Page 245 - Deception at work all chapters EBook

246 Deception at Work

• the information is vital and the suspect is the only person who can give an explanation;
• it is essential to prove the suspect’s knowledge of the process and to block off an untrue

excuse later in the interview;
• the suspect can be enticed into giving an explanation which will later trap him.

In other cases, questions about responsibilities and processes tend to reduce the suspect’s fear
of detection and his opinion of you. So get straight to the point. If you need to prove a suspect’s
knowledge of a process, you can summarize it in your own words and ask for his agreement
that it is correct. This approach may avoid endless questions and puts you in control.

Remember there are two interviews taking place and the suspect is trying to assess you

PREPARE FOR AN IMMEDIATE ATTACK

Even the best planning can be thrown off track if the suspect, or his lawyer, immediately takes
a confrontational approach. Remember that attacks, especially at the start of an interview,
are part of the liar’s conscious fight or flight decision, and are most likely to be a deliberate
attempt to gain control. Plan to deal with this as you would with any counter-attack (see page
[xref]) and don’t panic.

PLAN SAFE HAVENS

From time to time, the interview may go off course and it is wise to plan the safe points to
which you will return in times of trouble. This may be a single-page schedule of a key point
indicating the suspect’s guilt.

THE SAFE HAVEN

At any point you can say: ‘Forget about that, Bill, now let’s come back to this.’

You should then move forward from that point.

OPTION 1: THE FACTUAL-TESTING OPENING

This is probably the safest option when the existing evidence is uncertain or where you are
unsure of the suspect’s guilt. You will use the first part of the interview to test his reaction to
questions and to decide whether he is being truthful or not. Even when criminal prosecution
is an objective, you technically do not have to administer a caution with this opening because
you will use it only when the suspect’s guilt is in doubt. If you are less than 50 per cent certain
that the suspect is responsible for the problems concerned, consider using the elimination
approach suggested in Chapter 10. Where responsibility is over 50 per cent and less than 80
per cent certain1 the opening statement should include:

1 As best you can approximate