FOR2602

FORENSIC METHODS AND TECHNIQUES

UNIQUE NUMBER :590780
STUDENT NUMBER :58474323
INITIALS AND SURNAME :M.GUMEDE
DUE DATE :03-04-2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Question 1…………………………………………Page 1 to Page 5
Question 2…………………………………………Page 5 to Page 12
Question 3 ………………………………………...Page 12 to page 14
Question 4 …………………………………………Page 14 to Page 17
Declaration form …………………………………..Page 18
References ………………………………………...Page 19
QUESTION 1

1.1 Principles to be adhered to in the interviewing process:

Regardless of whether you are interviewing a witness or a suspect, the following basic
principles should be adhered to:
• In the first place, a good interviewer is prepared. He/she understands what the
matter involves and is familiar with the information at his/her disposal. He/she knows
what issues should be raised with the specific witness. In order to ensure the witness
or suspect’s cooperation, he/she must appear to be confident; yet this will not be
possible if the interviewer is ill-prepared. On the other hand, the witness will probably
be more at ease if he/she perceives that the information he/she provides will be left in
capable hands. He/she will also be more inclined to trust the investigator and, therefore,
be more willing to provide all relevant information. Coupled with the aforesaid, and
especially in cases of a financial nature, it is important to be organised and to have
copies of relevant documents to show to the witness being interviewed.

A good interviewer knows which irregularities the suspect may have committed. If the
contravention is of such a nature that disciplinary steps will probably be instituted, the
interviewer should be familiar with the organisation’s policies and code of conduct in
order to establish whether the conduct in question does indeed constitute misconduct.
A basic knowledge of labour law and any collective agreements in place with trade
unions, which may affect the interview process, is also advisable.

• In the second place, the location where the interview is to be conducted should
be considered. For typical fact-finding interviews, the witness should generally be
interviewed where he/she is comfortable. Depending on the nature of the anticipated
information to be obtained from the witness, the latter’s workplace might be an
ideal location, since he/she will likely have access to the required information and
the interviewer can also observe the relevant processes first-hand. A suspect, on the
other hand, should not have a psychological “home-field” advantage and should not
be interviewed in his/her office or at home (Silverstone & Sheetz 2007:140).
For any interview, however, it is important that privacy be ensured and that any
interruptions be avoided, as far as possible.

• In the third place, the interviewer should establish rapport with the witness. Hess
(2010:14) accords so much weight to this aspect of the interview that he suggests that
the interviewer not advance to the next step of the interview until rapport has been
established. A good idea is to engage in general conversation initially. This puts a
witness
at ease, but may also help the interviewer to “calibrate” the witness’s responses (i.e.
determine the standard/norm): For example, is he/she generally a nervous person with
unique mannerisms (which can be observed during the rapport-building phase), or
does this behaviour manifest only when he/she responds to more sensitive questions
posed during the actual interview?
The building of rapport is also important when interviewing a suspect. The interviewer
must be able to divorce his/her feelings about the suspect’s irregular conduct from his/
her behaviour towards the suspect. Failure to do so will likely result in uncooperative
behaviour by the suspect: If a suspect feels rejected or condemned by the interviewer,
the latter will find it difficult to offer the suspect possible rationalisations at the
admission-seeking phase of the interview, as will be discussed infra.

• In the fourth place, the failure to listen to what the witness or suspect has to say is
one of the most common mistakes made by interviewers. By listening and observing,
an interviewer can obtain much more information than would be possible with a
barrage of pre-planned questions.
• In the fifth place, the interviewer should be aware of the verbal responses. Some of
the more reliable verbal cues to deception mentioned in the literature include the
presence of more ambivalent versions and the inclusion of less detail irrespective.

1.2 The Interrogation Process

Interrogation is a highly structured process that is made up of a number of sequential
steps. It serves no purpose for you, as an investigator, to question a suspect without
first
making an eff ort to establish rapport with him/her and, in the process, get him/her to
communicate and supply you with valuable information. Even where a suspect or
witness
tells lies, the information obtained may be of vital importance.
Preparation
As an interrogator, the better prepared you are before commencing an interrogation, the
better your chances of success. You should know as much as possible about the
suspect
and base your interrogation strategy on that information. An important initial step is to
know the suspect’s name.
When addressing people in general, it is a very good strategy to use their names. This
immediately creates a contact point between you and them and it makes people feel
important that you know their name. This is also the very first step in building rapport
and establishing the foundation for eff ective communication.
It is considered good practice to compile a personal fi le on each suspect to be
interrogated.
Along with the personal fi le, you – as the interrogator – should also be thoroughly
familiar
with the facts of the case and the evidence.

Introduction
The introduction sets the tone for the interrogation. The investigator must be
professional
and convey an aura of self-confidence and ability. The introduction also explains the
reason for conducting the interrogation.
Reading of rights
It is a legal requirement for a police offi cer to warn a person that he or she is a suspect
in an investigation. You may think that a corporate or private investigator is not required
to do this, but you are strongly advised to do so.
From a legal perspective, a confession to a police officer is usually not admissible as
evidence, whereas a confession to a private person (e.g. you, as the investigator) may
be
admissible as evidence.
It is important that you conclude this crucial step (informing suspects of their rights) as
soon as possible, even before you confront or build rapport with suspects. It must be
concluded before suspects confess, otherwise the confession will have to be interrupted
to inform the suspect of his/her rights, which might cause the suspect to change his/her
mind about making the confession.
These rights include the right to remain silent and to be informed of the consequences
of
not remaining silent, the right not to be compelled to make any confession or admission
that could be used as evidence against them, and the right to choose and be
represented
by an attorney.
Rapport building
As the interrogator, you have to establish a basis of respect and create a safe space
that
will influence your suspects to cooperate and communicate with you. During this step,
you will engage your suspects in cliché conversation. You should remove obstacles
between you, face the suspect, make eye contact, nod your head and match their facial
expressions.
Questioning
Only once rapport has been established between you, as the interrogator, and your
suspect can you continue to the next phase, namely questioning. You will now ask your
suspect an open-ended question, for example: “What happened”?
Verification
After a suspect has answered all your questions, you should revisit the information
provided
by the suspect to ensure that it has been captured correctly (through note-taking and/
or voice recording). You do this to ensure that there is a mutual understanding between
you and the suspect regarding the meaning of words and phrases used. This is also the
ideal opportunity to take more detailed notes.
Presenting evidence and confronting the suspect
This is the stage in the process where you, as the interrogator, present case evidence
to
the suspect. However, before you do so, there are some crucial elements to consider.
It is important to bear in mind that different techniques exist for continuing such an
interrogation. The circumstances of each case, the experience of the interrogator and
the
personality/character of the suspect are some of the factors that may affect the
technique
used or the strategy applied.

Question 2
2.1. The ability to deliver quality testimony at a hearing is an important skill for an
investigator.
This is the stage at which your work as an investigator will be accepted, rejected or
criticised. Remember: the more important the case, the higher the stakes. In this
context,
it is only natural for a witness to feel apprehensive and nervous about testifying in court
or at a hearing.
As a witness, it is important that you approach your testimony in a positive manner. If
you have done your best and acted professionally, you have nothing to worry about. It
is not your function, as an investigator and witness, to determine the outcome of such a
case or hearing. It is, however, the function of the legal counsel of the accused – or
even
the accused himself/herself – to focus on any mistakes and discrepancies in your work,
which may have been revealed during the trial/hearing.
To ensure that you perform the task of testifying to the best of your ability, there are a
number of aspects you should keep in mind:
• Concentrate on the essence of the matter about which you are testifying. As a
witness, you will be requested to tell the court or presiding offi cer what you know about
the matter at hand. Upon completion of your testimony, the prosecutor may ask you
specifi c questions. Directly thereafter, the accused or the legal representative of the
accused has the opportunity to cross-examine you on your testimony. When asked a
specifi c question, you should formulate and deliver a clear, concise and relevant
answer.
• If you do not understand a question, ask that the question be repeated or even
rephrased. You may also then paraphrase (express in other words) the question you
are asked to make sure that you understand it correctly. For example: “If I understand
the question correctly, the defence wants to know from me what colour shirt the
accused was wearing when I arrested him?” In so doing, you make sure that what you
heard is what you understand it to be. Sometimes during stressful situations (such as
when testifying), what you hear is not always what you understand it to be, so rather
clarify the question before you blurt out the answer you think the court wants to hear.
When you are unsure or unable to answer a specifi c question, indicate that fact to
the court or presiding offi cer.
• Be familiar with the case and the information contained in the case docket or fi le
before testifying. Be prepared and ready to testify. It is not advisable to read your
statement quickly before testifying and then rely on memorising certain information.
You must prepare properly. Witnesses must be briefed and prepared before the day
on which they are required to testify.
• You must always be presentable in court. That is especially true of an investigator
who is also a witness. The judge, magistrate or presiding offi cer takes note of the
professional image you portray. A positive impression goes a long way in establishing
the credibility of a witness. This is even more important for you, as the investigator,
as not only is your own credibility on the line, but also the credibility of the entire
investigation that you conducted. How seriously do you think the court will take you
if you appear wearing scruff y clothing? There have been instances when investigating
offi cers were asked to leave the court room because of their inappropriate attire. First
impressions are lasting, so you need to make a good one.
• Professional conduct is the criterion by which an investigator is measured. To that
end, you should be properly dressed, clean and presentable.
• You should also be punctual. This means that you have to arrive early to assist the
prosecutor with any questions he/she may have.
• Answer questions honestly and sincerely. Elaborate only when requested to do so,
or when it is necessary to explain a diffi cult point or concept. If the question calls for
a simple “yes” or “no” answer, provide only that.
• Admit it when you have made a mistake and rectify that mistake at the earliest
possible opportunity.
• Think before you answer.
CONDUCT IN THE WITNESS BOX
First impressions are important. When you are called into a courtroom as a witness, you
must bow your head to the judge or magistrate as a sign of respect and a confirmation
of the authority of the court. You must then precede to the witness box, where you will
take your place inside the box, facing the judge, magistrate or presiding officer. It is not
necessary to bow your head when entering a room, other than a court room. It is good
practice to formally acknowledge the presence of the prosecutor and legal counsel by
making eye contact and nodding your head at them.
When addressed by the prosecutor, you must look directly at him/her. The same applies
to the legal counsel. When answering a question, however, direct your answer to the
court or presiding officer.
A hearing is a serious environment; making jokes or viewing the case you are testifying
about in a light-hearted manner is an indication of disrespect. Respect is a prerequisite
of professionalism.
You should also not be a bundle of nerves, pacing up and down, looking worried,
unsure of
yourself or flustered. As a witness, you should be composed and self-confident.
Remember that self-confidence must not be confused with arrogance. As an
investigator, you need
to be confident in your knowledge and ability, not only to investigate, but also to testify.
This confidence will be portrayed in the quality of the cases you present to the court. A
confident investigator-cum-witness is confi dent in his/her own knowledge and ability,
as well as in the quality of the case being presented.
Nonverbal communication forms an important part of your testimony as a witness. You
must stand upright, talk clearly and remain calm. If you do not agree with a statement
made by the defence counsel, you should state your objection or disagreement with that
statement respectfully. You should never engage in an argument or lose your temper.
Moreover, the use of foul language is never acceptable, unless you are quoting
something
with the permission of the court. Also refrain from any form of comment that may be
interpreted as insensitive in terms of race, gender, ethnicity, occupation, etc.
After finalising your testimony and being excused from the hearing, you leave the room
as you entered it, by turning at the door and bowing slightly in the direction of the
presiding officer. In summary, enter, testify and then leave with dignity, thus affording
the proceedings the required respect.
NOTES
As already discussed in this unit, the notes you compile during an investigation may
be crucial at a later hearing. Eff ective note-taking during an investigation, especially in
important and complex cases, may mean the diff erence between success and failure.
Incomplete and poorly made notes, along with poorly written statements, probably
account for a large number of unsuccessfully prosecuted cases in South Africa today.
As mentioned above, you are allowed to take your notes into the witness box when
testifying. However, it is advisable that you refer to them only when testifying about
specific
and difficult details, such as names, numbers, descriptions and explanations made by
an
accused. When referring to your notes, the following legal requirements must be met:
• The notes to which you refer must have been made by yourself or someone on your
behalf.
• You made the notes at the time of the incident or shortly thereafter, when the events
were still fresh in your memory.
• You must be in possession of the original notes, unless those were destroyed or lost;
in the latter case, you may use copies.
• You must be prepared to place the notes at the disposal of the court. This means that
the presiding officer, prosecutor and legal counsel for the defence will have access to
them. You may be subjected to cross-examination by the defence counsel.
As a witness, you can also refer to photographs that you took during the investigation,
if applicable. In this regard, you have to testify that you took the photographs, that the
images displayed in the photographs represent what you saw on a particular date and
time, and that you did not alter any of the images. Once such a photograph is accepted
as evidence, you can testify on the basis of that photograph. There is a saying: “A
picture
[photograph] is worth a thousand words.” Moreover, the rough sketch you drew at the
scene will go far to corroborate your testimony based on the photograph. Remember:

you were there; the defence counsel was not.

In this unit we emphasised the importance of displaying professional behaviour when
you testify as a witness. We also mentioned that investigators need to give more
attention
to this aspect of their work, since many cases are lost as a result of ineffective
testimony
and unprofessional behaviour by investigators.
Ironically, these aspects are probably the easiest skills for investigators to acquire and
practise. It is normal for any person to be nervous when asked to testify, but with time
and
practise, this becomes easier, although it is never easy. Ironically, too, the more
experienced
you become, the higher the standards you will have to adhere to: an inexperienced
investigator may be forgiven when he/she makes mistakes, but this is not the case with
an experienced investigator.
No matter what your skill and experience are at present, always strive to convey an
image
of professionalism. It is important to conduct yourself with integrity and always present
the truth.

2.2 verbal and Non verbal clues indicating deception :

Specifi c verbal and nonverbal behavioural clues

Below we will examine a number of specifi c verbal and nonverbal behavioural clues
that
may indicate deception:
• Pitch as a quality-of-speech indicator. Pitch is the degree of highness or lowness
of a tone (South African concise Oxford dictionary 2007:889). When the voice pitch of
a suspect changes (rises) in a high-stress situation, the suspect experiences a strong
reaction to the question asked. A drop in the voice pitch of the suspect may indicate a
drop in emotional energy or a withdrawal into depression/emotional isolation. Words
may become deep and husky, less distinct and difficult to hear and understand. These
clues may be indicators of deception.
• Volume as a quality-of-speech indicator. The most common response from suspects
under stress is to raise their voice. They need to raise their voice in order to express
confidence in their remarks. A raised voice may also demonstrate dominance or control.
Sometimes a drop in the volume is also an indicator of stress. As mentioned earlier,
this may be an indication of emotional withdrawal associated with a depression-like
state. The words may sound muttered or whispered. These clues may be indicators
of deception.
• Rate of speech as a quality-of-speech indicator. This clue is directly related to a
suspect’s mental processing rate. When a suspect answers a question more slowly than
the norm, it may indicate that the suspect is thinking about and contemplating the
words to use. When a suspect is prepared for a specific answer, his/her rate of speech
increases. Therefore, when you, as the interrogator, ask the suspect an unexpected
question and the suspect has to think about what to say, his/her answer will usually
take longer than the norm. These clues may be indicators of deception. Therefore, as
the interrogator, you need to establish what the norm is for the suspect in terms of
answering speed and then make your deductions accordingly. When telling the truth,
the suspect will react spontaneously and his/her rate of speech will increase.
• Speech dysfunction or errors. When under stress, people tend to make more
speech related errors than otherwise. Suspects become unclear about what they want
to say
or refrain from saying. Speech dysfunction can be in the form of paralinguistic cues
or sounds (i.e. the non-word component of a language). Examples are sounds such as
“uh” and “um”; these indicate a heightened level of stress and can also be an indication
of stalling on the part of the suspect. Gulping, swallowing, stammering and stuttering
are also good indicators of increased stress. A nervous laugh may indicate a release
of nervous tension. All these clues may be indicators of deception.
• Anger as a verbal/nonverbal indicator of possible deception. When anger is
displayed,
it may be an attempt by the suspect to dominate the interrogator. The suspect may do
this by attacking and insulting the interrogator. Whereas you would normally react to
such remarks, you need to remember that an interrogation is not a normal situation.
If you, as the interrogator, react to whatever the suspect has said, the communication
between you and the suspect will deteriorate.
• Depression as a verbal/nonverbal indicator of possible deception. Whereas a
display
of anger indicates that the focus of the suspect’s anger is external (i.e. directed at
you), suspects who enter into a state of depression direct their anger inward (i.e. they
internalise the anger). These suspects isolate themselves from reality and mentally
withdraw from the interrogation. As the interrogator, you must be sure to interpret
the behaviour of the suspect correctly because the body language of depression may
be similar to that of a person ready to confess.
• Denial as a verbal indicator of possible deception. Denial, as a response, is possibly
the most widely used deception ploy when a suspect is in a stressful situation.
• Memory lapses as verbal indicators of possible deception. This ploy is used when
suspects have to give an answer that may be incriminating (i.e. have negative
consequences for them). This may be a good indicator of deception, especially when
the discussion turns relevant. Examples: “I can’t remember”; “I don’t recall”; “to the
best of my knowledge”.
• Religious statements as verbal indicators of possible deception. The suspect wants
to add credibility to his/her statement. Examples: “I swear on my mother’s grave”; “I
swear on the Bible”; “as God is my witness”.
• Personal moral statements as verbal indicators of possible deception. By making
such statements, suspects want to portray themselves as credible witnesses.
Examples:
“I am a law-abiding citizen”; “I was properly raised”; “I am a minister in the church”.
• Talking in the third person as a verbal indicator of possible deception. By talking
in the third person, suspects do not deny the charge, but distance themselves from
it. Examples: “The gun went off ”, instead of “I fired the gun”.

Question 3
3.1 •Direct evidence
This type of evidence refers to the testimony of a witness who testifies directly about
the involvement of an accused in a specific crime.
• Circumstantial evidence
Circumstantial evidence refers to all evidence, other than direct evidence, that logically
relates to an accused and/or a crime
•Opinion evidence
implies that witnesses are generally not
permitted to state their opinions or draw conclusions on matters about which they are
testifying. It is the function of a court, tribunal or hearing to determine the truthfulness
of facts presented .
3.2.The Purpose of a Warrant
The purpose of a section 43 warrant is to arrest a person and bring such person before
the court as soon as possible (section 50). This warrant is a document that contains an
order instructing the arresting officer (police official) to arrest and bring before court the
person named and described in the warrant.
3.3. THE INVESTIGATION PROCESS
The investigation process will be discussed again here to indicate the path you will
probably
follow when conducting an investigation. Remember that as a private/corporate
investigator,
your approach may diff er from that followed by the police. The type of investigation you
are conducting, as well as your mandate, will usually determine the process.
The investigation process can be graphically illustrated as follows:

THE CRIME INVESTIGATION PROCESS

QUESTION 4
4.1 Often entities in the business/corporate/private environment are reluctant to call in
the
police. There are a number of reasons why this is so, and some of the more important
ones are discussed below:
• Private/corporate investigators usually act quickly and allocate more
time to a specific investigation. Police investigators normally have a high
caseload, while private/corporate investigators tend to focus on a specific case until
it has been finalised. The investigation is usually finalised within a short period of
time – in the private sector, time equals money and results get rewarded. To a private
investigator, finalisation means payment. In the public sector, the finalisation of cases
can drag on for months or even years.
• In the private/corporate sector, the client is provided with regular feedback and an
investigation report is submitted at the completion of the investigation; payment often
follows the submission of a report. Poor communication and feedback to a client can
easily lead to the cancellation of an investigator’s mandate.
• The client in the private/corporate sector can be assisted with an ensuing civil action;
civil action often follows criminal acts. For example, where an employee has defrauded
a company, that company will probably sue the employee for damages (especially
where those damages are substantial). Evidence obtained by a private/corporate
investigator linking the employee to the crime can – and probably will – be used later
in civil litigation. This is a unique function of private/corporate investigators, as it falls
outside the police’s domain.
• Private/corporate investigators actively engage with the police once a case has been
reported and they promote the interests of the client with the police and/or prosecutor.
Although the involvement of a private/corporate investigator in a criminal case is
often frowned upon by the police, the reality is that they usually add value to such
an investigation and put pressure on the police to act. Where a private/corporate
investigator acts within the bounds of the law and in the interest of justice, such
assistance can be very valuable.
• Private/corporate investigators can help to ensure that a case is successfully seen
through court, if so required, for example by ensuring that witnesses are present
to testify in court. Although this is primarily a police function, a private/corporate
investigator who has a material interest in a case can greatly assist in this regard
•Private/corporate investigators bring a level of expertise to an investigation that may
not be present in the police investigators working on a specific case. Investigations
can be very complex and difficult, requiring specialised knowledge. Sometimes such
knowledge is found in the person of a private/corporate investigator.

4.2 A number of factors affect the susceptibility of a suspect to receive information and
respond to it here are some of the reasons below:
• Personality of the suspect. The type of person you are is normally shown by the
way you behave, feel and think. As the interrogator, you must be able to judge the
person you are interrogating correctly. Should you and the suspect have diff erent
personalities, communication may be difficult. In that case, you will have to adapt to
the personality of the suspect and be able to break down possible communication
barriers caused by personality clashes.
• Cognitive behaviour of the suspect. Cognitive behaviour refers to the mental action
or process of acquiring knowledge through thought, experience and the senses (South
African concise Oxford dictionary 2007:224). As an interrogator, you have to be acutely
aware of the fact that not all suspects react in the same way when interrogated.
People do not take in information or react to it in the same way. With some suspects,
an interrogator has to interact and exchange information patiently for an extended
period, while other suspects may be very quick in their perceptions and interaction
with the interrogator.
• Expectations that the suspect has about the world. The way people see the world
often determines their response in certain situations. To explain this factor, two
examples are discussed: in the fi rst example, an investigator interrogates a hardened
and
violent career criminal, and in the second example, the same investigator interrogates
a suspect who is a respected senior manager at a company.
Irrespective of the crime, offence or misconduct being investigated, the interaction
between the suspect and the interrogator will probably be totally diff erent in these
two examples.
• Whether the suspect is under the influence of drugs, medication, alcohol, etc.
From a legal and moral perspective, such a person is usually not interrogated. As an
investigator, you must be aware that suspects may use certain drugs or medicine on
purpose, for instance to help them to suppress their emotions and anxiety during an
interrogation
4.3 An affidavit is typically defined as a written declaration or statement that is sworn or
affirmed before a person who has authority to administer an oath. There is no general
defined form for an affidavit, although for some proceedings an affidavit must satisfy
legal or statutory requirements in order to be considered. An affidavit may include,

• a commencement which identifies the affiant;

• an attestation clause, usually a jurat , at the end certifying that the affiant
made the statement under oath on the specified date;
• signatures of the affiant and person who administered the oath.
In some cases, an introductory clause, called a preamble, is added attesting that the
affiant personally appeared before the authenticating authority. An affidavit may also
recite that the statement it records was made under penalty of perjury.
An affidavit that is prepared for use within the context of litigation may also include a
caption that identifies the venue and parties to the relevant judicial proceedings.
REFERENCES
FOR2602/1/2016–2018
DQ Mabunda
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavit