to arrest and/or detention, without corroborating data

• Accounts given after reviewing body worn camera footage

• Source information, without corroborating data

• Assessments as to the meaning of conversations on telephones, email, or other electronic media

• Open source or other media reporting (including resumes, social media, reports from schools or employers)

• Opinions or thoughts from previous interviewers or people who have had encounters with the subject

It might be that some of these items can serve as evidence relevant to a possible prosecution. Proximity-Based Evidence Disclosureii provides a method for evaluating and disclosing evidence within the context of an interview.4 Assessing evidence should be part of the interview planning. Evidence can be characterized as physical (e.g., Fingerprints/DNA), technological (e.g., video footage, cell phone data) or statements (e.g., information provided by a witness or source). Each type of evidence has limitations: physical evidence may be not yet available (e.g., DNA is not usually immediately analyzed), easily contaminated, or perishable. Technological evidence also may be perishable, not linked to a specific person, or time-consuming to obtain. Statements may be contaminated: perhaps witnesses talked with each other, are fearful of the consequences of talking with the police, or they did not in fact attend to an event as it happened and as they claim. In addition, evidence may be directly or indirectly linked to the subject. For example, a house, car, or phone may be registered under the subject’s name, but whether he was resident or user at the time must be verified. Questions to consider are (i) What evidence still needs to be verified? (ii) What evidence should be disclosed within the interview as part of helping a subject understand why he is being questioned or to challenge his story? (iii) Might some evidence be strategically withheld altogether because it might hinder another investigation, be more useful in another investigation, or reveal protected sources and methods?

STEP 3: WHAT DO WE THINK (INFERENCES)?

The next column of the Boards deals with inferences the team makes about the verified and...