Hackers Underworld 2: Forbidden Knowledge/Hackers Underworld 2: Forbidden Knowledge.iso/LEGAL/COG_INTE.TXT

Text File | 1991-03-29 | 18KB | 357 lines

March 1991


                  COGNITIVE INTERVIEWING

                            By

                   Margo Bennett, M.Ed.
                           and
                    John E. Hess, M.Ed.
              Special Agents and Instructors
                        FBI Academy
                    Quantico, Virginia


     When interviewing crime victims, few investigators begin
with questions such as:  How tall was the subject?  What color
was his hair?  Did he have any scars?  Common sense, experience,
and fundamental training lead investigators to the conclusion
that such specific questions give witnesses little opportunity
to tell what they know.  Instead, open-ended questions tend to
produce the best results.  A question like, "What did he look
like?" eliminates the need for investigators to anticipate every
detail of description victims may have noted.  Investigators can
always follow up the witness' statements with specific, direct
questions to fill in gaps.  At least, that is what many
interview textbooks suggest.  But what happens when even these
direct questions fail to produce the details needed from
witnesses?  The cognitive interview method is a proven
technique, effective because it provides interviewers with a
structured approach to help retrieve such details from the
memories of witnesses.

     Consider the following scenario:  At a robbery scene, a
uniformed officer briefs the investigating detective.  Hoping to
obtain additional information, the detective approaches the
clerk, introduces himself, and sensing her anxiety, takes some
time to assure her that she has nothing to worry about.  He
tells her he understands the trauma she has just undergone, gets
her a cup of coffee, and delays asking any questions until she
has regained her composure.  He then tells her that he needs her
help and asks that she start at the beginning and tell him
exactly what happened.  She replies:

     "I was behind the counter when all of a sudden, I heard a
   voice telling me to give him all the money, and I would not
   get hurt.  I looked up and saw a man wearing a ski mask
   pointing a gun right at me.  I just froze and stared at the
   gun.  He told me to get a move on or there would be trouble.
   I opened the cash register and handed him all of the bills.
   There was just under a hundred dollars in the register.  He
   then told me to lie on the floor and not move.  I did as he
   told me and waited until I was sure he was gone.  I yelled to
   Joe, the manager, who was in the office, who asked me if I
   was okay.  He then ran to the phone and called the police.
   The next thing I knew, the police officer arrived, and I told
   him the same thing I just told you.  I don't know what the
   guy looked like, where he came from, or how he got away.  I'm
   sorry I can't be more help."

     The detective tells her that she has been very helpful and
that now he would like to go over the story again, and this
time, if she doesn't mind, he will interrupt her with questions
as she goes along.  As she retells her story, he constantly
probes for additional details, such as the possibility of
additional witnesses, more descriptive data regarding the
subject and his weapon, words he may have used, noticeable
accent, and the means of his escape.  However, except for a bit
more descriptive data, the victim was correct; she had told the
responding officer everything she could remember.

THE PROBLEM:  INABILITY TO REMEMBER

     The above scenario illustrates a problem encountered by
many investigators.  That problem results not from investigators
being unable to ask good questions but simply from witnesses who
are unable to provide the answers.  Responses such as, "I don't
remember," "That's all I saw," or "I can't recall" frustrate
many interviewers on a regular basis.  In the past, this led
investigators to try hypnosis as a means of enhancing witness
recall.  Improved results verified what many investigators
suspected--an inability of witnesses to remember, not a lack of
observations, was the main problem. (1)  Although investigators
achieved some success through hypnosis, those successes did not
last long.  Courts, on a regular basis, began ruling in favor of
defense attorneys who alleged that hypnotically elicited
information may contain flaws and that hypnosis as a means of
refreshing recall lacks scientific acceptance. (2)  Therefore,
investigators now primarily reserve hypnosis for situations
where the need for lead information supersedes all other
considerations.  They know full well that using hypnosis will
probably disqualify a witness from testifying.

SOLVING THE PROBLEM:  THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW

     To enhance witness recall without the stigma attached to
hypnosis, Ronald P. Fisher and Edward Geiselman, professors at
Florida International University and UCLA respectively, have
developed a system they call the cognitive interview.  Although
their process contains few, if any, new ideas, they have
systematized some techniques which have, for the most part, been
used by investigators only in a sporadic, piecemeal fashion.
Research indicates that the cognitive approach to interviewing
witnesses increases the quantity of information obtained (3) and
does not jeopardize the witness' credibility in court, as
hypnosis does.

     This article compares the traditional interview with the
cognitive interview.  Specifically, this article deals with the
cognitive interview technique as it assists witness memory
retrieval by:  1) Reinstating the context of the event, 2)
recalling the event in a different sequence, and 3) looking at
the event from different perspectives.  It also deals with
specific retrieval techniques and time factors that affect the
interview.

Reinstate the Context

     Traditional interviews of victims and witnesses, similar to
the one described above, usually begin with interviewers first
taking the time to make introductions and putting witnesses at
ease before asking, "What happened?" or "What can you tell me
about...?"  Then, specific questions follow that are geared to
fill in the gaps inadvertently left by witnesses.  Proponents of
the cognitive interview suggest this will not usually produce
optimum results.  Asking people to isolate an event in their
minds and then to verbalize that event requires them to operate
in a vacuum.  Even without the trauma that often results from
involvement in a crime, common sense says that human memory
functions better in context.  The cognitive interview process
takes this into account.

     What is meant by context and how do interviewers establish
it?  Simply put, interviewers make efforts to reestablish the
environment, mood, setting, and experiences by asking witnesses
to relive mentally the events prior to, during, and after the
crime.

     Let's return to the robbery scene described above with the
detective who had already introduced himself to the victim and
asked for her help.  Instead of asking her what happened during
the crime, using the cognitive interview approach, he proceeds
as follows:  "It's only about 10:00, and it's already been a
pretty full day for you.  How about telling me how your day
started.  Tell me what time you got up, the chores you did, the
errands you ran and anything else that happened before you came
to work."

     As she recounts her activities, he joins the conversation,
discussing events with her, including the problems of a working
mother, what she fixed for breakfast, and any other details that
she mentions.  Only when they have developed a clear picture of
those events does the detective next suggest that the victim
describe her travel to work.