|
2008
Too
Many Choices - Creating Frustration in Interrogation
JANUARY 2008: All too often when entering
an interview room, we like to go in “armed to the teeth” with
information and facts. Being fully loaded with evidence is certainly not
a bad thing but how we choose to present that information can be a
handicap for the interviewer as well as the subject. With so many
choices to make about what topics to address, how to address them, what
order and more, we get caught up in the “planning” and can bungle the
“presentation.” (Read
more...)
Conducting
A Custodial Behaviour Analysis Interview
JANUARY 2008: Investigators who attend our
training seminars learn the value of conducting a Behaviour Analysis
Interview (BAI) as a reliable means of eliminating innocent suspects and
identifying the guilty suspect during the course of an investigation.
During this structured, 30-40 minute non-accusatory interview, the
suspect is asked both investigative questions and specialized
behaviour-provoking questions. The latter questions are designed to be
answered differently by suspects who are innocent of the issue under
investigation as opposed to those who are guilty. The suspect’s
responses to the behaviour provoking questions serve as the primary
basis for rendering opinions of guilt or innocence. (Read
more...)
2007
Fraud and Peace: Investigative Interviewing and Fraud Investigation
DECEMBER 2007: The adaptation and
application of the "PEACE" framework for investigative interviewing in
public sector counter-fraud was intended to create a more professional
body of trained counter-fraud interviewers and a more standardized
interview model. This paper discusses the importance of interviewing in
the investigation process, with specific reference to fraud. (Read
more...)
Interrogation
Procedures: Promises of Leniency
NOVEMBER 2007: For a confession to be
admissible as evidence it must not only be trustworthy, but also
voluntary. The test of voluntariness answers the question, “was a
statement made of the suspect’s free will?” The concept of “free will”
has a somewhat different meaning in law than it does in psychology. A
psychologist would argue that if a person is able to make any behavioral
choice he is operating from his own free will. Legally, however, the
concept of free will relates to whether a statement was made in the
absence of threats or other inducements. These “other inducements”
generally refer to promises of leniency. (Read
more...)
Lie Detection
Test - Take the body language quiz
OCTOBER 2007: Humans use many forms of
deception. Facial expression is a very complex and easily manipulated
form of communication. Facial expression can be quite subtle. Few
individuals are accomplished in correctly interpreting deceptive motives
or emotions. To complicate matters, facial expression is achieved using
infinite combination of musculature, features, skin plasticity and
complexion. Even the skilled investigator can be misled. (Read
more...)
Contaminating a Subject’s
Behaviour
JULY 2007: When inferring deception from a
suspect’s behaviour, investigators must remember that a subject’s
outward behaviours during questioning are not direct signs of lying.
Rather, when a person lies behaviour symptoms such as poor eye contact,
stammering or foot bouncing are the product of underlying emotions
associated with the fear of having the lie detected. These observation
are called “symptoms” because none of them directly indicate deception.
To determine if an observed behaviour is a possible symptom of
deception, the investigator must eliminate other variables which may
cause the same behaviour. In other words, even though the behaviour was
present, if it was contaminated because of some external or internal
factor the investigator should not consider the observation as a
reliable indicator of deception. (Read
more...)
The Structured
Investigative Interview
JUNE 2007: Investigative interviews are the
most critical element of any law enforcement inquiry. Success in
conducting effective and comprehensive ones improves when officers follow
a structured interviewing process that provides a framework for the
interview and alleviates haphazard attempts to obtain complete and
accurate information. 1 Officers can use an eight-phase
structured interviewing process adaptable to many encounters between the
police and citizens. (Read
more...)
Catching A Suspect In A Lie: Not Always A Symptom Of Guilt
MAY 2007: A skilled investigator learns to
withhold certain inside information from a suspect during an
interview in the hope that he can catch the suspect in a lie. For
example, the suspect may lie about knowing the victim, being in the
vicinity of the crime or having a prior conviction. This documented
lie can later be used to good advantage during an interrogation
where the investigator states that just as he knows the suspect
lied about (knowing the victim) the investigator also knows that
the suspect committed the crime. Furthermore, the documented lie
can be used to impeach the suspect’s credibility and character,
e.g., “If you don’t get this straightened out today no one is ever
going to believe anything you have to say in the future. People are
going to say, ‘We know Fred lied about knowing her, Fred is
probably also lying when he says that he is sorry he did this.’”
(Read
more...)
The
Use of Trickery and Deceit During Interrogation
MAY 2007: During an interrogation, an
investigator attempts to persuade a suspect to tell the truth,
oftentimes to provide incriminating evidence that will be used in a
subsequent prosecution. Further, interrogations are generally
conducted in situations where there is insufficient evidence to
assure a conviction and, in many cases, the suspect’s actual guilt
may not be 100% certain. If an investigator was required to be
completely truthful with a suspect, the interrogation would sound
like this: “Joe, I am not sure you committed this crime and we do
not have enough evidence to prosecute you for it. Therefore, I
would like you to confess to me so that we can convict you and send
you to prison.” Obviously, under this circumstance, no suspect
would ever confess. Out of necessity, therefore, interrogation
relies extensively on duplicity and pretense. (Read
more...)
The Use of Rationalization During An Interrogation Theme
MAY 2007: Two conditions must be
satisfied before a person decides to commit a crime. The first is
that the individual must believe that he or she will not be
punished for the crime. For example, no sane person would set their
neighbour's house on fire or download pornography on a company
computer if they knew that they would suffer consequences for their
actions. However, ninety percent of society would never sell
illegal drugs, steal a car or sexually molest a child even if they
were guaranteed to get away with the crime. Therefore, a second
condition must also be met which is that the person must be able to
justify the criminal behaviour in some manner. (Read
more...)
The
Use of Follow-up Questions to Elicit Admissions
MAY 2007: An earlier web tip offered
guidelines to interpret a subject’s verbal behaviour. In addition
to assessing the truthfulness of a response, verbal behaviour also
provides insight for asking follow-up questions. The fact that the
subject’s initial response to a question contains an identifiable
behaviour symptom often indicates that the subject is not
comfortable telling an out-right lie. Under this circumstance,
asking a follow-up question frequently results in an admission or
further meaningful information. (Read
more...)
MAY 2007: The suspect who is caught
“red-handed” committing a crime (faced with direct evidence) will
almost always readily admit their crime. It is important for
investigators to understand why suspects who are caught under this
circumstance confess. One possibility is that they are caught so
soon after the crime that they have not had time to think of ways
to excuse away the incriminating evidence. Another possibility is
that a suspect experiences the most guilt immediately after
committing a crime. Based on more than 50 years of empirical
observations, we can state that neither of these explanations are
likely. Rather, the primary reason a suspect who is essentially
caught committing a crime readily confesses is because he is
absolutely convinced that the investigator knows he is guilty. (Read
more...)
The
Use of Evidence During an Interrogation: Part II
MAY 2007: In the earlier web tip a
fundamental principle of interrogation was presented: A guilty
suspect may be persuaded to tell the truth if he is convinced that
the investigator is absolutely convinced of his guilt. In some
cases the suspect’s guilt is, in fact, almost certain because of
actual evidence collected against the suspect. Under this
circumstance, most suspects readily confess. Unfortunately, many
interrogations are conducted when there is very limited direct
evidence supporting the suspect’s guilt. In other words, the
primary reason the interrogation is conducted is in an effort to
either develop sufficient evidence to prove the suspect’s guilt or
develop information that will exonerate the suspect. (Read
more...)
The Use of
an Interpreter During an Interview
MAY 2007: A question that is
frequently asked during our seminars concerns the proper use of an
interpreter during an interview. This is particularly true when we
train military personnel who regularly utilize translators in their
effort to develop intelligence from a variety of sources. Our staff
has successfully used interpreters both during interviews and
interrogations. However, because interrogation is a more complex
process, this article will focus on the use of an interpreter
during an interview. (Read
more...)
The Significance of Identifying Precipitators during a Criminal
Investigation
MAY 2007: The first step of any criminal
investigation is factual analysis. This describes the process of
collecting and analyzing information and evidence surrounding a crime.
One of the goals of factual analysis is to develop a list of possible
suspects based on opportunity, access, motive or propensity. In many
investigations factual analysis and interrogation are enhanced by
identifying precipitators that led up to the crime. (Read
more...)
The
Significance of Listing in Behaviour Symptom Analysis
MAY 2007: Listing, as a behaviour symptom,
describes a series of events or information included within a subject’s
response. There are two important considerations with respect to listing by
a subject. The first is that the subject decided, for some reason, to offer
multiple answers within their response. The second is that, at a
preconscious level, the subject decided on the order in which to present the
multiple answers. (Read
more...)
The Role of Motivation in the Interpretation of a Subject's Behaviour
MAY 2007: In psychology, a person’s motivation
generally relates to the strength of their desire to accomplish a specific
goal, which is also referred to as their drive. On the other hand, the
concept of motivation in criminal investigation refers to the need a suspect
fulfilled by committing a criminal act such as financial gain, power,
esteem, etc. This difference is not incompatible, for a person’s clarity in
defining a specific goal and the drive to accomplish that goal both
encompass the construct of motivation. If a suspect lacks either a specific
goal or the drive to accomplish that goal, inferences of truth or deception
are often misleading. (Read
more...)
The Role Of
Consequences in Detecting Deception
MAY 2007: The motivation behind every lie is
the avoid the consequences of telling the truth. When my wife came home with
bags of merchandise from a K-Mart store that was closing my truthful
sediments were, we don't need any of this stuff; why did you buy it? Why did
I lie? I wanted to avoid the consequences of having an argument over my
wife's spending habits. A recent discussion with one of my sons revealed
that a class-mate often lied through exaggeration. (Read
more...)
The Presence
of a Third Person in the Interview Room
MAY 2007: Ideally, an interview of a suspect,
victim or witness should be conducted in a private setting. The most
important element of privacy is communicating one on one with the person
being interviewed. Common sense and experience clearly indicate that the
presence of a third party during an interview or interrogation inhibits the
truth-telling process, i.e., it is easier to relate sensitive information to
one person than two people. (Read
more...)
Selecting The Proper
Alternative Question
MAY 2007: The Reid Technique of interrogation
relies on two important underlying psychological principles. The first is
that it is much easier for a person to tell the truth if that person is
allowed to couple his admission with some moral justification. Consequently,
we teach that an investigator should suggest possible moral justifications
which allow the suspect to save-face when telling the truth. Second, it is
psychologically wrong to expect a suspect to suddenly break down and tell
the complete truth about his crime. It is often necessary to allow the
suspect to initially make a first admission of guilt and then attempt to
develop the full confession. In the Reid Technique the first admission of
guilt is elicited by asking an alternative question. (Read
more...)
Responding to A Suspect’s Request to See Evidence During an Interrogation
MAY 2007: It is rare to conduct an
interrogation under circumstances where the investigator has absolute proof
of the suspect’s guilt. At the outset of most interrogations there is merely
circumstantial or testimonial evidence which points to a suspect’s probable
involvement in the crime. The purpose for the interrogation is two fold:
First, it is an attempt to learn the truth from the suspect, i.e., did this
person really commit the crime? Second, If the suspect does confess, the
investigator must then develop details about the suspect’s crime to
corroborate the confession and to be used as evidence in a court of law. (Read
more...)
Quoting Statements in an Open Account: Truthful or Deceptive?
MAY 2007: During most interviews the
investigator should develop an open, or narrative account from the subject.
It is called an open account because the investigator’s question encourages
the subject to relate everything relative to the area of inquiry and once
the subject starts talking, the investigator does not interrupt the account.
Examples of questions that elicit an open account include, “Mary tell me
exactly what happened to cause the cut on your hand.” or, “George, tell me
everything you did last Friday from the time you got home from work until
the time you went to bed.”
There are many aspects of an open account that
can be analyzed to assess the credibility of the person making it: Does the
account contain an introduction, main event and an epilogue or does it focus
entirely on the main event? Is the account detailed or is it vague? Are the
person’s recollections reasonable or selective? (Read
more...)
Question Formulation
Guidelines: Part I
MAY 2007: Asking questions is one of the first
language skills a child develops. However, almost all of our question asking
skills are developed under the assumption that the person answering our
question will tell the truth. Consider questions that might be asked around
a family’s dinner table: “Ryan, do you need a ride home from the dance or
are you getting a ride with someone else?”; “Ben, how did your French test
go?”; “Mom, Clare didn’t call when I was gone, did she?” When there is a low
probability of deception, how a question is formulated is relatively
unimportant as long as the other person understands what is being asked.
This is not the case when interviewing a suspect, witness or victim who is
motivated to withhold information. (Read
more...)
Question Formulation
Guidelines: Part II
MAY 2007: The emphasis of this information is
that how a question is asked often dictates the ease at which a deceptive
subject can lie to the question. Obviously, the investigator should ask
interview questions in such a way as to not invite deception.
In many investigations, the subject will have
previously offered information, either in writing or verbally. This type of
information may be the subject’s earlier stated alibi, an earlier statement
of events or simply a stated position of denial. It is a prime mistake for
the investigator to refer to the subject’s earlier statement when asking a
question as the following examples illustrate:
“I see you are presently unemployed (in
reference to an employment application), why did you leave your last
employer?” (Read
more...)
Mirroring and its Value During Interviews and Interrogations
MAY 2007: Recently I was talking to one of my
sons about a possible location to spend our spring vacation. My left hand
was in my pocket and I was illustrating with my right hand. My left foot was
slightly extended. As my son listened to my ideas and discussed possible
activities, his right hand went into his pocket, he illustrated with his
left hand and his right foot was extended slightly toward me. His comments
and facial expressions appeared positive, but his posture left no doubt that
he agreed with the vacation plans, for his posture mirrored my own.
Mirroring refers to the tendency of two people to reflect each other’s
posture when they are relating well to each other or are in agreement. (Read
more...)
Maintaining
Objectivity During an Interview
MAY 2007: An interview is designed not only to
collect and gather information but to assess the credibility of the person
offering that information. In some instances the investigator will have
clear evidence to validate a subject’s information such as surveillance
video, documents or forensic evidence. Oftentimes, however, such evidence
does not exist and the investigator must rely on interviewing techniques and
behavior symptom analysis to assess a person’s credibility. To elicit
meaningful behavior during an interview requires that the investigator be
perceived as an objective and unbiased observer. On the other hand, if it is
apparent that the investigator strongly wants to believe a subject then
false information can easily be accepted as the truth. Similarly, if an
investigator approaches a subject as someone who is a liar, that expectation
too, will be fulfilled. (Read
more...)
Legal
Considerations When Asking an Alternative Question
MAY 2007: An investigator is asking a great
deal from a guilty suspect to confess to a crime which may potentially
involve substantial punishment. For this reason, the suspect must be allowed
to make his first admission of guilt with as few words as possible and also
in a way that allows him to save face. In the Reid Nine Steps of
Interrogation, this is done by asking an alternative question. (Read
more...)
Laughter and the Detection
of Deception
MAY 2007: Recently my wife and I attended her
high school reunion. While such reunions are marketed as a great time and an
opportunity to get re-acquainted, in truth they are very anxiety provoking.
The reunion forces classmates to reveal occupational and marital failures,
the success or disappointments of raising a family, health problems and the
undeniable effects of aging. As my wife became engaged in conversation I sat
back and observed the people in the room. I heard talking and a great deal
of laughter. This observation reminded me of something I learned years ago
in a psychology class—people relieve stress and anxiety by talking and
laughing.
During any formal interview intended to assess
a person’s credibility, the subject of the interview will experience anxiety
and general nervous tension. Consequently, laugher or attempts at humour by
the subject will be a natural outlet for anxiety. Under some circumstances,
however, laughter can be a behaviour symptom of deception. The following
guidelines are offered to assist in the investigator’s interpretation of a
subject’s laughter or attempts at humour. (Read
more...)
Interpreting Verbal Phrases
MAY 2007: During an interview a subject freely
chooses which words or phrases to use when responding to the investigator’s
question. This choice is not random or haphazard; it is carefully selected
to offer either the most accurate response possible or to avoid the anxiety
telling less than the truth would cause. (Read
more...)
Going
Directly from an Interview into an Interrogation
MAY 2007: In the Reid Technique a clear
distinction is made between interviewing and interrogation. The interview is
non-accusatory, question and answer process that is designed to elicit
information. An interrogation is accusatory in nature and is designed to
elicit the truth from someone whom the investigator believes has lied.
Furthermore, the two procedures are generally separated in time. At the
completion of the interview the investigator steps out of the room and
returns in five or ten minutes to start the interrogation. The pretense for
stepping out of the room may be to review notes, talk to another
investigator or to make a quick phone call. (Read
more...)
Evaluating
Omissions within a Suspect's Statement
MAY 2007: An earlier web tip discussed the
evaluation of inconsistencies within a suspect’s statements. Inconsistencies
represent factual changes in an account whereas omissions represent expected
information not included within a response. It must be realized that both
truthful and deceptive subjects will edit (omit) information from an
account. Consequently, it is not the presence of an omission that
necessarily indicates deception, but rather what was omitted. (Read
more...)
Evaluating a
Subject's Posture During an Interview
MAY 2007: The foundation of a subject’s
nonverbal communication is his posture. How a person’s body is positioned in
a chair often dictates arm and leg movements and, in some cases, even eye
contact. Three inferences can be drawn from a subject’s posture: the
person’s level of interest, their emotional involvement and their level of
confidence. (Read
more...)
Evaluating
Inconsistencies Within an Account
MAY 2007: It is a common trial strategy for an
attorney to attack inconsistencies within testimony offered by a victim,
witness, or an investigator. And yet most victims, witnesses and
investigators tell the truth when testifying. On the other hand, consider a
suspect who told an arresting officer that a friend drove him home on the
night of a crime. Several hours later the suspect tells an investigator that
he drove himself home that night. This inconsistency supports the opinion
that the suspect has principal or secondary involvement in the crime under
investigation. However, not every inconsistency in a suspect’s statement
supports deception. In fact, when an account is repeated two or three times
with perfect consistency this should be viewed suspiciously. The question
then becomes, when do inconsistencies in an account support deception? (Read
more...)
Distinguishing
Between Admissions and Confessions
An admission represents a statement that tends
toward proving guilt. On the other hand, a confession is a fully
corroborated statement during which the suspect accepts personal
responsibility for committing a crime. This distinction is important for
legal and procedural reasons. For example, a theft suspect who agrees to
reimburse the victim for the $1000 stolen has offered an admission, not a
confession. While a willingness to pay back an amount of money stolen is
very typical of the guilty suspect, we have had at least one occurrence of a
verified innocent person who agreed to do this also. The principle to keep
in mind is that an admission does not accept personal responsibility for
committing the crime. (Read
more...)
Developing an Interview Strategy
Some interviews are free-flowing and
spontaneous. Often, these interviews are conducted in an uncontrolled
environment such as a street corner, an employee’s office or over the
telephone. Because the person being interviewed in these situations is
generally telling the truth, the investigator does not have to carefully
structure an interview strategy. However, when interviewing a person who is
motivated to lie to the investigator, the interview should not be haphazard
or spontaneous. It should be carefully planned out and structured to achieve
the desired goals. (Read
more...)
2006
2005
Common Errors in Evaluating a Suspect’s Truthfulness
DECEMBER 2005: Over the years we have been consulted on cases in which an investigator
was absolutely convinced that a particular suspect was lying when, in
fact, the person was telling the truth. In other instances guilty
suspects were able to get through an interview without having their lies
detected. Behaviour symptom analysis is certainly not 100% accurate.
However, if proper techniques are employed in eliciting and evaluating a
person’s behavior, an investigator’s accuracy at detecting deception can
far exceed chance levels. On the other hand, if no specific procedures
or protocols are followed, studies have consistently reported low
accuracies in detecting deception based on observing another person’s
behaviours. (Read
more...)
The Art of
Confessions
A Comparative Look at the Law of Confessions
DECEMBER 2005: The law of confessions reveals
the complexity and conflicting interests involved in controlling crime while
also respecting individual human rights. At first glance the confessions
rule can be mistakenly straightforward – a confession is inadmissible if the
suspect did not act voluntarily due to police coercion. However history
tells us that the law of confessions is anything but straightforward. The
perceived need for confessions in the criminal process for the effective
prosecution of the "guilty" competes with the principle of limiting the
ability of the State to compel self-incriminating evidence. (Read
more...)
A Face Can Tell A Thousand
Stories
DECEMBER 2005: Over time, most law enforcement
personnel who regularly interview suspects or victims develop their own
personal techniques to interpret the various facial expressions of the
person they are questioning. Facial tics or shifting eyes can often give
away more information than the person being interviewed intends to reveal. (Read
more...)
Easing into interviews: effective interview techniques can help set a
cooperative tone for audit engagements
OCTOBER 2005: ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT
skills for auditors to master is the subtle art of interviewing.
Information-gathering interviews are often conducted near the beginning
of an audit engagement to help auditors better understand client
operations. The challenge lies not only in asking the right questions,
but asking those questions in the correct manner and gaining the
interviewee's trust. Opening the session with accusatory questioning,
for example, can derail the entire interview process and undermine any
future cooperation. Asking overly assertive questions can make the
interview seem like an interrogation, causing clients to act defensively
and withhold information. (Read
more...)
Answer Please:
Fraud-Based Interviewing
AUGUST 2005: One weapon against
fraud is simply to speak to people and observe their behaviors as you do
so—something CPAs traditionally do during an audit. But when auditors and
managers try to see into the gray world of wrongdoing and fraudulent
financial reporting, normal interviewing skills may not be up to the task of
determining whether someone is withholding information, shading the truth or
outright lying. As with any audit procedure, it’s best to learn fraud-based
interview skills before you need them on an engagement. Although
not a comprehensive guide to in-depth forensic interviewing, this article
can help auditors conduct focused discussions with clients, managers and
employees to obtain additional information when suspicions become aroused.
Such conversations may point to hidden problems, suggest where more
investigation is warranted and possibly uncover deception. (Read
more...)
“I’d Know a False Confession if I Saw One”: A Comparative Study of
College Students and Police Investigators
APRIL 2005: College students and police
investigators watched or listened to 10 prison inmates confessing to crimes.
Half the confessions were true accounts; half were false—concocted for the
study. Consistent with much recent research, students were generally more
accurate than police, and accuracy rates were higher among those presented
with audio taped than videotaped confessions. In addition, investigators
were significantly more confident in their judgments and also prone to judge
confessors guilty. To determine if police accuracy would increase if this
guilty response bias were neutralized, participants in a second experiment
were specifically informed that half the confessions were true and half were
false. This manipulation eliminated the investigator response bias, but it
did not increase accuracy or lower confidence. These findings are discussed
for what they imply about the post-interrogation risks to innocent suspects
who confess. (Read
more...)
Interrogating to detect deception and truth: Effects of strategic use of
evidence
2005: Several decades of research has shown
that people are poor at detecting deception. This thesis, based on four
empirical studies, aimed at exploring human deception detection accuracy in
the context of interrogations. In three of the studies, there was a special
focus on the presence of evidence in the interrogation, and how strategic
use of this evidence affected the statements of the suspects as well as the
accuracy of the lie-catchers. (Read
more...)
The success or failure of the interview
process depends upon the amount of confidence, experience, and advanced
preparation by the members of the interview team. Confidence and
experience can be gained through the process of conducting the necessary
interviews while avoiding excuses to eliminate this vital step in the
fact gathering process. The points discussed in the chapter's remainder
are designed to improve the interviewer's skills in extracting vital
information from the person being interviewed. (Read
more...)
2003
Sherlock Holmes, CPA, Part 2
SEPTEMBER 2003: The scenario: During a routine audit
of a client, you discovered the company was paying twice the market price
for widgets. By looking further, you believe—but are not sure—the purchasing
agent is engaging in a pass-through billing scheme, in which he buys the
widgets from the supplier, marks up the merchandise and resells it to his
employer at inflated prices through a shell company he set up. You have
gathered all of the documentary evidence from the client’s files and
retained the services of an antifraud expert, Sherlock Holmes, CPA, who has
interviewed a number of possible witnesses. It now is time to talk to the
purchasing agent. Tag along with Holmes, just as Dr. Watson would, and learn
more about the art of admission-seeking interviews. Who knows? With
experience you might find the fraud examination field is just your cup of
tea. (Read
more...)
2003: An interview is a
question-and-answer session designed to elicit information. It differs from
an ordinary conversation in that the interview is structured, not free-form,
and is designed for a purpose. An interview may consist of only one question
or a series of questions. (Read
more...)
2002
Ten Steps to a Top-Notch
Interview
NOVEMBER 2002: It takes a combination of careful observation
and inquiry to conduct an effective audit. Although auditors are adequately
trained to be alert at a client site, most learn on the job how to ask
questions to elicit specific information. This is a matter of no
small importance because CPAs frequently have to inquire about operations
and procedures, to document internal controls and—on occasion—to question
the honesty and integrity of management and employees. For practitioners who
want to improve their interviewing skills, this article will emphasize what
not to do or say to uncover wrongdoing. (Read
more...)
To catch a liar
OCTOBER 2002: Confession may be good for the soul, but
try selling that to a liar facing hefty financial penalties or even jail
time for such a cleansing. In many organizations, the responsibility for
detecting lies and obtaining confessions falls on the internal auditor, who
is usually more used to analyzing columns of numbers than the indecipherable
human mind. Nevertheless, there are ways that auditors can encourage
tight-lipped suspects to free their conscious with the truth about workplace
transgressions. (Read
more...)
Interviewing as a
‘Forensic-type’ Procedure
Audit failures, of which the one involving
Enron and Arthur Andersen is only the most notable recent example, have
progressively directed the attention of both the public and government
regulators to the accounting profession. Accordingly, the chairman of the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) instructed the Public Oversight
Board to appoint a ‘Panel on Audit Effectiveness’ to review and evaluate the
effectiveness of financial statement audits of publicly-traded companies.
The Panel listed as the first of eight major recommendations that “auditors
should perform some ‘forensic-type’ procedures on every audit to enhance the
prospects of detecting material financial statement fraud”.
One powerful forensic-type procedure available
to those responsible for detecting fraudulent activity is interviewing. (Read
more...)
2001
A Fish Story—Or Not?
NOVEMBER 2001: Behaviorists tell us that lying is innate to the human
species and comes about for two genetically programmed reasons: to receive
rewards and/or to avoid punishment. Whether we lie depends on our
calculation of the reward/punishment equation. This is called “situational
honesty.” Because most of us are conditioned to believe lying is wrong, it
creates stress. (That’s not true with very young children and pathological
liars.) The degree of emotional discomfort is determined by two factors: the
adverse consequences of the lie and our perception of being caught.
Experienced interviewers know that stress causes most people to react
differently when they lie. How to recognize the signs of stress and detect
lying are skills auditors need to acquire. (Read
more...)
“Why Ask?”
You Ask
SEPTEMBER 2001: Financial statement frauds, the
bane of the auditing profession, come in different forms. But, from studying
hundreds of fraud cases, we can learn a great deal that can help CPAs in
detecting these illegal acts. A vital part of discovering fraud concerns the
auditor’s ability to ask questions and the implications of not asking them.
Since most auditors have had no formal interview training, this article
focuses on the basics: how to approach the fraud issue with your client and
the types of questions to ask. (Read
more...)
Subtle Skills
for Building Rapport - interviewing
AUGUST 2001: Detective
Hamilton is using techniques from Neuro-Linguistic Programming, a
communication model with a name he might not even recognize. Yet, his
years of interviewing have taught him the techniques. To establish
rapport with this witness, Detective Hamilton knows that he needs to
match her nonverbal behavior, or kinesics, by sitting down and leaning
forward. When the witness begins to talk, Detective Hamilton listens
carefully to her words and intentionally uses similar language. He also
pays close attention to how she talks and matches her paralanguage
(speech rate, volume, and pitch). In so doing, Detective Hamilton builds
rapport with the witness and, hence, increases his chances of gathering
pertinent information during the interview. (Read
more...)
In fraudulent financial statement cases, the
fraud examiner must competently interview the CEO and CFO for one
reason—they probably committed the crime.
Financial statement fraud doesn't occur in an
isolated environment. People in organizations who have both motive and
opportunity are the prime candidates to commit fraudulent misstatement. In
the overwhelming majority of situations, two key managers most often
participate actively in the fraud: the Big Dogs, the chief executive and the
chief financial officer. From there, the smaller pups—the staff
members—become involved largely out of necessity. Those who aren't directly
involved often aren't aware that anything is wrong. (Read
more...)
Interviewing vs. Interrogation
JUNE 2001: A concept we teach in our basic course is, "If you're going to
interview, interview. If you're going to interrogate, interrogate."
There are two important parts of this lesson. The first is that there
are significant procedural differences between interviewing and
interrogation. The second is that if these procedures are intermingled,
the investigator will often be ineffective in accomplishing the goals of
either one. (Read
more...)
2000
The Role of Eye Contact During Interpersonal Communication
MAY 2000: When average people are asked about nonverbal communication, most will
mention eye contact. The eyes are considered "the windows of the soul"
and The Eagles warned that, "you can't hide your lying eyes."
When Judge Judy detects possible deception, she admonishes the witness
to look her in the eyes. Effective communicators learn not only how to
read the meaning of another person's eye contact, but also to use their
own eye contact to influence other people. This field of study is
referred to as gaze and mutual gaze. Interestingly, of all
possible nonverbal behaviors studied, eye contact is generally least
influenced through psychophysiological processes, but rather is a
learned response depending on societal rules. Furthermore, not all
societies teach the same rules. The following discussion applies
generally to western culture. (Read
more...)
To catch a thief:
Ask the right questions to uncover fraud
MARCH 2000:
Employee fraud is big business—and getting bigger. As corporate automation
grows, fraud opportunities rise apace while the detection and prevention of
fraud become more problematic. As a result, businesses must pay more
attention to white-collar crime, and many are tapping the unique financial
skills of the accounting profession to battle it. But CPAs are discovering
that their facility with finances is not enough. They also need to sharpen
their sleuthing skills—namely, interrogation—to get beyond the numbers.
Because it’s not a subject typically taught in either Accounting 101 or
graduate school, CPAs need to know the interrogation basics for an
engagement designed to uncover fraud. (Read
more...)
The role
of defence mechanisms in detecting deception
MARCH 2000: The act of committing a crime is always associated with an emotional
state. Most criminals experience some level of shame, guilt or loss of
self-esteem. Others primarily experience a fear of being caught.
A very
few (the psychopath) will experience excitement and thrill. Because
shame, anxiety and fear are all undesirable emotional states, the mind
will attempt to reduce these negative feelings by using defense
mechanisms. A defense mechanism is a habitually employed adjustive
reaction designed to reduce unwanted feelings by distorting or denying
the truth. (Read
more...)
Building Rapport during
an Interview
JANUARY 2000: Interviews in the popular television show Dragnet were often
preceded with the admonition, "Just the facts ma'am." The emotional
detachment displayed by Sgt. Friday, however, is generally not conducive
to eliciting meaningful information from a subject. People are more
comfortable telling the truth to someone whom they trust and can relate
to. This is precisely why an investigator should spend the first several
minutes of an interview developing a rapport with the subject.
For the
purposes of an investigative interview, rapport can be defined as "a
relationship marked by conformity." If proper rapport has been
established, a subject should feel comfortable discussing the issue
under investigation in a question and answer format. Questions
addressing the issue under investigation should not be asked until the
subject's behavior reflects this relationship. Some behavior symptoms
that indicate rapport are an uncrossing of the arms, a forward lean or
comfortable posture in the chair, longer, more detailed responses and
head nodding in agreement with the investigator's statements. (Read
more...)
One of the elements that distinguishes the
human race from other forms of life is our ability to verbally
communicate with one another. The legions of diverse languages that have
evolved over the course of human history are a testament to our species'
need to express ourselves and articulate our thoughts and feelings.
Every language and culture has its own
distinct communication patterns. In English, for example, we commonly
inflect the first syllable of a word, whereas in Romance languages
latter syllables are emphasized. Patterns such as these are absorbed in
childhood and stay with us throughout our lives. Don Rabon, prominent
author and lecturer in the field of communication analysis, gave the
following illustration: "No one ever said, 'Now son, when you get ready
to stop talking, change your voice just a little bit, and increase the
pitch a little bit and that way the person will know you're getting
ready to stop.' But we learn that and we use it."
If you interview people regularly, you
probably already know that it is more likely for a subject to omit part
of the story than actually lie to you. Omission is a much more innocuous
form of deceit and causes less anxiety than fabricating a falsehood. (Read
more...)
|
