This article and research highlights an unusual aspect of the ‘detecting deception’ debate, focusing on deceptive behaviour within group interviews. It concludes with a hypotheses relating to police suspect interviews and an interesting ‘take’ on them being conducted in groups where there are multiple suspects, pointedly highlighting that this doesn’t happen, that the expectation is that they are conducted singularly.
A point of interest (from an old sweat!) is that in some cases they effectively were, evidence of co-accused for example, where, in order to satisfy the rules of evidence, it was (and remains) the case that what one suspect says in interview about the other should be repeated in that others presence whereupon a reaction can be secured and probed. To some extent, similarly, statements under caution (in English Law), now rarely, if ever, recorded.
One view is that over recent decades the skill and craft of the investigative interview has been eroded to such an extent that many practitioners (supported by misguided managers) simply don’t bother, such is the expectation (wrongly) that in the English context suspects make ‘no comment’! It is simply not understood by the majority of those practitioners.
Whilst not directly linked to this piece of research, when considering the value of interview content the following is a truism:
“Contrary to popular belief that most criminal investigations are solved through the use of scientific evidence, the majority of cases are solved through evidence obtained in interviews with witnesses, or interviews with suspects (Horvath and Meesig,1996).”
If, reading this, you or your organisation would like to understand the value of structured and objective investigative (fact-finding) interviewing more, or perhaps learn how exposing non-truth tellers or deceptive behaviour would add significant value please contact info@intersolglobal, acknowledged world leaders in this area of business.
Link to article courtesy of PsyPost here