First, The Fundamentals

and the three levels of interviewing proficiency

When my mentor asked me what I thought about teaching with him for the first time, I hesitated. I knew he knew what that meant, so I came off of it without him having to extract it from me. “I think it spends too much time focusing on advanced tactics. My experience has been that the investigators around me need work on the fundamentals.” He took it well, which I’ll always appreciate. My particular brand of teaching on interview and interrogation (I&I), First The Fundamentals, was given direction that day.

Everybody wants tricks and shortcuts. How should you interpret the movement of their eyes or their body posture changes? How should you modify your delivery for their personality type? When I’ve been to courses teaching a combination of fundamentals and tricks, the tricks get all of the attention. Like real life click bait, “Criminals don’t want you to know this one easy trick!” There are some tricks out there for detecting deception and gaining cooperation, but, hear me out, there’s no point learning them until you learn and work the fundamentals.

This is true for at least three reasons. First: on a practical level, the information gathered with tricks is hard to interpret and means nothing in a court of law. If you’ve read my blog or any of the published work on deception detection, you’ll know that there is no single definitive indicator of deception. I’ve never tried it before, but I’m confident that if I testified that their eyes looking up and to their right was an indication of deception I’d be asked questions that would undermine that immediately. “Are there any other reasons the eyes might look up and right?” You can always testify to what they said. Interpreting the meanings of their nonverbal actions? Not so much.

The second reason there is no point learning tricks before fundamentals is this: tricks are percentage boosters that mean nothing if there isn’t enough to boost. When I was 20 years old and following the Tour de France Stages, I was young and fit with a cheap and terribly heavy all steel bike equipped with rat trap pedals instead of the clip ins. I’ll never forget passing an obese man with a $5,000 ultralight bike with all the bells and whistles. I beat him because the fundamental need for a cyclist is fitness; fancy gear is a bunch of tricks or percentage boosters. If you are new to interviewing, and you are focused on reading body language instead of asking questions, you are the fat cyclist with Gucci gear.

The third reason to focus on fundamentals before tricks is that, in my experience, newer interviewers have a limited field of “vision” in the room. In order to expand your vision, you need reps in the room. No amount of training can remove the need for real life reps. What do I mean by vision? If you imagine a chess player, they have to learn how the pieces move before they can think of any real strategy. If you don’t know how to move your pawn, there is no way to think of moves twelve steps ahead, but top players do think of moves twelves steps ahead because they have vision. They reflexively know how their pieces move so they can think of simple strategy. As they become better, their strategies become more and more complex. The same is true for interviewing. You must learn the fundamentals before strategies and trickiness. New interviewers have limited vision so they must focus on the highest yield information, not the percentage boosters.

What are some of the fundamentals? It is fundamental to prepare for the interview. You must know your case facts and, as much as practical, think in advance about your questions. If you are working a case that is still an active crime scene, you may not know all of your case facts or be prepared. In that case, realize that the conversation you have with potential suspects does not have to be the ultimate and final suspect interview. Establish as much ground truth as possible, do not accuse them, get timelines, and build rapport that will encourage them to meet with you again another time.

You must attempt to interview your suspect. If your case or type of crime matters at all, you must at least attempt to interview suspects unless there is some articulable reason to believe that contacting them will cause them to hurt others or abscond from the country, for example. When is the last time you interviewed a suspect? Why? I’ll never judge a detective for failing in the interview room, but I will judge a detective for not trying.

You must cover custodial issues with the suspect. Where I work, if they are not in custody, you do not have to read them their Miranda warnings off of an official card, but you do need to advise them that they are free to leave, they aren’t under arrest, and that their biological needs will be met (water and bathroom breaks at a minimum). If they are in custody, by police, and being questioned, you must read them their Miranda warnings. If you aren’t sure, read them Miranda.

Finally, as a fundamental tenet, you must avoid the three poison pills of interviewing: threats, promises of leniency, and actions that shock the conscience. Promises of leniency are only okay with the prior approval of your prosecuting attorneys. This might happen in drug cases, for example, where police are allowed to promise leniency on the suspect’s dope charge in exchange for bigger fish. Otherwise, engaging in any of these three poison pill practices will get your interview suppressed.

The Three Levels of Interviewing

I think of interviewing as occurring on three levels. Think of these levels as blocks making a pyramid with the widest block on the bottom. The first and foundational level is Knowing What You Are Going to Say (and how you are going to say it). The second level is Actually Hearing What the Suspect Says (and in what context they said it). The third level is Tricks and Extras.

The foundational level of I&I is a two parter: Knowing What You Are Going to Say (and how you are going to say it). One of the common fears we hear from interviewers when we teach is the fear of running out of things to say. If you prepare your questions in advance, you will be much less likely to run out of things to say. I’ve written elsewhere about preparation and will more in the future. For now, I’d just like to say that you should think through topics you want to know about and organize them (within reason) from least concerning to most. For example, establish that they use social media including Instagram before asking about that specific account that they used to contact the victim. Another tip for not running out of things to say is to ask as many open questions as possible followed by continuers (go on, because?, and then?). A series of closed questions will be hard to sustain for the entirety of the interview.

Knowing how you are going to say what you need to say shares the foundational block. This is where skills like avoiding tagged questions (a questions followed by another question or statement before waiting for an answer), controlling your emotions, and using note taking as speed control come into play. It takes a lot of practice to get good at this, but it isn’t hard to understand the concepts, and you can practice anywhere. I practice these techniques at all time on and off the clock. I note when others tag questions. I consciously avoid tagging questions when I talk whether its to my friends, my kids, or my coworkers. If somebody says something to me I don’t like, I practice removing my emotions from it as much as I can.

You won’t really be at the next level until you are comfortable enough with the first level that you can clear your head from intrusive thoughts related to what you are going to say and how you will say it, especially while the suspect is answering. Michael Reddington writes about how the biggest impediment to actually hearing others is our own internal monologue. Many new investigators have their brain space occupied with thoughts of what they are going to say and how they are going to say it when they should be listening.

Later, you’ll have the discipline to think, ask, listen, analyze, think, ask, listen, analyze etc. Until you have the vision to see and hear more, at this level, just focus on thinking and asking. Of course you’ll listen, but don’t be hard on yourself if you miss deceptive indicators either verbal or nonverbal. I’ve talked to many new investigators tearing their hair out with worry over the possibility that they might miss deception. If you stay focused on what you can control, which is level one things, you’ll catch the obvious lies. First catch the obvious, then catch the more subtle.

The good news is that sometimes you succeed simply by preparing and asking questions. Don’t rush past this level. You can be more successful than most simply by working level one.

The next level, as I conceive of it, is Actually Hearing What the Suspect Says (and in what context they said it). This is where the real deception detection takes place. You're at level two when you feel comfortable in knowing what questions to ask and how to ask them. At this level, you’ll be able to hear more of what the suspect says and, therefore, be able to analyze it.

Let me give you an example:

Interviewer: Where were you last Wednesday?

Interviewee: I usually go to the bar on Wednesday nights.

If you are a level one interviewer, you hear the person say that they were at the bar last Wednesday. Upon further questioning about their trip to the bar that day - which is well within the capacity of a solid level one interviewer - the interviewee may clarify to say that they weren’t at the bar last Wednesday in fact they were at their girlfriend’s house. If you stay diligent, you’ll get there in the end.

A level two interviewer hears more because they’ve cleared their mind to listen. They know what they asked, and they heard what the interviewee said. A level two listener would notice that the interviewee narrowed the response to Wednesday night even though the question was broader and about the entirety of Wednesday. It is a possible indicator of deception when the interviewee makes a broad subject narrow or a narrow subject broad.

The level two interviewer would also recognize that the interviewee said that they usually go to the bar on Wednesday nights. They did not say that they actually went to the bar. Maybe they went to the bar and maybe they didn’t. The interviewer’s attention should be drawn to this answer because it is a statement in response to a question. Like Don Rabon writes, a typical pattern is Question, Answer, Question, Answer. When it goes Question, Statement or Question, Question, you should be alert to the possibility of problems.

This is the level where I think Don Rabon’s book Investigative Discourse Analysis (IDA) really comes in handy. Until you get the chance to read that, I’ll point out a few things. Listen for the -ly words. Really. Honestly. Mostly. Basically. These are sometimes called hedge phrases. I think Dr. Rhoads calls them discounters and Don Rabon calls them modifying or qualifying terms.

“Modifying or qualifying terms allow the speaker to ‘reduce or lessen in degree or extent’ the force of a statement. The speaker lacks confidence in his or her own assertion, which may indicate some difficulty with committing to what is being said.” - Don Rabon and Tanya Chapman IDA

Listen for anytime the noun changes for a specific person, place, or thing. This is called Changes in Referencing. If I say “my wife” all throughout the narrative and then, at some point, name her, then there is some reason why that change has happened. It doesn’t happen in a vacuum. If a suspicious bank teller is giving a statement all referring to money and suddenly switches to “cash,” something caused that change. You should ask questions about the topics under discussion when that change happened.

Pay attention to distancing language such as “they” or “the child.” If the statement is one where a certain amount of intimacy would be expected, it’s notable when the speaker uses distancing language.

In all of this level two stage, you need to be acutely aware that most people lie by omission. What is being left out of the story? Where are there time gaps? Does this story make sense? Winning at stage two is being alert to the different modes of deception, many of which will manifest themselves in some way in their speech, if you’re ready to really hear it.

Ok, we are almost to level three. Having read the above, do you really feel like you’ve mastered the first two levels? I’ve spent hundreds of hours in the interview room, and I haven’t. I’m getting to where I can peek into the third level, but I still have a lot of work to do to master the first two. Unless you feel like you’ve really mastered these first two levels, I recommend not moving on to the third level.

I’d estimate that 90% of your capacity for success in any given interview is in levels one and two. The third level makes up the final 10%. The third level, which I’m calling tricks is, among other things, nonverbals, adjustments for personality, eye movements, and dynamic persuasive techniques. There is simply no reason to chase the 10% until you’ve done your best to get the 90%. In terms of our bike rider friend: forget the fancy bicycle until you’re in good enough shape for the 5 gram saving on pedal weight to matter.

At level three, your vision has expanded within the room. You’re comfortable with your ability to ask questions. You’re skilled at hearing and analyzing their response, now you’re ready to really take off. I do not pretend to be an expert at level three. I’ve glimpsed it, though.

I remember the first time I spotted a cluster of nonverbals from a suspect. I’ve written about it here before. I was asking a juvenile suspect about whether or not something the victim reported was true. I listened as he responded in the negative. Then I watched as he brushed his hair, shifted his body, and wiped his nose with his fingers. I still remember thinking that I couldn’t believe he had just done that. I remembered the question, and I observed his response in context. I am positive I’ve missed hundreds of other significant nonverbal indicators, but I know that I’ll observe more and more as my vision expands.

Dr. Rhoads talks about how to diagnose a suspect’s personality type. Armed with this knowledge, he suggests different ways to approach the different personality types. This is really valuable and really interesting, but I simply would not focus on this aspect of interviewing until you are competent with the others. It’s a percentage booster, not the main source of knowledge.

Eye movements. The basic idea with these is that people’s eyes will go one way when they access factual information and the other way when they access creative information. The presumption is that lying is more creative so they will need to go to the creative side to lie. You can prompt this response by asking a factual piece of historical info in rapport building that requires a little bit of thought. “What was your third grade teacher’s name?” They will probably tell you the truth after thinking about it. Which way did their eyes look? Then you could ask, “If you were going to start a band with a name nobody ever heard of before, what would the name of it be?”

All my PhD friends will be yelling at the screen with the discussion of nonverbals, personality tests, and eye movements. Scientists seem to universally despise these as tools in deception detection. They may think what they want, and we can still be friends. My experience has been that there is a lot of opportunity in these techniques to ferret out deception. Always remember that there is no one universal indicator of deception. Anything you get with these tricks is something that you should follow up on with amplifying questions.

For example if you saw their eyes move up and to their creative side when you asked about what movie they watched at the theater last night (when you think they were shooting up a club instead), do not decide that they are 100 percent lying. Recognize that they might be lying. Then draw them back to that issue. “You were telling me about being at the movies. Can you please tell me all about being at the movies from beginning to end without leaving anything out?”

If what the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) teaches is right, even the scientists may be more open to persuasive principles in the room. I’m calling this third level use of persuasive principles dynamic persuasive techniques because there are some passive persuasive principles that I recommend making a memorized part of your interview during the introduction. I break that down in this article.

When I say dynamic persuasive techniques, I’m referencing the ability to build those into your interviews on the fly. That might be subtle ways to remind your suspect of consistency and commitment principles. “You’ve been so honest with me. I appreciate that, and I hope you’ll keep it up.” Maybe building on the concept of liking. “For people like you and people like me, this can be a hard step.” These are the Cialdini persuasive principles but used spontaneously and in real time.

In conclusion, have the humility and discipline to work at the level you are at. The vast majority of information you seek can be obtained with working inside of levels one and two of interviewing: Knowing What You Are Going to Say (and how you are going to say it) and Actually Hearing What the Suspect Says (and in what context they said it). As you become more comfortable working on those levels, seek out training from people teaching on tricks and extras. Slowly, you’ll start seeing them with your expanded vision, but First, The Fundamentals.

If you enjoyed this article, feel free to buy me a coffee. No pressure at all.