Copyright held by The John Cooke Fraud Report. Reprint rights are granted with attribution to The John Cooke Fraud Report with a link to this website.
Copyright Michael Nielson 1991. Reprinted with permission
Traditional interviewing techniques used by law enforcement officers have not changed much in several decades. While it’s true that court decisions and laws enacted to protect constitutional rights have altered interviewing procedures, the techniques of eliciting information from victims and witnesses have remained basically unchanged.
On an individual basis, some detectives have developed techniques and approaches that obtain volumes of information, however, their systems are a result of their unique personalities. Others might imitate but not experience the same success.
Recognizing law enforcement’s need for investigative information memory researchers from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Department of Psychology approached Dr. Martin Reiser, the Director of Behavioral Science Services, Los Angeles Police Department. The UCLA psychologists wanted to move memory research out of the laboratory and into the real world because past research had been conducted under conditions that, while scientifically accurate, did not approximate what actually happens in situations police encounter in the field. Everyone agreed that witnesses and victims in real crime situations did not react in the same manner as he did when in clinical circumstances.
SCIENTIFIC STUDY
With the cooperation of various sections and divisions of the LAPD, a real-life scenario was developed. Eighty-nine volunteer, undergraduate student witnesses were shown four films used by the LAPD to train officers in shooting techniques. The crimes depicted were a bank robbery, a liquor store robbery, a family dispute, and a warehouse search. In each film, at least one individual is shot and killed. The films were realistic in that reactions of those who see them have been comparable to reactions that would be expected in similar street situations.
The films are shown by the LAPD in a special setting that allows officers to fire wax bullets at a screen. The scores are automatically tabulated by a computer, and the officer is informed whether he or she shot a robbery suspect, for example, or an innocent party.
The witnesses were divided into three groups and interviewed by volunteer off-duty detectives from the LAPD and other local and federal investigators. One group of witnesses was interviewed in the manner the investigator normally employed. The second group was interviewed by officers trained in the use of forensic hypnosis. The third group was interviewed by detectives who had received training in the use of the Cognitive Interview.
Results were tabulated and then compared. There was no doubt about the results: Cognitive Interviewing techniques obtained 35 percent more information than standard interview techniques and as much information as hypnosis.
The research also disclosed two additional important factors. The Cognitive Interview did not result in significantly more incorrect information, nor did it elicit a greater amount of confabulation (making up details).
An additional valuable feature of these techniques is that he can be easily used with little training. The components are simple and easily understood by investigators and witnesses alike. It is simply an extremely effective memory retrieval technique.
HOW TO USE THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW
In each case the witness will be asked to give a narrative account of what he witnessed or perceived. However, before he begins the investigator tells him that four memory retrieval techniques may help him recall more details about what he witnessed. The four techniques consist of reconstructing the circumstances; reporting everything; recalling the events in different order; and changing perspectives.
Reconstructing the Circumstances
-
Ask the witness to try to reconstruct in his mind the circumstances surrounding the crime.
-
Ask the witness to think about (or visualize if he can) what the surroundings at the scene looked like, ie, the environment, people nearby, objects, lighting, location of furniture, vehicles, weather conditions and the like.
-
Ask the witness to remember how he was feeling at that time and to remember his reactions to what he observed.
Report Everything
-
Point out to the witness that some people hold back some information because they aren’t quite sure it’s important.
-
Tell the victim not to edit anything out of his report, even things that do not seem to be important.
-
Recall Events in Different Order
-
Point out that it is natural to go through the incident from beginning to end. Have him relate the events in reverse order.
-
In addition, have the victim start with the event that impressed him the most, and from there, recall events both forward in time and backward in time.
Change Perspectives
-
Ask the witness to adopt the physical and mental perspective of others who were present at the scene, including those witnessing the crime and those who were involved in it For example, he can try placing himself in the role of a prominent character in the incident. Have him think about what he might have seen or heard if he had been in that position.
Following the narrative phase specific questions are asked based on the narrative report. The four general techniques used for these questions are:
-
Ask the victim to think about whether or not the suspect reminded him of anyone he knew. If he was reminded of anyone, he should try to think of why. Was there anything unusual about the suspect’s physical appearance and/or clothing?
-
Ask if any names were spoken. If he thinks a name was spoken but can’t remember what it was, ask him to try to think of the first letter of the name by going through the alphabet one letter at a time. Ask him to try to think of the number of syllables.
-
He should think about speech characteristics. Did the voice remind him of someone else’s voice. Did the suspect sound educated?
-
Ask about conversation. What were his reactions to what was said and the reactions of others. Ask him to take on the perspective of others. Is there any partial information? Were any unusual words or phrases used?
-
Ask if he remembers any numbers. If so, was the number high or low? How many digits were there? Were there any letters in the sequence?
At first glance it may seem you may have been using some of these techniques for years; and perhaps you have. However, scientific research at UCLA, and reports from the field, have proven that this procedure results in an increase in the number of details investigators are able to obtain. It’s a win-win situation: you have everything to gain and nothing to lose!
© Copyright 1995 Alikim Media