Finding the truth

"Oh there's some art to faulting the liar, of course there is ...But the real art lies in recognising the truth which is a great deal harder. Under interrogation, nobody behaves normally. People who are stupid act intelligent. Intelligent people act stupid. The guilty look innocent as day and the innocent look dreadfully guilty"

One of my favourite literary characters is John le Carre's, George Smiley. The above quote is one of my favourites from the novel The Secret Pilgrim. The picture (courtesy of the Telegraph newspaper) is of John le Carre whom some reports say is the real George Smiley .......but is there any truth in that?

Other than the word interrogation ( I prefer investigative interview), I love this quote as it keeps me grounded as to what I am trying to achieve during investigative interviews or investigation meetings as they are sometimes called in internal investigations.

If you take a few moments to look around the internet you will find a whole host of training courses that claim to make you better in the art to faulting the liar based on behaviour during interviews relating to baseline behaviours during the early stages of the interview. I would question at what point of arriving at a location to be interviewed (or even before) does a person begin to act beyond their usual behaviour, but that aside some investigators have become so focussed on faulting liars that they forget that it is recognising the truth that is most important.

So how can we assist ourselves in the real art in recognising the truth? If you take the time to look at the truth, as defined in psychology or philosophy you may find yourself quickly descending into a rabbit hole of thoughts and theories. For investigation purposes, we should stick with a legal definition as outlined in the statement of truth required to be incorporated in a written statement, to be produced in proceedings, in which the person who signs the statement states that they believe that the facts stated are true. It is the word believe that is of interest. The reported observations of two eyewitnesses to the same incident can be very different but both eyewitnesses will believe that they are reporting true facts.

The best ways the investigator can assist themselves in recognising the truth during the interview is to plan thoroughly for the interview (tip: a list of questions is not a plan), to seek to identify checkable facts during the interview; that is verbal statements made by persons interviewed that can be checked against other sources of information, post-interview, also to focus on identifying people locations actions and timelines of events. In addition, the investigator must seek out the level of detail required to eliminate confabulation; in which a person may imagine detail to make sense of what they saw or try to make a favourable impression with a need to please the interviewer.

As George Smiley eludes to, it is not as easy as it first seems. It is unfortunate then that in many cases of internal investigations into misconduct persons tasked with investigating have little or no training or experience in investigative interviewing, and based on handed down processes are left to rely upon simply following a list of pre-determined questions which fail to capture the amount of detail required.

We must remember that the welfare, reputation and livelihood of real people are at stake. Trying to work out who is lying is, in my view, a wasted effort as the decision-makers will need facts to make informed decisions, not assertions based on the investigator's opinion that someone may be lying - unless of course this assertion can be backed by checked facts, and even then this may be more likely to be a mistaken belief than an actual lie.

Investigators should perhaps stop chasing lies and focus their efforts on establishing the facts on which a decision-maker can make informed decisions.

A good interview begins with allowing the person interviewed the opportunity to give their account uninterrupted, followed by appropriate questioning, with the investigator utilising listening skills throughout, whilst supporting the person through the process by utilising the investigator's rapport and empathy skills, AND whilst remaining neutral and unbiased.

Of course, the credibility of the persons involved in investigations is important, there's some art to faulting the liar, of course there is. Credibility is of particular importance in reports of misconduct in which there are no witnesses, such as sexual misconduct. In these cases, the investigators interviewing skill levels in obtaining the accounts during the investigation meeting with both the reporting party and the responding party are even more important.

The level of detail required to establish on the balance of probabilities of one account being more likely than the other will be key to the decision-making process.

In the public sector, an already experienced and qualified investigator would attend a three-week course on achieving best evidence and trauma led investigations, before being deemed as skilled to address serious reports of a sexual nature. With that in mind, why should we think that an investigator with little or no training can be equipped to deal with reports of sexual misconduct which may be deemed gross misconduct in the private sector? This is simply unfair to all parties involved including the investigator.

I worked for decades at the extreme end of high stakes investigations in the public sector, specialising in investigative interviewing, I joined Intersol Global six years ago. I spent 5 years delivering training in investigative interviewing globally to a number of clients including barristers, lawyers, and a wide array of enforcement investigators in the private and public sector. I now lead Intersol Global's team of 19 specialist investigators operating as external investigators to the private and public sector.

I would offer these 3 pieces of advice

1. If you are going to ask your staff to investigate then please provide them with relevant recognised accredited training to carry out the role of investigator. Anything less and you may be simply adding to their anxiety levels and setting them up to fail. If you are going to pay to upskill yourself or your staff then do not settle for anything less than accredited training which gives you/your staff a recognised qualification.
2. If you are going to engage external investigators please check that they are qualified and experienced to investigate the type of investigation your require them to carry out. Some times a general investigator will suffice but on many occasions, specialist skills are required.
3. Poor investigations lead to poor outcomes and a high likelihood of re investigation at a later time, please don't kick the can down the road, deal with issues properly first time.

Learn how to at

https://www.intersolglobal.com/we-train/

Request assistance at

https://www.intersolglobal.com/investigations/

Mick Confrey

[email protected]