The Interview Process

Hello Investigators! 

Welcome back to our interview series! Previously, we discussed the importance of planning an interview, and some of the key factors that you should take note of. In this third post, we’ll touch on the interview process. 

The Interview Process

One might think that an interview is akin to a linear process, but it is actually made up of a few distinct phases. It’s important for an investigator to be aware of the phase which the interview is currently in, as each phase requires different types of techniques and actions to be performed. Let’s take a look at the various phases in a typical interview: 

Phase 1 - Bonding

The first phase is called Bonding. In this phase, it is important for the interviewer to build rapport with the interviewee. The ultimate aim here is to make the interviewee feel comfortable to talk and share information with you, making it easier for you to facilitate the rest of the interview. Be courteous to them (everyone likes being treated well and with respect). A way to do this is to start off by introducing yourself and then moving on to establish the theme and purpose of the interview. 

Phase 2 - Baselining

The second phase is called Baselining. In this phase, we observe the interviewee’s responses and his/her reactions to certain questions. One way to ease into this phase is to introduce small talk. This will not only help the interviewee feel more comfortable, but also helps you to get a basic understanding of the interviewee’s body language, eye movements, facial expressions and voice inflections. This is especially useful for the later phase of the interview, where we may attempt to determine if the interviewee is either lying or withholding information. Investigators should also note that an experienced con man / fraudster is able to fake their body language, so it is important to not solely rely on body language. 

Phase 3 - Defenses

The third phase is called Defenses. In this phase, the purpose is for interviewers to eliminate possible defenses that the interviewee might have or prepared. This requires good planning. Prepare a line of questioning that will lead to the interviewee admitting their knowledge about certain facts. Once these acknowledgements are agreed upon, they could be facts to use against the interviewee in the later phases if they mention something inconsistent. Sometimes, interviewers may drop some accusations at this stage to observe the interviewee’s reaction towards it. Note though, it requires a certain amount of experience and skill to incorporate accusations.

Phase 4 - Confrontation

The fourth phase is called confrontation. In this phase, the purpose is to confront the interviewee regarding some of the facts of the case. The previous three phases prepare the interview for this very moment; Building of rapport and making small talks with the interviewee will make them perceive the interviewer as a sympathetic person who can be confided in, while eliminating possible defenses pave the way for more truthful answers from the interviewee. It is important to not LEAD the interviewee into certain responses - stick to asking open-ended questions that are relevant to the case. In cases where the interviewee responds aggressively, take your time to retrace his/her steps. Use the interviewee’s previous acknowledgement on certain questions / facts to peel off his aggressiveness. 

Phase 5 - Admission

The final phase is called admission. This is where the interviewer walks through with the interviewee the facts and instances of the crime (if any). Documents or any other forms of supporting evidence can be brought out to solidify the facts and the interviewee’s involvement / points. Sometimes, we may not get anything out of an interviewee in a single interview. In such cases, remain polite and courteous, and do not burn any bridges - you might need to schedule another interview. 

Of course, there are many other pointers to take into consideration when interviewing. Some interviewees may dislike small talk or overly friendly vibes, as they prefer to go straight to the point; others may tend to talk about irrelevant topics, which means the interviewer would have to pull them back into the topic. In short, the techniques deployed should not be a one-fit model, but rather on a situational basis. 

Food for thought

What was your interview experience like? Was it similar to what we shared? Let us know what you think!