10 Good Qualities of Good Investigator

Strong planning and project management skills. An investigator will need to develop a
working timeline for the investigation, determine the relevant documents and other evidence that
may aid in the investigation, consider a necessary interim action (such as a suspension), decide
whom to interview and in what order, and develop interview questions and plans. The
investigator must also be open to reviewing and revising her plans as the investigation develops.

Forward-thinking mindset. An effective investigator must think through how his investigation
can affect operations and create further issues for the company. For example, the investigator
should consider the likelihood of the rumor mill running rampant (and whether that should affect
interview order), how to minimize employee morale issues caused by the investigation, and how
to minimize potential legal problems and losses from the way the investigation is conducted.

Aptitude for multitasking. An investigator must be skilled at listening, observing, and taking
notes at the same time, which is easier said than done. (Note, however, that if an investigation
involves particularly complicated allegations or significant risk, you should consider enlisting
two investigators, which can be helpful in a number of ways.) To avoid lost opportunities, the
investigator should consider how he can most effectively multitask well in advance of the first
interview.

Willingness to seek outside help. Additionally, an effective investigator is willing to seek

outside assistance, from another investigator or a person with specific expertise, at any point
during the investigation. Perhaps even more important, an effective investigator is able to
identify when outside assistance is needed. For example, the investigator may solicit legal or
compliance assistance if a legal violation is alleged, obtain risk-management assistance if a
workers’ comp or insurance issue presents itself, or involve local law enforcement if an
allegation has potential criminal implications.

Ability to establish rapport. An effective investigator is able to quickly establish a rapport so

the interviewee is willing to share what he knows. The investigator must also establish a rapport
with the accused but must be mindful of communicating in ways that suggest she has lost her
objectivity and is taking sides.

Respect for others. Regardless of the nature of the allegations, the investigator must always
show respect for the speaker and his expressed opinions and impressions about the incident.
Failing to do so, particularly at the beginning of an interview, may compromise the investigator’s
ability to solicit information from the interviewee.

Objectivity. Although many investigations quickly reveal that they are leading toward a
particular conclusion, an effective investigator maintains objectivity throughout the entire
process. That allows the investigator to review all the evidence with impartiality and prevents
erroneous and cursory conclusions.
Ability to listen carefully. In addition to being a skilled multitasker, a good investigator reads
between the lines and listens to what is being said as well as what isn’t being said during the
interview. An experienced investigator may craft follow-up questions based on what someone
doesn’t say in an interview. The investigator should incorporate her more nuanced observations
into her written findings if they’re significant.

Ability to assess credibility and draw conclusions. Last, but certainly not least, an effective
investigator is able to make solid credibility assessments during interviews with witnesses and
document his assessments. That may include evaluating the interviewee’s memory, comparing
the interviewee’s stories to others’ stories, watching for potential cues that indicate deception,
and observing physical attributes during the interview, such as demeanor, manner of speaking,
and body language. The investigator must avoid relying on his own assumptions and biases
during the assessment process. Additionally, a good investigator understands and appreciates that
his job at the end of the day is to reach a conclusion, and he isn’t afraid to do that.
 Difference of Confession and Admission
1. Admission

 An admission is evidence presented in trial that consists of either a written or oral

statement by the Accused admitting some fact made to a witness. This form
of admission is a categorical exception to the hearsay rule of inadmissibility. ...
An admission can be made by actions/conduct rather than simply words.
 It is a statement of fact but not admission of guilt

2. Confession
 A confession, as distinguished from an admission, is a declaration made at any
time by a person, voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement, stating or
acknowledging that he had committed or participated in the commission of a
crime.

A. Extra Judicial Confession

 Extrajudicial Confession is a confession made out of court, and not as a part of a
judicial examination or investigation. Such a confession must be corroborated by
some other proof of the corpus delicti, or else it is insufficient to warrant a
conviction. It is inadmissible to the court

B. Judicial Confession
 Judicial confession is a confession made in a legal proceeding. Judicial
confession is made before a committing magistrate or in a court in the due course
of legal proceedings. It is admissible to the court.