John B. Reid and Associates, Inc. The Importance

of a Written Statement August 2002 An employee has been interviewed and interrogated concerning the issue of falsifying time card entries. At the conclusion
of the interrogation the investigator brings
in a witness who is told that the employee admitted that he falsified his time card on several occasions

in the last six months. However,
no written statement

is taken from the employee. The employee

is terminated for time theft and files a wrongful discharge suit, which also alleges slander, emotional distress and discrimination. When this case goes to court the company has nothing whatsoever

in writing from the ex-employee indicating any act of wrongdoing.
He is bound to deny acknowledging

the time card violations and the result of the trial will rest on the investigator’s credibility when he testifies that the subject did make incriminating statements. Not having

a statement signed by the defendant represents

a potential nightmare for prosecutors, corporate attorneys and the investigator who will face
a rough cross examination concerning his motives
to fabricate the incriminating words aHegedly made by the defendant. This is especially true in civil suits where the employer’s actions were primarily based on believing what the investigator reported were the incriminating statements made by the employee, and not on physical evidence. Furthermore, when the only witness to an oral confession

is another investigator

the defense may build
a conspiracy theory arguing that one investigator

is simply covering for the other investigator’s incompetence

so that they can both keep their jobs. While an oral confession

is legaHy admissible
as evidence,

it is much more difficult for the defense
to attack

a written statement signed by the defendant. When the court has a written document attesting
to a defendant’s involvement

in a crime this not only supports the investigator’s testimony that the defendant did confess, but also enhances the investigator’s credibility when denying other allegations that may be made relative to the interrogation.
On the other hand, without such a signed statement, the investigator has no independent corroboration supporting any events of the interrogation and he will face an uphill battle at trial with each allegation
of impropriety. Let’s return to the interrogation

of the employee suspected
of time card violations. Here is the actual portion of the interrogation where the investigator claimed the.suspect confessed: I: Are you falsifying your time card every day or just every once in a while?” S: If

I did it, it certainly wasn’t every day. I: Good, that’s what

I thought all along. What is the total number of times you did it during the whole six months that you worked here? S: If it happened

at all it would just be a couple of times. I: What is the largest amount
of time that you got paid for that you didn’t really work. Would

t be 4 or 5 hours? S: Absolutely not. I: What do you think, maybe one or two hours? S: if

I was off on my time
it certainly was not by hours. 1: So maybe up to an hour or so. S:

I have no idea. I: But you were off on your time card on a number of occasions

in the last six months, right? S:

I might have been. The investigator who was brought
in to witness the “confession” was told that the suspectadmitted falsifying his time card onanumber of occasions

in the last six months. Acting on that same information, the company decided to terminate the employee. The problem

is that this employee never confessed
to falsifying his time card. The original investjgator, anxious to prove The employee’s dishonesty, was the victim of selective listening. He wanted to hear that the employee falsified his time card so when the employee said, “if

I did it, it wasn’t every day” the investigator believed that the employee had made his first admission
of guilt. The investigator either failed to hear or comprehend the employee’s qualifying statement,
“If

I did it.” This employee mayor may not be guilty of significant time card violations. All that can be stated with certainty

is that he did’ not acknowledge them during his interrogation. This introduces

a final benefit to taking

awritten statement, which
is that it commits the subject to the admissions made during an interview
or interrogation. The above mentioned employee would never have written or signed

a statement such as, “During the six months that

I worked at XWZ Corporation

I have falsified the hours that

I worked

6 to 8 times. The first time wasin February 2002 when

I added

2 hours to mytime card. The last time wasin June 2002 when

I also added

2 hours of time that

I did not work. The total amount of time

1 have been paid for that

I did, not work would be between 12 to 14 hours.

I am very sorry

I did this and the reason did it was because

I have not been given enough hours to pay my bills. No threats or promises were made to meto write this and everything

I wrote is the truth.” Had the investigator

in this case attempted
to take such
awritten statement he would have immediately recognized that the employee had not confessed

to time card violations. This may have resulted
in further interrogation

of the employee,
ora realization that the employee was not involved
in significant time card violations.

In either event, the taking of a written statement

in this case would have potentially protected the company from civil liability. The issue arises asto whether

awritten statement should be taken from every subject who has made incriminating statements.
As a guideline,

it is prudent
to take a written statement anytime the subject’s admissions maylead to an adverse impact onthe subject, e.g., suspension, demotion, termination, prosecution.

It only takes one lawsuit to appreciate the importance
of this advice. In conclusion, our experience has been that about 80% of suspects will readily write out their own statement after they confess. For the remaining 20%, the investigator canwrite out a statement, which the suspect’will read, make any required corrections, and then sign. This procedure generally takes nomore than 10-15 minutes and serves three important functions. The first is that it will enhance the investigator’s credibility

in ‘court when he testifies that the suspect did, in fact, confess. Second,

awritten statement will assure that the investigator understands exactly what the suspect

is confessing
to. Finally, the statement will commit the suspect
to his admissions, decreasing the likelihood that he will later claim never to have confessed.

## JOHN E. REID AND ASSOCIATES,

INC. NOTE TAKING DURiNG AN iNTERVIEW June, 1999 (an excerpt) When participants

see video-taped

interviews

at our seminars,

it is obvious that our interviewers take
a written note following

each response

offered by a subject. The Reid Technique

advocates active note taking during

a structured interview for three reasons. First, taking

a written note following

each response

slows down the pace of questioning.

it is much easier to lie to a series of questions

asked in quick succession than the ‘same questions

asked five or seven seconds apart. The reasan for this is that when questions

are asked rapidly,

the deceptive subject does not have time to internally respond

to his lie; that is, once
a lie is told, rather than having time to experience

a fear that the lie may be detected, the suspect’s attention

is immediately

directed
to the investigator’s

next question.

When questions

are not separated by a period

of silence, the accompanying

behavior symptoms

of deception

are greatly

reduced. Innocent subjects

are comfortable with the silence note taking creates. They realize that the investigator

is writing out their answer and they simj5ly

wait for the next question

to be asked. Deceptive subjects,

on the other hand, are uncomfortable with this period of silence. Because their original response

to the question was less than truthfUl, they may modify or qualify

it during

the time in which the investigator

takes
a written note. This behavior,

in and of itself, can be a good indication
of deception. Second, taking written notes helps the investigator

focus on key aspects

of the subject’s

behavior during

a response.

In this regard, the notes following

a response

should not be a verbatim record of the subject’s

answer. Rather, the essence of the response

should be documented, along with any significant behavior symptoms.

This is illustrated below, where the entire question

and answer
is first reproduced,

followed by the investigator’s

written notes: I: “How do you feel about being interviewed concerning

this allegation against you?”V 

## 5:’ “Well,

it makes rnë’scared, you 

## know.

I don’t understand why everyone,

wellV 

## not everyone,

but the people at the agency, why they think that

I would do this to my step daughter.” (Shift in the chair) Attitude:

It makes me scared.

I don’t understand why people at the agency would think I’d do this to my step daughter.

SICVVNotice thatthe investigator’s question

is underlined.

itmakes little senseto onlydocument the subject’s responses during aninterview

--the investigators questions mustalso be documented.

Inthis example,

astandard abbreviation forthe question

isused. TheSIC following the essence
ofthe subject’s responseindicates

ashiftinthe chair.Atthe conclusion
ofthis article areother suggested abbreviations

todocument nonverbal behaviors. Finally, by taking written notes during aninterview,
an investigator canreview aninterview daysorweeks afteritwasconducted and reconstructthe subject’s significant verbal and nonverbal responses during the interview. Thisis especially beneficial when
anumber of possible suspectshave been interviewedonthe samecaseinthatthe investigator canmake intra-suspect comparisons

tohelp identify who can,orcannot,be eliminated
asasuspect. Asacaveattothis entire discussion

itis important

to emphasize thatif writtennotesaretaken during aninterview, they needtobetaken following everyresponse. Conversely,

if sporadic notesaretaken following only selected responses,thiswill havetheeffect of causing the subject tobe guarded andhesitant
in offering further information. Sporadic note taking alerts the subject astothe apparent importance

ofa particular responseand results.in less meaningful information. http:Ilwww.reid.comleducational_infofrjips.htmlJohn E. Reid and Associates, Inc. TAKING

A STATEMENT FROM
A VICTIM OR COMPLAINANT April, 1999 Many investigations begin with an interview
of a victim or complainant. The success
of the investigation, and subsequent prosecution

of a suspect, will often depend on the accuracy and credibility
of the victim’s original statement.

A victim’s statement that contains inaccurate

or misleading information may significantly decrease the likelihood
of detecting the perpetrators deception during an interview. The perpetrator, knowing precisely what was done during the crime, immediately recognizes the investigator’s flawed questions and can appear quite truthful in his responses.

In this regard, the statement, whether written out by the victim or the investigator, should only be reduced
to writing after
a thorough interview

is conducted.

A statement that is written contemporaneously

while questioning

a victim or complainant will invariably be less complete, and often even less accurate than one written after
a properly conducted, in-depth interview. The statement should confine itself to reported facts. Especially when an account

is fabricated
or contains omission,

a victim will use vague words to describe the offense. The statement, “Mr. Johnson has sexually harassed me for many months and has created

a hostile work environment
by making unwanted sexual advances toward me,” offers no substance whatsoever. The employee

is merely expressing

a series of opinions which may, or may not be based on fact. Similarly, phrases such as “molested”, “assaulted”
or, “tortured” are fairly meaningless

in a victim’s statement because they describe

a wide range of possible activities. Rather, the statement should be limited to specific behaviors;

in other words, what was verbally said or physically done.
If emotional states are an important element
of the offense, e.g., fear, humiliation, shame, etc., the investigator should attempt to incorporate, within the statement, behavioral elements
to support the emotional state (avoidance

of a particular person, not answering the telephone, seeking psychological counseling). The statement should not be unnecessarily

detailed.

A defense attorney will look for information

to impeach

a victim’s credibility on the witness stand. This effort will start with the victim’s original statement. Because
of the intense emotional states associated with many offenses against

a person, actual victims often (unknowingly) exaggerate elements
of it. Common areas of exaggeration are the length of time spent with the assailant, the size of a weapon, or the physical closeness between the victim and assailant. These types of details are often unnecessary

to support the elements
of the offense but, if iflcluded
in a statement,
do open doors for later cross examination, e.g., ‘You initially told the police that the man who raped you was 6’ 4”. My client is only 6’ feet tall!” During an interview with a victim

it is wise to ask questions that check for perceptual distortions. For example,

if the assailant stood against

a particular wall, the witness could be asked to identify

a spot on the wall that marked the top of his head. To elicit the length of a knife blade, the investigatDr could hold a pen at different lengths to better allow the witness to compare the length of the pen to that of the knife blade. Unless the victim or complainant

is able to confidently substantiate such details within

a statement,

it may be prudent
to qualify the written statement. Examples
of qualifying language include, “the knife used was approximately

6 inches long” or, “the man said, cooperate with me or your kids will die, or words to that effect.” The victim’s statement should reflect his or her own language. Imagine the embarrassment
for the prosecution when the defense attorney asks the victim to define aword contained within his or her statement and the victim
is unable to do so, or defines

it improperly. Especially when dealing with younger victims or individuals with little education, the language
oftheir statement should reflect their age, level of education, and cultural background.

In sex cases

it is often beneficial
to establish,
at the outset of the interview, the victim’s own terminology for sexual behavior.

ft is important that the investigator clarify with the victim the meaning
of any specific terminology used. We learned this lesson from years of conducting paternity polygraph examinations where the central issue concerns the term “sexual intercourse”.
An amazing number of women offered

a faulty definition
of sexual intercourse.
To some, sexual intercourse involved any physical contact with-a man’s penis; others believed that sexual intercourse did not occur
if the man wore
a condom. The victim or complainant shou’d validate the statement
as accurate. After the statement has been reduced
to writing, the victim or complainant should be asked to write the following sentence: “Everything

in this statement

is true and accurate.” The primary purpose for this is to create an incentive and opportunity for the victim or complainant

to review the statement one more time to make any necessary changes before accepting full responsibility
for its validity. •Not uncommonly,

a person who has fabricated
or exaggerated elements
of a claim will modify portions of their statement before validating
its authenticity. The inclusion of such a statement may also be beneficial

in later. prosecuting

or disciplining

avictim or complainant

if the alleged incident turns out to be false.