By John E Reid

Interviews in the popular television show Dragnet were often preceded with the admonition, "Just the facts ma'am." The emotional detachment displayed by Sgt. Friday, however, is generally not conducive to eliciting meaningful information from a subject. People are more comfortable telling the truth to someone whom they trust and can relate to. This is precisely why an investigator should spend the first several minutes of an interview developing a rapport with the subject. For the purposes of an investigative interview, rapport can be defined as "a relationship marked by conformity." If proper rapport has been established, a subject should feel comfortable discussing the issue under investigation in a question and answer format. Questions addressing the issue under investigation should not be asked until the subject's behavior reflects this relationship. Some behavior symptoms that indicate rapport are an uncrossing of the arms, a forward lean or comfortable posture in the chair, longer, more detailed responses and head nodding in agreement with the investigator's statements.

 

Identifying the purpose for the interview
Upon first meeting a subject the investigator needs to identify the issue under investigation. While the following introduction accomplishes this goal, it may create other problems: "Because of the prevalence of insurance fraud and the suspicious nature of this fire I need to question you to find out if you had anything to do with starting it." A truthful claimant would likely be offended by this very direct approach whereas the deceptive claimant would predictably become guarded. A more tactful way of introducing the purpose for the interview would be, "I'm really sorry about your loss and I want to process this claim as quickly as possible. As part of that process I must ask you some questions concerning the fire. Is this a convenient time to or would you like to schedule a time to come in to see me?" This approach is much more likely to set the stage to develop rapport for several reasons. First, there is no implication of involvement on the part of the subject -- the interview is perceived as a required formality in processing the claim. In this regard, an investigator should avoid using the phrase "I need to ask you some routine questions" when introducing an interview because it arouses suspicion in many subjects. Substitute phrases to consider using include, "to clarify circumstances", " to assist in our investigation" or "to help process your claim." The stated purpose for the interview should be perceived as either beneficial to the subject (to help resolve the subject's status) or as a required act by someone other than the investigator, e.g., "before we can close this case the department requires us to interview anyone with possible information."

 

Preface:  "Forensic Forum" is the first of many future columns that I intend to write providing my forensic analysis on certain "high profile" law enforcement incidents and issues presented in the national media. As the law enforcement community realizes all too well, rarely does the media or the "celebrity TV CSI and cop show" watching community understand police practices. These same communities also have little to no appreciation of the dangers and daily stressors of police work. My intended audience for "Forensic Forum" is the media, law enforcement and "Joe Citizen."  I hope you all get something out of this column, and that you will pass it on to others so that can learn more about the difficult job of policing.

During the past two weeks everyone in America and the international community who has a television or a radio has learned something interesting about police practices, racial relations and the power of politics as a result of a police contact between the Cambridge police and a black man. It seems that nearly everyone, from politicians, to renowned community activists, to media "talking head" pundits and police administrators, have opined on the contact between Cambridge police officers and Harvard University Professor Gates. Even President Obama stepped into the fray without any knowledge of the fact pattern of this incident to initially opine that the police officers involved "acted stupidly." President Obama has presented this incident to the American people as a "teachable moment." As a professional who has studied the actual police reports in this incident, I would like to offer my considered opinions. The Cambridge Incident is indeed a "teachable moment." But what have we as Americans learned? Let the lesson begin...

 

 

 

 

 

While I was preoccupied about "not hurting her" she commences to strike me a few times in the head and by the time I realized that I was indeed in a real fight, we were already rolling around in the bar ditch. 
An intense 92 second fight incurred, complete with me screaming for back up on the radio.  After I was able to get her pinned down, I still couldn't get her hands free from under her 240 pound frame.  I finally managed to get them free and was able to handcuff her. 

TOP 10 SIGNS THE CHIEF DOESN'T LIKE YOU

1. He always refers to you as the "Backside," I mean "Backbone'" of the department. 
   
2. You were issued a bean bag instead of the standard 9mm. 
   
3. Your locker is located outdoors. 
   
4. You keep getting 'join the FBI" brochures in the mail. 
   
5. The chief keeps trying to set you up with his "woman friend," who is a photographer. 
   
6. You are always assigned to be the first one through the door on search warrants. 
   
7. The chief saved money in the budget by not buying you a ballistic vest. 
   
8. He tells people that you are a temp. 
   
9. Your patrol car is a Yuggo. 
   
10. Your rating report starts out with "A waste of a human being". 

View a list of law enforcement training offered throughout the country.