Page 202 - Deception at work all chapters EBook

Planning Tough Interviews 203

Table 6.2 Opening statement options

Objective of the Strength of the evidence before interviewing
interview
Conclusive on all Strongly Uncertain Uncertain with
aspects of the case suggestive on with a multiple suspects
(the worst case) some aspects single
suspect

Criminal Advise the police before interviewing
prosecution Agree objectives, timescale and action plan
Decide whether or not a caution should be administered

Option 2: Blocking Option 3: Introductory Elimination
questions monologue Interview:
Option 5: Formality Option 2: Blocking questions Method 1:
Interview
You may have more The interview may reveal Method 2:
to lose by a poorly evidence on the worst case Freestyle
conducted interview statement
than any potential gain Method 3:
Structured
Civil action Option 2: Blocking Option 1: Factual testing check list
questions Option 2: Blocking questions
Internal disciplinary Option 5: Formality Option 3: Introductory
Option 4: Direct monologue
Internal decision confrontation
making The interview may reveal
evidence on the worst case

If you believe the suspect is innocent or telling the truth or both, don’t be afraid to admit
it to yourself and move forward on that basis.

One of the greatest failings of inexperienced interviewers
is that they will not admit that the subject is being truthful

If you believe the suspect is guilty, telling lies or you are not sure one way or the other, you
must move to Phase C.

Phase C: Raising the pavement – putting monkeys on backs
It is crucial that the suspect’s anxiety is taken to the pivotal point at which he loses all confi-
dence in his ability to succeed and is willing to accept the consequences of confessing or sees
an advantage in doing so.

You can lead the suspect to the pivotal point by taking a critical parent role and by provok-
ing his subconscious and memory monkeys into states of intolerable anxiety by:

• preventing him from succeeding with concealment lies;
• provoking him into falsifying fine detail;
• challenging deceptive answers and non-verbal clues of deception;
• stating what you believe he did (based on the fraud and deception theories) through accusa-

tory questions.