These “Hesaid, she said” cases are inherently difficult to investigate for a number ofreasons.  Often, there is not a clearseparation between a truthful and false account.  That is, both parties may be telling part of the truth and alsoomitting or embellishing information. In many cases, these interviews are conducted when one or both partiesare in an emotional state of mind which can cause misleading behaviorsymptoms.  Finally, because these casesare often spontaneous, a decision to make an arrest must be made without thebenefit of conducting an interview in a controlled environment.  This web tip will offer suggestions to helpassess the credibility of the people involved in one-on-one allegations.

1.      Question both parties separately. 

There is nobetter illustration of the problems associated with having both the accused andaccuser present during questioning than on television court shows such as, “ThePeople’s Court” or, “Judge Judy.” Invariably, the liar becomes more committed to his or her position andrarely confesses even when confronted with evidence.  The truth-teller may become angry or reticent out of frustrationand staunchly face the judge with his or her arms crossed.  Suffice it to say, to learn the truthrequires that both accused and accuser be questioned separate from each other.

In a domesticviolence case involving a husband and wife, for example, one investigator couldquestion the wife in one room while another investigator interviews the husbandin a separate room.  In a traffic stop,one occupant may be left in the vehicle while the other is questioned away fromthe vehicle.  Following the initialinterview, the first occupant could be asked to wait in the vehicle while thesecond is questioned away from the vehicle.

If theinterviews are conducted by the same investigator at different times, it isbeneficial to first interview the accuser and then the accused.  If two possible parties to a crime need tobe interviewed, the person most likely to tell the truth, or least likelyinvolved, should be interviewed first. This assessment may be based on age, strength of evidence, as well asbehaviors or attitudes displayed during initial questioning.

2.     Consider havingboth parties write out a statement.

In acontrolled environment, such as a business where an employee is makingallegations of unwanted sexual advances against a supervisor, it is oftenbeneficial to not only question each party separately, but also to have eachparty first write out a statement.  Thissuggestion applies equally well to any one-on-one allegation where both partiesare in a controlled environment.

To obtain thestatement the investigator should give the suspect a couple of sheets of linedpaper and pen.  At the top of the paperthe investigator should write out a question which he instructs the person toanswer in writing.  The question shouldrequire that the person explain everything about their behavior,knowledge or observations.  Thefollowing are possible introductory questions to ask in different situations:

Domesticviolence: “Tell me everything about what happened between you and your husband(wife) this evening.”

Sexualharassment (complainant): “Tell me everything about what you experienced at(Company) that led to your complaint.”

Sexualharassment (respondent):“Sally Smith reported that you made sexual remarksto her.  Tell me everything about anysexual remarks you have made to Sally Smith.”

Gun foundin dorm room: “Tell me everything you know about the 9mm gun found in yourdorm room last Friday night.”

Hit andrun with two possible drivers: “Tell me everything you know about the damageto the front right bumper of your room mate’s car.”

While it doestake extra time to obtain a written statement (most of these, even fromtruthful subjects, are only a couple of paragraphs long) there are a number ofbenefits.  First, the statement can beassessed for credibility by applying statement analysis techniques.  Second, information from the statement canhelp the investigator prepare for a formal interview of a suspect in that heknows what topics to cover and may have identified problem areas within thestatement to pursue.  Finally, becausethe statement is a permanent document from the suspect, any documented lies orinconsistencies can be used to support decisions relating to the casedisposition.

3.      Obtain behavioral information from both parties.

It does theinvestigator little good to learn that a husband yelled at his wife and scaredher.  To assess credibility, theinvestigator must develop behavioral information.  Behavior is objective and fixed in time.  It is not subject to justification,rationalization or individual interpretation. The investigator needs to find out specifically what was done, who waspresent, what object was used, where something happened, what was said, etc. 

While it iscertainly more efficient to ask questions that require a yes or no responsesuch as, “Did your husband threaten you with a weapon of any kind?” or, “Didyour husband strike you at all?”, these closed-ended questions can invitedeception.  Especially during earlyportions of an interview, the investigator should ask open-ended questions thatrequire a narrative response.  Thisapproach is much more likely to result in truthful information as the followingdialogue illustrates:

I: “What happened here this evening?”

S: “Myhusband came home drunk and starting yelling at me and accusing me of cheatingon him.  We argued and he threatenedme.  I was scared for my life.  That’s when I called 911.”

I: “Tell mehow he threatened you.”

S: “He wasyelling and calling me a bitch, and he said I would pay for what I did.”

I: “Tell meabout any physical contact he had with you this evening.”

S: “Physicalcontact?  He got right in my face andwas yelling and threatening, like I said.”

I: “So he didnot have physical contact with you this evening?”

S: “No, but Ithink he was going to.”

I: “What didhe have in his hands when he was arguing with you?”

S: “Well,nothing.  But his voice had athreatening tone.”

If twoinvestigators are simultaneously questioning the accused and accuser, it ismuch easier to establish what really happened if both investigators focus theirinterviews on behavioral information. When the two investigators compare notes, they can identify whichbehaviors both parties agree upon, and which behaviors are disputed.

4.     Suggested behaviorprovoking questions

The uniquedynamics of one-on-one interviews present the opportunity to ask a number ofbehavior provoking questions that may be helpful in determining which party istelling the truth.  One of these is aBAIT question where the subject is asked, “If (accuser) was given a polygraphexamination concerning the statement that you pointed a knife at her thisevening, what would her polygraph results be?” An innocent suspect typically predicts that the accuser will fail thepolygraph. On the other hand, the guilty suspect will not have that level ofconfidence and may offer an evasive response, e.g., “I don’t really know muchabout polygraphs” or perhaps even predict truthful results, “She’s a reallygood liar – she might be able to beat a polygraph.”  As a legal aside, an employer is not in violation of the 1988Employee Polygraph Protection Act by asking an employee how another employeewould do on a polygraph.

A secondbehavior provoking question is the CREDIBILITY question.  It is simply phrased, “When (accuser) saysthat you (did issue) is he/she lying? e.g., “When Sally says that you forciblypulled down her jeans and underwear, is she lying?”   It is very difficult psychologically for a person who knows thatthe accuser is telling the truth to respond to this question with a confidentagreement.  A deceptive suspect mayoffer a qualified response, “I believe she might be, yes.” or an evasiveresponse, “I know what happened, and that’s all I can say.”

In thecontrolled environment of a laboratory study, one-on-one allegations are theeasiest type of case to solve.  Bydesign, one subject is telling the truth and, therefore, the other subject mustbe lying.  In real life, however, thesecases are often not cut and dried because the subjects’ behavior iscontaminated by numerous outside variables including intense emotions,intoxication of one or both parties, and the telling of partial truths.  An important key in assessing thecredibility of parties involved in a one-on-one allegation is to interview bothparties separately and focus the interview on specific behaviors, not opinionsor judgments.  In a controlledenvironment, requesting that both parties respond in writing to a centralquestion can be beneficial both in making an initial assessment of credibilityas well as conducting a subsequent interview.