Regional Training Center – 3

Luis Dizon Drive, Magalang, Pampanga

Junior Leadership Course

01-Echo

Interview and Interrogations

July 2,, 2021
0800H-1400H
Mr. Cesar C. Calmda, MA Crim
Invited Lecturer
TOPP 2003

0995 0852610
charlieadamlac03#@gmail.com
FB Acount: Charlie Calmada
 INTERVIEW
AND
INTERROGATION
 “Understanding the correct processes and
legal parameters for interviewing, questioning,
and interrogation, can make the difference
between having a suspect’s confession
accepted as evidence by the court or not.”
What is Investigative
Interviewing?
 Investigative interviewing is a non-
coercive method for questioning victims,
witnesses and suspects of crimes.
• Generally, investigative
interviewing "involves eliciting a detailed
and accurate account of an event or
situation from a person to assist decision-
making".
What is the difference
between Interview and
Interrogation?
• Interviews are used in an investigation to gather
information — objective facts — by asking open-
ended questions and allowing the witness to
supply the evidence. ... Interrogations, on the
other hand, are designed to extract confessions
where police already have other concrete
evidence connecting the suspect to the crime.
 Interrogation Defined
• An interrogation , in law enforcement, is when a
representative from the agency collects information
about a crime by questioning suspects, victims, or
witnesses.

• The ultimate goal of an interrogation is to solve the

crime. An interrogation with a suspect can last a few
minutes to several hours.
 REID Method of Interrogation
• The Reid method is a system of interviewing and
interrogation widely used by police departments in the
United States.

• The term “The Reid Technique of Interviewing and

Interrogation” is a registered trademark of John E.
Reid and Associates, Inc.
 REID Method of Interrogation

• According to the company's website, over

500,000 law enforcement and security
professionals have attended the company's
interview and interrogation training programs
since they were first offered in 1974.
 Two Methods of Interrogation Techniques
Two alternative interrogation techniques are:

(1) Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain,

Account, Closure and Evaluate (PEACE), a less
confrontational method used in England, and

(2) the Kinesic Interview, a method that focuses on

recognizing deception.
 The REID Technique

The Reid Technique involves three components:

1. factual analysis,
2. interviewing, and
3. interrogation.
 Factual Analysis
• Factual Analysis is an inductive approach where each
individual suspect is evaluated with respect to specific
observations relating to the crime.

• Consequently, factual analysis relies not only on

crime scene analysis, but also on information learned
about each suspect.
This factual analysis is also intended to “identify
characteristics about the suspect and the crime
which will be helpful during an interrogation of
the suspect believed to be guilty,” such as motive
or the suspect's personality type.
 Behavior Analysis Interview
The Reid website describes the Behavior Analysis
Interview (BAI) as a non-accusatory question and
answer session, involving both standard
investigative questions and “structured 'behavior
provoking' questions to elicit behavior symptoms
of truth or deception from the person being
interviewed.”
 The investigator first asks background
questions, to establish personal
information about the suspect and allow
the investigator to evaluate the
suspect's “normal” verbal and
nonverbal behavior.
 The investigator then asks “behavior-
provoking” questions intended “to elicit
different verbal and nonverbal responses
from truthful and deceptive suspects.” The
investigator will also ask some
investigative questions during this stage.
The Reid website states that the BAI:
 Interrogation

The Reid website states that an

interrogation “should only occur when the
investigator is reasonably certain of the
suspect's involvement in the issue under
investigation.” There are nine steps to the
Reid interrogation technique, briefly
described below.
1. The positive confrontation. The
investigator tells the suspect that
the evidence demonstrates the
person's guilt. If the person's guilt
seems clear to the investigator, the
statement should be unequivocal.
 
2. Theme development. The investigator
then presents a moral justification
(theme) for the offense, such as placing
the moral blame on someone else or
outside circumstances. The investigator
presents the theme in a monologue and
in sympathetic manner.
3. Handling denials. When the suspect asks for
permission to speak at this stage (likely to deny the
accusations), the investigator should discourage
allowing the suspect to do so. The Reid website
asserts that innocent suspects are less likely to ask
for permission and more likely to “promptly and
unequivocally” deny the accusation. The website
states that “[i]t is very rare for an innocent suspect to
move past this denial state.”
4. Overcoming objections. When attempts at
denial do not succeed, a guilty suspect often
makes objections to support a claim of
innocence (e.g., I would never do that
because I love my job.) The investigator
should generally accept these objections as if
they were truthful, rather than arguing with
the suspect, and use the objections to further
develop the theme.
5. Procurement and retention of suspect's
attention. The investigator must procure the
suspect's attention so that the suspect focuses on
the investigator's theme rather than on
punishment. One way the investigator can do this
is to close the physical distance between himself
or herself and the suspect. The investigator should
also “channel the theme down to the probable
alternative components.”
6. Handling the suspect's passive mood. The
investigator “should intensify the theme
presentation and concentrate on the central
reasons he [or she] is offering as
psychological justification . . . [and] continue
to display an understanding and sympathetic
demeanor in urging the suspect to tell the
truth
7. Presenting an alternative question. The
investigator should present two choices, assuming
the suspect's guilt and developed as a “logical
extension from the theme,” with one alternative
offering a better justification for the crime (e.g.,
“Did you plan this thing out or did it just happen on
the spur of the moment?”). The investigator may
follow the question with a supporting statement
“which encourages the suspect to choose the
more understandable side of the alternative.”
8. Having the suspect orally relate various
details of the offense. After the suspect
accepts one side of the alternative (thus
admitting guilt), the investigator should
immediately respond with a statement of
reinforcement acknowledging that admission.
The investigator then seeks to obtain a brief
oral review of the basic events, before asking
more detailed questions.
9. Converting an oral confession to a
written confession. The investigator must
convert the oral confession into a written
or recorded confession. The website
provides some guidelines, such as
repeating Miranda warnings, avoiding
leading questions, and using the suspect's
own language.
A vital aspect of working as an investigator
is skill as an interviewer. Numerous
systems and methods exist for interviewing
suspects and witnesses, as well as various
types of interview training.
 . When looking for an interviewing style or
method to suit one’s skills, it makes sense to
learn the differences between them, strengths
and weaknesses of each, and latest related
science.
PEACE Model
 Both the United States and Great
Britain recognized the potential for
inaccuracy in pressurized interviewing
environments. In 1992, a study of
police interviews in Great Britain found
approximately one-third of 400
interviews less than satisfactory.
 This led to the creation of the
PEACE interview technique.
PEACE is an acronym for the five
steps of the process.
 The PEACE model focuses on
determining relevant facts, as opposed to
seeking confessions. With this technique,
“interviewers are encouraged to be fair
and open-minded and to pursue reliable,
true and accurate information.”
 The investigators frequently asked
open-ended, leading, and repetitive
questions; disclosed evidence to
suspects; and challenged suspect’s
accounts, often by pointing out
contradictions and inconsistencies.
 Yet, they never resorted to threats,
promises and intimidation, or the kinds
of maximization and minimization
tactics through which threats and
promises are often implied.
 To date, the PEACE technique
has proven as successful as the
Reid at obtaining confessions
from the guilty
Cognitive Approach
The Cognitive Interview technique also
shares similarities with the PEACE model.
This method hinges on three
psychological processes:

1) memory and cognition,

2) social dynamics, and
3) communication.
The Cognitive method attempts to
guide interviewees through their
memories to obtain the richest and
most relevant information possible.
 This usually is accomplished by using
cognitive resources efficiently and
asking open-ended questions followed
by more specific probing inquiries. In
this technique, there are separate
approaches for witnesses and suspects.
In this model, subjects are “encouraged
to generate large amounts of
information before any challenge is
made.” In effect, the Cognitive
technique allows interviewees to
provide the details they deem important
to their experience.
 The interviewer’s purpose in the
process is “to guide the witness to
those memory records that are richest
in relevant information and to facilitate
communication when these mental
records have been activated.”
 This technique does not rely on
confrontation, but rather on the
interviewer helping the witness revisit
the scene and recall as much as
possible. Interviewees should do
approximately 80 percent of the talking.
 This distribution can be accomplished
by an interviewer who relies on open-
ended questions and careful guidance
to assist the interviewee in invoking the
external (e.g., weather, room details),
emotional (e.g., fear, mood) and
cognitive (e.g., thoughts) factors around
the event.
“[Several] interview techniques rely
on the interpretation of verbal and
nonverbal behaviors classified as
deceptive, but science has shown
that humans are not good at
interpreting such signals
One example of this is the reverse-
order technique, wherein
interviewees must tell their stories
backwards. Research reveals that
the reverse-order process is
particularly difficult for people with
fabricated stories.
 This is because people are used to
telling stories chronologically.
Changing the order requires more
thinking and processing, causing liars
to make mistakes in their narratives,
which collected evidence and witness
testimony can disprove.
Kinesic Method
 The Kinesic Interview Technique is like the
Cognitive method in that it relies on moving the
mind and body out of equilibrium and on the
human reaction to stress. Advocates of the
technique believe that this reaction, prompted
by questioning, will lead to meaningful
behaviors exhibited by verbal and nonverbal
indicators of deception.
The Kinesic method identifies three
distinct categories into which
meaningful behavior can be divided.
Strengths and Weaknesses
 In recent years, the number of studies done on
each of these techniques has increased, with
intriguing findings. Scientists have found positives
in the Reid technique, which, “among others, can
be effective in eliciting true confessions largely as
a result of social influence processes that have
been shown to produce powerful effects in
psychological studies of conformity, obedience to
authority, and compliance to requests.”
 However, these same social influence processes
also can have a negative effect in the form of false
confessions, particularly when “the techniques of
interrogation which rely on pressure and
persuasion, sometimes coercion, steadily break
down a suspect and change their perceptions of
their situation such that they come to see the act of
confessing as being in their self-interest or the only
way to get out of a situation.”
 Weaknesses of the Cognitive method
include the time it takes to administer the
interview, the focus needed by the
interviewer to administer the technique
successfully, and the fact that it does not
work as effectively on certain segments of
the population
Importance of Silence
 The future of interviewing,
regardless of technique, may be
best advanced if interviewers
allow their subjects to do more
of the talking.
Interviewing the Subject
 In most cases, the subject of an investigation will
be interviewed after the complainant has already
been questioned. It’s natural for a person who has
been accused of misconduct to behave defensively
 When interviewing the subject, an
investigator should treat the person fairly
and with respect. The investigator should
also be careful not to convey the
impression that he or she is “out to get” the
subject or thinks the subject is guilty.
 At the same time, the investigator should make it
clear that the company takes the complaint
seriously and intends to conduct a thorough,
impartial investigation. The subject should also be
reminded that the company has a legal obligation to
investigate.
 This is the perfect time to reiterate any
corporate rules, zero tolerance mandates, and
to advise that if found to have committed the
reported offense, the subject can face
discipline up to and including immediate
termination.
Mandatory Questions to
Ask the Subject
• What is your response to the allegations?

• If the harasser claims that the allegations are

false, ask why the complainant might lie.

• Are there any persons who have relevant

information?
• Are there any notes, physical evidence, or other
documentation regarding the incident(s)?

• Do you know of any other relevant information?

Interviewing Witnesses
 After meeting with the complainant and the
subject, the investigator is usually faced with a
“he said/she said” situation. The truth often
lies somewhere in between, and other
witnesses are integral sources of information
to balance the facts.
 Interviewing witnesses is similar to
interviewing the complainant and accused.
Consider carefully the purpose of the
meeting with each witness and tailor the
interview and the questions asked to that
purpose.
Mandatory Questions to
Ask Witnesses
• What did you see or hear?
• When did this occur?
• Describe the alleged harasser’s
behavior toward the complainant and
toward others in the workplace.
• What did the complainant tell you?
When did they tell you this?
• Do you know of any other relevant
information?
• Are there other persons who have
relevant information?
Overview of the PEACE Method:
investigative Interviews
 ‘Investigative interviewing is the
questioning of victims, witnesses, and
suspects (interviewee) to obtain complete,
accurate and reliable information to
discover the truth about the matter under
investigation’
 The PEACE Method of investigative
interviews is best suited for detailed
suspect investigations, and you need a
strict understanding of the processes
involved, so you can execute it properly.
 This will provide us with a
detailed overview of the PEACE
Method, so we can decide if you
are interested in trying it for your
unit/office.
The Role of Investigative
interviewing
• The gathering of information from a well-prepared
victim or witness interview will contribute
significantly to any investigation.
• An effective interview of a suspect will commit
them to an account of events that may include an
admission or may provide information leading to
further witnesses of benefit to an investigation.
 Conversely, failure to professionally
undertake interviews can have adverse
consequences in terms of failure to
adhere to legislation, a loss of critical
material, lack of credibility and loss of
confidence.
Principles of Investigative
Interviewing
 i. The aim of investigative interviewing is to obtain
accurate and reliable accounts from victims, witnesses or
suspects about matters under investigation.

Ii. Investigators must act fairly when questioning

victims, witnesses or suspects. Vulnerable people must
be treated with particular consideration at all times.
it is persistent.
iii. Investigative interviewing should be
approached with an investigative mindset.
Accounts obtained from the person who is
being interviewed should always be tested
against what the interviewer already knows or
what can reasonably be established.
 iv. When conducting an interview,
investigators are free to ask a wide
range of questions in order to obtain
material which may assist an
investigation.
v. Investigators should recognize the positive
impact of fairly and considerably conducted
interview.

vi. Investigators are not bound to accept the

first answer given. Questioning is not unfair
merely because it is persistent.
The PEACE Interview
Framework
There are five phases to the PEACE framework:

 Planning and Preparation

 Engage and Explain
 Account
 Closure
 Evaluation
 Planning and Preparations
Planning involves the thought
processes in getting ready to interview;
and Preparation involves getting the
location, the environment and the
administration ready.
 Planning and Preparations

The planning process involves gathering

information so as to allow the
interviewer to remain in control of the
interview, to ensure that it goes in the
right direction and that sufficient time is
available .
 Planning and Preparations
The maxim – “Proper preparation prevents
poor performance” or other colloquial
versions are very relevant. In addition, the
interviewer should understand the purpose
of the interview, the previous background
circumstances, and have a profile of the
interviewee.
 Engage and Explain
The opening phase of an interview can be crucial
to the interviewer’s success. If the interviewer
can engage the interviewee for a few minutes,
this can then “warm up” the interviewee and
assist that person to engage with the interviewer
in a relaxed relationship which may then be
continued throughout the interview.
 Engage and Explain
Engaging the interviewee is sometimes described as the
Rapport stage of the interview. Courtesy, politeness,
and understanding cost nothing to the interviewer but
can make all the difference between his/her success and
failure as an interviewer. Successful interviewers may
take time to find out what motivates the interviewees
 Engage and Explain
The interviewer may also use the engagement stage as
training for later in the interview. The interviewer will be
establishing their control and getting the interviewee ready
for the next stage of the interview. The interviewee will be
encouraged to answer simpler questions (with yes or no
answers) and the interviewer will be assessing the
interviewee’s language and communication abilities.
 ACCOUNT
Good questioning and listening skills are
required to produce an accurate and reliable
account. During the Account process an
interviewee may change from being
cooperative to un-cooperative so it is
important for the interviewer to be fully alert
during the interview.
 ACCOUNT

The interviewer should be

able to detect changes in
the interviewee’s language
and behavior.
 ACCOUNT
For cooperative interviewees such as
victims and witnesses, the
interviewer may use additional
techniques of free recall to begin with
and perhaps move on to cognitive
interviewing for more advanced
interviews.
 CLOSURE
The Closure stage should ensure there is an
understanding on the part of the interviewee as to
what has happened during the interview and
ensure that the interviewee is certain that the
information they have given is accurate in all
material respects or that any grey areas have been
sufficiently highlighted.
 CLOSURE
The interviewer should confirm that all
aspects of the Account have been
covered, allowing the interviewee to give
any additional information which they
think may be relevant and are willing to
provide and allow them to be able to give
further information in future.
 EVALUATION
This stage concludes the PEACE interview
but not necessarily the interviewing
process. The interviewer will, in this section
of the interview, often suggest a short break
for them to re-review their notes to see if the
aims and objectives for the interview have
been achieved.
 EVALUATION
In addition, the interviewer will also
review the investigation in the light
of information obtained during the
interview and may reflect upon how
well he or she conducted the
interview