Direct Approach
A direct approach is normally used to interrogate a suspect whose guilt is reasonably certain. A crime that falls into the category of “reasonable certainty” is often opportunistic in nature, involves a single offense, and is committed without an accomplice.
In the direct approach you assume an air of complete confidence with regard to evidence or witness statements that point to the suspect. You emphasize the strength of the evidence and how it implicates the suspect beyond any doubt. Acting in a brisk and accusatory manner, you state that an admission is not really important because the quantity and quality of evidence already on hand is more than enough to bring the investigation to an end. The purpose of the meeting, according to you, is not to learn if the suspect committed the offense, but to learn why. The meeting is therefore an opportunity for the suspect to tell “the other side of the story.”
Indirect Approach
An indirect approach is generally more successful when interrogating a suspect whose guilt is questionable. In the indirect approach, your questioning is designed to establish a detailed account of the suspect’s activities prior to, during, and after the offense occurred. Facts that are definitely known should be used in formulating questions to test the suspect’s reactions. Guilt is suggested if the suspect lies regarding an established fact.
A problem in carrying out this approach is the possibility that the suspect’s involvement is peripheral, i.e., the suspect was a minor actor in the commission of the offense. When this is the situation, you probably possess sketchy facts. Working with inconclusive information is tricky and hazardous to a fruitful interrogation. A large hazard is an appearance that the evidence is weak and you are off track.
Sympathy Tactic
Information-eliciting tactics are limited by laws and ethical standards and in some cases, the policy of your client. In the latter case, the suspect may be an employee of a large company and your client it’s owner. The client may prefer to let the suspect get by than to convey to the workforce an image of a bullying employer.
Before deciding to use a questionable tactic, you would do well to think: “Could this tactic cause an innocent person to admit guilt?” A yes answer rules out use of the tactic.
The sympathy tactic is appropriate when the offense was committed in the heat of passion. Offenses involving violence have emotional overtones that can be exploited by sympathy and understanding. For example, you can describe the offending act as only one of many similar acts committed by lots of people; that the act is forgivable, understandable, very human, completely out of character for the suspect, and not likely to ever occur again.
The suspect is described as a clearly rational person, as virtuous as anyone else, and surely sorry for what happened. An explanation by the suspect is encouraged because it may cast the incident in a true light and may help the suspect assuage emotional pain.
Sympathy can be mixed with references to evidence linking the suspect to the offense. Signs of stress and nervous tension can be pointed out to the suspect as indicators of a need to clear the air. Employ euphemisms in place of emotionally charged words like steal, punch, grope, and stab.
A first offender may be amenable to these tactics for the simple reason it is natural for a person to be penitent in the aftermath of an offense, especially when it is a first offense. A suspect who has never been interrogated may perceive you as a newly found friend rather than an adversary. You can show empathy, which in fact may be entirely forthright. Many people, especially youthful offenders, have been turned away from a wrong path by caring investigators.
Reasoning Tactic
In this tactic the suspect is told that proof of guilt has been or will soon be established, the only sensible option is to confess, and a failure to cooperate is not in the suspect’s best interest. Every denial is met with refuting logic and facts. You display or allude to proof of guilt reflected in witness statements, photographs, documents, and similar materials. If the suspect has lied, point that out. Point out other indicators of guilt such as sweating, twitching, crossed arms, dry tongue, eye-avoidance, and withdrawal.
Tags: Become a Private Investigator, CEUs, CEUs for PIs, continuing education units, Georgia PI Basic Course, Jack Fay, Learning Shop USA, online CEUs for private investigators, online training for private investigators, PI courses, PI License Renewal, PI Training, private investigation, private investigation career, Private Investigation Careers, Private Investigation Continuing Education Units, Private Investigation Courses, Private Investigation Education, private investigation equipment, Private Investigation School, Private Investigation Training, private investigator, private investigator certification, Private Investigator Courses become a pi, private investigator job placement, private investigator license, The Learning Shop