However, no written statement is taken from the employee. The employee is terminated fo

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 testifiesthat 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’scredibility 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 suspect
with

certainty

benefit

is that he did

not acknowledge them during his interrogation. This introduces

a final

during

to taking

a written statement, which is that it commits the subject to the admissions made

signed

an interview or interrogation. The above mentioned employee would never have written or

a statement such as,

to

“During

8 times.

the

The

six months

first

that I worked at XWZ Corporation I have falsified the hours that I worked

6 time was in February 2002 when I added

2 hours to my time card. The last

time

time was in June 2002 when I also added

2 hours of time that I did not work. The total amount of

did

1 have been paid for that I did, not work would be between 12 to 14 hours. I am very sorry I

No

this and the reason did it was because I have not been given enough hours to pay my bills.

Had

threats or promises were made to me to write this and everything I wrote is the truth.” the investigator in this case attempted to take such

a written statement he would have

have

immediately recognized that the employee had not confessed to time card violations. This may resulted in further interrogation of the employee, or

a realization that the employee was not

case

involved

would

in significant time card violations. In either event, the taking of

a written statement in this have potentially protected the company from civil liability.

The

made

issue arises as to whether

a written statement should be taken from every subject who has incriminating statements. As

a guideline, it is prudent to take

a written statement anytime the subject’s admissions may lead to an adverse impact on the subject, e.g., suspension,

advice.

demotion, termination, prosecution. It only takes one lawsuit to appreciate the importance of this

statement

In conclusion,

after

our experience has been that about 80% of suspects will readily write out their own

which

they confess. For the remaining 20%, the investigator can write out

a statement, the suspect’will read, make any required corrections, and then sign. This procedure

it

generally

will enhance

takes no more than 10-15 minutes and serves three important functions. The first is that

confess. Second,

the investigator’s credibility in ‘court when he testifies that the suspect did, in fact,

a written 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.
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 subjectdoes 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, well V 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. SIC V

V
Finally, by taking written notes during an interview, an investigator can review an interview days or weeks after it was conducted and reconstruct significant verbal the subject’s and nonverbal especially beneficial when responses during the interview. This is

on the same case in

a number of possible suspects have been interviewed that the investigator can make intra-suspect comparisons to help identify who can, or can not, be eliminated as

a suspect.

As

a caveat to this entire discussion it is important notes are taken during to emphasize that if written an interview, response. Conversely, they need to be taken following every

responses, this will

if sporadic notes are taken following only selected

hesitant in offering further have the effect of causing the subject to be guarded and information. Sporadic note taking alerts the subject as to the apparent meaningful information. importance of

a particular response and results.in less

http:Ilwww.reid.comleducational_infofrjips.html
misleading 

y 

g

deception during an interview. The perpetrator, knowing precisely what was done during thecrime, 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 substancewhatsoever. 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 fairlymeaningless 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 of
The

has been

victim or complainant shou’d validate the statement as accurate. After the statement

sentence:

reduced to writing, the victim or complainant should be asked to write the following

create an incentive

“Everything in this statement is true and accurate.” The primary purpose for this is to

more time

and opportunity for the victim or complainant to review the statement one to make any necessary changes before accepting full responsibility for its validity. •

portions

Not uncommonly,

a person who has fabricated or exaggerated elements of

a claim will modify

may

of their statement before validating its authenticity. The inclusion of such

a statement

incident

also

turns

be beneficial in later. prosecuting or disciplining

a victim or complainant if the alleged out to be false.