Page 335 - Deception at work all chapters EBook

388 An HR Guide to Workplace Fraud and Criminal Behaviour

ROBIN BLIND

Various witnesses gave detailed descriptions of Robin Blind as shown in Table 9.10.

Table 9.10 Descriptions chart

Factor Description given by witnesses

Witness 1 Witness 2 Witness 3 Witness 4

Age 30 to 35 30 ish Over 40 38 to 47
Height 5.7 5.9 5.10 5.975
Weight 150 lbs 180 lbs 180 189
Hair Brown/black Brown Brown Tawny
Glasses Rimless No No frames YSL Type 52
Reminds you of Robin Day Robin Day No one Plato
Sounds like
etc.

Charts of this type help you to build up a picture of each of the important characters and
objects in the witnesses’ evidence. Someone, like Witness 4 in the above table, always seems
to appear to have more precise information than others or provides significantly different
recollections. Do not dismiss this: in every fraud theory, you are completing a jigsaw puzzle
and if a piece does not fit, don’t bash it into position. There is always an explanation and by
identifying it, you could open up critical new lines of enquiry.31

Deviations always open up new lines of enquiry

You should continue with the same process on objects, actions etc. In most cases it is critical
that you compile a detailed chronology of events that should be cross-referenced and anno-
tated in tables summarizing the recollections of different witnesses (see Table 9.10 above).

Challenging discrepancies and deception

You should not challenge discrepancies or suspected deception until you have covered every-
thing that could be relevant and obtained and reviewed all documentary and other evidence.
Then, your approach will depend on the circumstances and may range from low-key questions
seeking clarification to direct confrontations on deception.

If your initial appraisal of the subject was wrong, you may decide to treat him as a suspect
and to interview him along the lines of Chapters 6 and 7. The critical point is that you try to
resolve all discrepancies, so that the final Proof of Evidence is as accurate as it can be.

31 In this case, witness 4 was a plonker!