Jason, your last two methods of interview are particularly important in deciding whether a witness is telling the truth. Changing order, making a witness tell the story backwards, is particularly helpful when a witness may be providing a self-serving account based on lies about what happened. A lie is easy to remember, telling it forward. But telling it backward, or from a different perspective, does get confusing. Some witnesses with a stake in the outcome may have already constructed an elaborate and untruthful version of an event but it is harder to maintain their new narrative when they are forced into remembering the supporting details. Cops (patrolmen, detectives, intelligence agents, prosecutors) are often required to "break" a story that contradicts the narrative that has been developed from other witnesses, informants, and undercover operatives. Telling the story backwards, or confronting the interview subject with a new "fact" that contradicts their narrative, can force them into fumbling, mumbling or, if they are quick-minded, into inventing a new "fact" to explain away the contradiction. (And yes, sometimes police interviewers lie, telling subjects there is a "fact" that blow their innocence narrative out of the water. That's permitted in the US, but not, I think, in England. Some commentators may call that kind of lying "dirty pool," but courts here have often upheld it.) So witness interviews may be valuable in describing car wrecks or fresh criminal scenes. But once witnesses, even police officer witnesses, develop a vested interest in "what happened," the ground shifts. That's the basis of Rashomon and it also applies in my favorite Western movie, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.
Thanks for your comments, Evan! You are quite right that these techniques can be used for multiple purposes. Catching liars is definitely one of them! Indeed, if you ask police officers what they'd really like from a psychologist, it is often that - a way to tell who's lying. It's not quite my area of speciality, but maybe you'd read the piece by my colleague, Arjen, on Statement Verification: https://jasonfrowley.substack.com/p/forensic-psychology-how-to-prove
The Cognitive Interview was really developed to try to glean as much detail as possible from witnesses who are honestly trying to help. Of course, that's not every case or even every witness, but where it is, it's proven pretty helpful. At any rate, it seems, so far, better than anything else that's come along!
I've read your DM, by the way, and shall get back to you on that as soon as I get five.
Thank you for this really interesting article on interview techniques and what they generate. Collecting information seems to be vital. Paradoxically, I would venture to guess that most representation of policing in the media and other places do not depict ordinary police work as being as important as it can be.
Jason, your last two methods of interview are particularly important in deciding whether a witness is telling the truth. Changing order, making a witness tell the story backwards, is particularly helpful when a witness may be providing a self-serving account based on lies about what happened. A lie is easy to remember, telling it forward. But telling it backward, or from a different perspective, does get confusing. Some witnesses with a stake in the outcome may have already constructed an elaborate and untruthful version of an event but it is harder to maintain their new narrative when they are forced into remembering the supporting details. Cops (patrolmen, detectives, intelligence agents, prosecutors) are often required to "break" a story that contradicts the narrative that has been developed from other witnesses, informants, and undercover operatives. Telling the story backwards, or confronting the interview subject with a new "fact" that contradicts their narrative, can force them into fumbling, mumbling or, if they are quick-minded, into inventing a new "fact" to explain away the contradiction. (And yes, sometimes police interviewers lie, telling subjects there is a "fact" that blow their innocence narrative out of the water. That's permitted in the US, but not, I think, in England. Some commentators may call that kind of lying "dirty pool," but courts here have often upheld it.) So witness interviews may be valuable in describing car wrecks or fresh criminal scenes. But once witnesses, even police officer witnesses, develop a vested interest in "what happened," the ground shifts. That's the basis of Rashomon and it also applies in my favorite Western movie, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.
Thanks for your comments, Evan! You are quite right that these techniques can be used for multiple purposes. Catching liars is definitely one of them! Indeed, if you ask police officers what they'd really like from a psychologist, it is often that - a way to tell who's lying. It's not quite my area of speciality, but maybe you'd read the piece by my colleague, Arjen, on Statement Verification: https://jasonfrowley.substack.com/p/forensic-psychology-how-to-prove
The Cognitive Interview was really developed to try to glean as much detail as possible from witnesses who are honestly trying to help. Of course, that's not every case or even every witness, but where it is, it's proven pretty helpful. At any rate, it seems, so far, better than anything else that's come along!
I've read your DM, by the way, and shall get back to you on that as soon as I get five.
Another winner— fascinating piece.
Thank you, Karl!
Thank you for this really interesting article on interview techniques and what they generate. Collecting information seems to be vital. Paradoxically, I would venture to guess that most representation of policing in the media and other places do not depict ordinary police work as being as important as it can be.