Interviewing and Interrogation: Witness and Victim Interviewing in the Media

Memory is a very fragile thing, it can easily be altered, and details are quickly forgotten after an event occurs. In the criminal justice field memory is especially important to police officers and investigators, because they often times rely on witnesses to have the information crucial to solving the case at hand. Because of memory’s fragility implementing proper interviewing tactics is necessary in order to gain as much information as possible from a witness. The Cognitive Interview (CI) is an interviewing method commonly used within the criminal justice system, in order to gain as much detailed information from witnesses and victims as possible. Accurate delivery of the Cognitive Interview is detrimental when interviewing a witness in order to achieve desired results.

Often times we watch movies and TV shows that depict officers firing the witness with questions, and as a result the witness is not fully able to discuss the events that occurred with the detail necessary. In reality as well we notice that officers have been known to interrupt witnesses while they relay the sequence of events. Both questioning styles are harmful to memory and the detail that the witness would potentially deliver to the interviewer, therefore proper use of the cognitive interview is extremely important. The following examples depict successful use of components of the Cognitive Interview in the media when interviewing witnesses and victims. The 2008 film Surveillance features both good and bad practices that appear when interviewing a witness. The plot centers around two FBI officers that have come to a small town, in order to interview three witnesses who have seen grisly murders earlier that week. Immediately entering the police station, the FBI agents inform the small town officers that the witnesses should have been separated. Separating witnesses is one of the most crucial elements after an event in order to prevent memory contamination. It doesn’t take long for the FBI agents to split the witnesses into groups and begin the interviewing process.

The first example from Surveillance involves the female officer, Elizabeth Anderson, who attempts to build rapport with the child witness, Stephanie. Upon meeting Stephanie, Elizabeth crouches to eye level with her and introduces herself. It was quickly apparent that Stephanie didn’t want to talk, so Elizabeth requested a set of crayons for Stephanie to color with. This attempt to relate to Stephanie shows that Elizabeth was making an effort to build rapport and make Elizabeth feel more comfortable. Notably, these beginning stages set the tone for successful rapport building.

Building rapport is fundamental to a successful interview, especially when interviewing someone who has witnessed a traumatic event. Good rapport involves building a relationship with the witness and finding some common ground in order to increase the level of comfort the witness has with the interviewer. During this stage the interviewer should be empathetic, show genuine interest, and be able to understand any concerns the witness may have (Kieckhaefer, 2017). Rapport can be developed both verbally, for example through common interests or kindness, and non-verbally through open body language and eye contact. Interviewers should make sure to build a basis of rapport before questioning their witness in order to get as many details as possible.

Recent studies by Vallano et al (2015) have shown that interviewers in the criminal justice field see rapport as a relationship between the witness and interviewer that is based on trust and open communication. It is highly recommended that officers or interviewers attempt to build rapport with the witness or victim prior to an interview. Countless studies have proven that rapport building increases witness’s quality of information recalled, and decreases the amount of inaccurate information reported. Further studies have shown that not only is rapport able to be built in person, but a study by Nash et al. (2014) has shown that rapport can also be built over video-mediated communication.

Another notable scene involves the male officer, Sam Hallaway, who is in charge of monitoring the interviews and making sure the interviewer is asking the proper questions. At one point Sam begins reviewing the accuracy of Officer Jack Bennett’s account, using the same language Officer Jack Bennett had used just moments before. Officer Jack Bennett proceeds to nod and verbally confirm the review.

Reviewing accuracy is another very important portion of a successful cognitive interview. When an interviewer reviews the information given by the witness it allows the interviewer to check the accuracy of the information they noted, as well as confirm their understanding of the events. Upon doing this review the witness is able to search their memory and may possibly discover new information in the process. When reviewing accuracy, it is important for the interviewer to use the same terms that the witness originally used while reporting.

An article by R. Edwards Gelseslman, Ph.D., in the American Journal of Forensic Psychology (2012), claims that reviewing witness statements can be very important in confirming witness’s honesty as well. In order to test witness honesty while reviewing accuracy the interviewer would change a small element of the witness’s events to see if they correct the accuracy. If the witness agrees with the incorrect statement, the interviewer would assume the witness has been lying. This practice can have both positive and negative effects; on one hand the interviewer would be able to determine reliability of the witness accuracy, but on the other hand this can lead to the misinformation effect. The interviewer should make sure to incorporate witnessing techniques that minimize the possibility of misinformation and maximize the amount of correct details.