week 12

• Evidence and Interviewing
• PFD 445 – W2024
• Unit 7: Phased Interviewing
• Professor Mark Altermann, M.A.
• Today

  1. Review Reid & Peace

  2. Phased Interviewing

  3. Next video segment

  4. Q & A
• Last Week (Unit 2)

  1. Reid

  2. Fact Analysis (prep)

  3. Investigative interview

  4. BAI

  5. Punishment, Think, Bait, Investigation results

  6. Interrogation

  7. 9 Steps

  8. PEACE

  9. Preparation and planning,

  10. Engage and explain,

  11. Account,

  12. Closure, and

  13. Evaluate

  14. RESPONSE

  15. Respect,

  16. Empathy,

  17. Supportiveness,

  18. Positiveness,

  19. Openness,

  20. Non-judgemental attitude,

  21. Straightforward talk, and

  22. Equals

  23. DEAL

  24. Describe the behavior

  25. Explanation the effect

  26. Action – what's expected

  27. Likely consequences
• Darren Carr, RCMP: 'A good interview should be a slow walk, approached from the perspective of non-accusatory based interviewing, while recognizing that you can go accusatory in certain situations, but there is absolutely no expectation that you must go accusatory'
• Learning outcomes

  • Prepare for a witness, victim or suspect interview
  • Engage the interview subject in dialogue
  • Obtain a minimally contaminated pure version
  • Establish voluntariness
  • Knowledge of Charter requirements
  • How to use memory enhancing techniques
  • How to use non-accusatory based interviewing techniques
  • Understanding how to challenge inconsistencies
  • Recognize signs of trauma
  • Conduct a trauma sensitive interview
  • Appropriately employ persuasion
  • How to use accusatory based interviewing techniques
  • Ensure the reliability of information obtained
  • Conduct a Post Corroborative Assessment of the Interview
  • Recognize and safeguard against false confessions
• Phased Interviewing Model (PIM)

  • Hybrid approach
  • Influenced by the PEACE model
  • Non-accusatory
  • Getting the person talking, letting them say what they have to say and focusing on things like provable lies and slowly dismantling the story
  • Shutting down denials is no longer taught
  • A retreat from using subjective assessment of body language or spoken words
  • Research indicates the success rates is too low to be empirically reliable
  • Focused on gathering information, not on getting a confession!
• Foundational Knowledge


  • Interviewer (IR) Knowledge
  • Legal Knowledge
  • Phased Interviewing Knowledge
• Interviewer (IR) Knowledge


  • Role & attributes (e.g., ethical, empathetic, open-minded)
  • Active listening
  • Fabricated evidence & trickery
  • Recognizing suspect vulnerabilities, and false confessions
• Legal Knowledge

  • Charter (right to silence, detention, counsel, jeopardy), YCJA & Case law
  • Difference between custodial and non-custodial interviews
• RCMP- PIM


  1. 1

  2. 4

  3. 3

  4. 5

  5. 2

  6. 6
• RCMP- PIM


  • P
  • A
  • E
  • C
  • E
  • Fact
• Phase 1 - Review, preparation, and planning

  1. Conducting a thorough review and planning prior to an interview

  2. Review file materials,

  3. Access previous statements

  4. Evaluate interviewee profile,

  5. Outline interview objectives,

  6. Create a structured plan

  7. Prepare evidence
• Phase 2 - Introduction and legal obligations

  1. Encouraging Conversation

  2. Engage the subject - building rapport

  3. Explain –the purpose and process of the interview

  4. Ensure we Charter-Proof subject

  5. Use of open-ended invitations during the dialogue phase to gather an uncontaminated (i.e., pure version) statement

  6. In other words, a complete and uninterrupted narrative from the suspect about the event in question.
• Phase 4 - Version challenge

  1. Still non-accusatory (maintain rapport)

  2. Challenge any inconsistent or inaccurate information provided

  3. Summaries verifiable and truthful parts of the statement

  4. Present inconstancies while being curious and non-judgemental

  5. Evidence-Connecting Questions (ECQ)

  6. Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE)

  7. In compliance with the common law confession rule (R. v. Oickle, 2000), IR's avoid offering the suspect any overt deals in exchange for their information/admission.
• Phase 5 - Accusation and Persuasion

  1. Accusation: Ensure they understands they are suspected of the crime

  2. Optional and use only if:

  3. They continue to provide inaccurate or incomplete information

  4. Refused to rectify gaps during the version challenge

  5. the suspect refuses to engage in dialogue

  6. there is reasonable certainty that the suspect is involved

  7. Appeal to the suspect - Build stories or analogies around the event & subjects life/needs

  8. Minimize (seriousness),

  9. Rationalize (reasons),

  10. Project (blame others),

  11. Socialize (emotion/how other see things),

  12. Acknowledge admissions - be supportive & follow-up with detailed questions crime
• Phase 6 - Post Interview

  1. IR should continuously evaluate and assess each interview and the information gathered from the suspect.

  2. Evaluate the information obtained

  3. Objectives achieved vs unanswered

  4. ID any new investigative leads

  5. ID any New witnesses

  6. Start planning for the next interview

  7. Review performance

  8. Complete/submit any documentation/evidence

  9. GOAL: An ethical, admissible, noncoercive interview
• Evidence-Connecting Questions (ECQs)

  • In Phase 4, IR may need to challenge version of events presented. In preparation, IR's are encouraged to foreshadow the types of evidence that may be revealed later.
  • IR helps the subject understand the types and nature of evidence before it is revealed.
  • Once evidence is presented, it can be much more meaningful and impactful.
  • IR Tactically presents evidence: To persuade someone to talk or are refusing to engage in case-related dialogue.
  • If silent or disengaged using evidence that is appears uncertain may invoke dialogue
  • Similarly, evidence is open to alternate explanations, inaccurate or mischaracterized evidence may do the same
• ECQs must be used with caution
• Avoid ECQ' that link evidence which directly implicates the subject i.e. Implying their DNA was found at the scene.
• If the ECQ is too close to fabrication it can be problematic
• Options


  • The IR can use evidence to strategically encourage a suspect to lie and account for evidence because they don't know the full extent of police's knowledge
  • Strategically frame evidence in a way that the subject only knows what it is but not it's scope
  • Use negatively framed questions to invite the lie
• Research shows SUE is an effective technique to gain disclosure from initially resistant individuals.
• The innocent can easily account for any discrepancies; The guilty, presented powerful evidence inconsistent with their story, is hard to overcome
• It's not considered a Bluff
• The 'original' SUE technique presents evidence that is available and/or could be presented.
• Some are critical of the PIM guidelines because when one: Presents inaccurate or uncertain evidence, Implies the existence of evidence that is not yet in our possession, and Uses appeals coupled with evidence to generate dialogue.
• It can increase the risk of a false confession.
• Studies have shown that mentioning false or inaccurate evidence can lead to the elicitation of a false confession.
• Appeals


  • Minimize (seriousness),
  • Rationalize (reasons),
  • Project (blame others),
  • Socialize (emotion/how other see things),
  • Emphasizing truth (reason why it happened)
• Projection


  • Externalize blame
  • Blame Others- provide a way for the suspect to place responsibility onto someone/thing else (government, authorities, the victim etc.)
  • Excuse-based appeals focus in on the suspects internalized reasons for committing the offense (health, biology, curiosity, protecting someone else)
• Socialize (Counsellor approach)

  • Projects caring more about the suspect's well being than about resolving the case.
  • Similar to Clinical Motivational Interviewing - fostering respect, communication, and cooperation.
  • Guides the Susp. on a pathway to understanding, accepting, and forgiving, their part in the offence (closure).
  • Draw attention confession as an opportunity for personal healing, quieting "inner conflict" or embracing a transition.
  • Can be useful with ambivalent subjects and those that are beginning to accept ownership for their behavior.
  • CAUTION = This approach may, by conveying to the Susp. a sense of security and false hope that dances along the forbidden edge of an increased expectation lenience.
• Relatively new only in play for about 10 years
• Few mentions in case law to date
• Wait and See: Research Courts & case law
• Final Class Online