During the investigative interview (Behavior Analysis Interview - BAI), the investigator’s interview questions should be asked in a conversational tone and always be non-accusatory. The investigator should take a written note following each response the subject offers. Active note-taking during an interview does two very important things for the investigator. First, it slows down the pace of questioning by creating 5–7 seconds of silence following each response. On the other hand, if the investigator is not taking any notes and simply asks questions in a rapid-fire manner, the guilty suspect’s fear of detection is greatly reduced, which in turn minimizes behavior symptoms. Furthermore, a rapid-fire approach can cause an innocent suspect to become confused and flustered, thereby resulting in inconsistent or misleading responses.

Truthful suspects are comfortable with the silence created by note-taking. They told the investigator the truth and simply wait for the next question. Some deceptive suspects become uncomfortable during the silence and begin second-guessing themselves: “Should I say something else?” “Wasn’t that good?” They may break the silence by verbally modifying their earlier response or engaging in anxiety-reducing nonverbal behaviors while the investigator is writing out the suspect’s response.

In one case, a subject who was accused of sexually harassing a female co-worker was asked during the interview if he said to her while he and the co-worker were on the elevator., “Are you going to take off your clothes first or am I?” He answered no. During the following silence, while the interviewer was noting his response and then stalling for a few seconds, the subject added, “I don’t recall making that statement to her.”

The second advantage offered by note-taking is that it documents the interview. This is helpful for report writing, preparing for testimony or simply to review the suspect’s behavior following the interview. In this regard, the investigator should not attempt to write out a verbatim account of the suspect’s response, but rather the written notes should document key information (denials, times, names, dates, etc.) as well as behavior symptoms that occurred during the response. To capture this information in 5–7 seconds, note-taking abbreviations are helpful. For example, the investigator’s question can be abbreviated with a couple of words and those words can be underlined to differentiate the question from the response, which is not underlined. Here are some of the abbreviations that we use for noting behaviors associated with the verbal response;

. . . (delayed response, each dot represents a second)

! (break of gaze)

D I-I (direct eye to eye contact)

SIC (shift in chair)

X lgs (crosses legs)

X arms (crosses arms)

Rpt Q (repeats question)

L (laugh, erasure)

Q (quick response)

Cl (request for clarification)

RPQ (repeats the question)

S/S (stop and start)

GRM (grooming)

Ill (illustrator)

Note-taking during the interview serves several important functions. Not only will the notes record the subject’s responses to interview questions, but the investigator will be more aware of the subject’s behavior by taking notes. Note-taking also slows down the pace of the questioning. It is much easier to lie to questions that are asked in a rapid-fire manner. When faced with silence between each question and given time to think about his deceptive response, the deceptive subject experiences greater anxiety and is more likely to display behavior symptoms of deception. By establishing a pattern of pauses between a subject’s answer and the next question, it will give the truthful subject time to consider the next question without becoming confused or flustered if a rapid-fire questioning approach is used.

Note-taking can inhibit information if it is done sporadically. For example, if the investigator has not taken any notes during the early stages of the interview but then, all of a sudden, writes down something the suspect has said, the suspect will attach significance to that statement and is likely to become much more guarded in subsequent answers. However, if at the outset of the interview the investigator establishes a pattern of taking written notes following each of the suspect’s responses, note-taking will not inhibit information.

If there are two investigators in the room, both should be taking notes. If only the second investigator takes notes, the primary investigator, who is asking the questions, may ask the next question too soon, not giving the deceptive subject a chance to add to or even change his first answer.

Furthermore, if two investigators are in the room, they should discuss the process that they will follow while conducting the interview. The primary investigator should ask the questions while, as mentioned above, both should take notes to document the subject’s answers. The second investigator should not interject questions during the interview, but should make a note regarding follow-up questions or additional questions that should be asked, which he/she can review with the primary investigator when they step out of the room to review the interview.

Taking Notes During the Interrogation

During the interrogation, the investigator should not take any notes until after the suspect has told the truth and is fully committed to that position. Premature note-taking during an interrogation serves as a reminder to the suspect of the incriminating nature of his statements and may therefore inhibit further admissions against self-interest. Only after the suspect has fully confessed, and perhaps after the confession has been witnessed by another investigator, should written notes be made documenting the details of the confession.

Proper Documentation

In a homicide investigation, or investigation of another serious crime, it is not unusual for the trial to occur many months or even a year after a confession was obtained. Because of this time lapse, the investigator can expect to be thoroughly questioned about the accuracy of his recollections. In this regard, the most effective testimony offered will be based on notes written at the time of the occurrence. An ancient Chinese proverb states that the faintest ink is superior to the best memory. Any notes taken to the witness stand are subject to discovery, so the investigator should make certain that the notes contain only information that he would feel comfortable sharing with the defense.

With respect to an interrogation, an investigator’s notes should reflect the following:

● Were Miranda rights given? If so, when and by whom?

● If Miranda rights were not given, was the suspect advised that he was not under arrest and free to leave?

● When did the interview begin and end?

● When did the interrogation begin and end?

● Were the suspect’s biological needs satisfied? Sleep? Food? Medications? Bathroom?

● What was the suspect’s psychological state at the outset of the interrogation?

● What was the principal theme used?

● What alternative question did the suspect ultimately confess to?

● What time did active persuasion stop (the end of Step 7)?

● What was the suspect’s demeanor during his confession?

● Who witnessed the confession?

Defense attorneys will rely extensively on two documents for cross-examination purposes: the written confession and police reports. With respect to the written confession, the investigator should follow closely our suggestions offered in Step 9 of the interrogation process. In particular, the defense attorney will look for leading questions, language that the suspect would not customarily use, or evidence that the defendant may not have known what he was signing, or the defense attorney may insinuate that additional information was added after the defendant signed a relatively benign statement.

With respect to police reports, minor inconsistencies between two investigators’ reports, as to when Miranda rights were administered, who was present during the interrogation, or related sequences of events, may be introduced in court as evidence of a major conspiracy or gross incompetence. Consequently, when two or more investigators write a report on the same case, each investigator should carefully read the other investigator’s report before appearing in court. Any detected inconsistencies should be resolved in a manner consistent with the truth. If a supplemental report is filed, the investigator can expect cross-examination attacking the haphazard nature in which the original report was written. However, these allegations are much easier to overcome in court than the insinuation that inconsistencies between two different reports clearly indicate that one or both of the witnesses are lying.

With respect to preparation, the witness should always remember that, because he was present, he knows more about the suspect’s interrogation and the circumstances surrounding it than the defense attorney does. Furthermore, the investigator knows much more about interrogation practices than most attorneys. This knowledge should enhance the investigator’s confidence when testifying.

In addition, please review our Investigator Tip entitled, What Questions Should be Asked to Determine the Voluntariness and Validity of a Subject’s Confession? The defense will have access to and undoubtedly will ask many of these questions.