Tag: interview

Category and Location Clustering

Investigative Interviewing – Category and Location Clustering

WRITTEN BY:

Rui Paulo – Liverpool; John Moores University, United Kingdom

Mark Severino – Los Angeles Police Department (Ret.), United States

Science-based techniques are key for obtaining detailed and accurate accounts from witnesses and victims. However, some techniques like the change order mnemonic or a witness-compatible questioning can be too complex or challenging to use and sometimes elicit a limited amount of new information. To address this, Paulo et al. (2021) developed two retrieval strategies that could apply to most crimes/events and are easily adapted/used by detectives with various levels of training: Category Clustering Recall (CCR) and Location Clustering Recall (LCR).

CCR consists of asking eyewitnesses to recall a crime using broad information categories that are present in most crimes to guide and organize their recall (e.g., person-related details, object/ environmental-related details, location-related details, action-related details, and auditory information). This is based on research suggesting that focusing on one specific cluster at a time can trigger relevant associated memories that otherwise might not be recalled.

LCR consists of asking eyewitnesses to recall a crime using locations to guide and organize their recall. Therefore, witnesses are asked to focus and recall information concerning each separate location of the crime scene, one at a time. This was based on research suggesting that locations can be effective cues for enhancing episodic memory.

These techniques were initially intended to be used after a free recall to obtain additional detail from witnesses. In the lab, CCR was found to be more effective in eliciting information after a free recall in comparison with the change order mnemonic (Paulo et al., 2016) and witness-compatible questioning (Paulo et al., 2017). However, recent research suggests these techniques might also be more effective (and possibly replace) a free recall (Paulo et al., 2021; Shahvaroughi et al., 2021; Thorley, 2018).

There are several ways we would use the CCR/LCR concepts.

After the free recall, I would ask the subject to concentrate on PLATO topics individually. The problem I have with the context reinstatement mnemonic is it is a large request (e.g., concentrate on the people, actions, objects, odors, emotions felt, etc.) Too large of a request for a victim/witness who is having problems concentrating and many times too general.

CCR on the other hand allows the subject to concentrate on one topic at a time. The other advantage of CCR is I can include as many general topics as needed specific to the investigation/interview. For example, with the context reinstatement mnemonic, I could ask for objects observed and would receive a general description. With CCR, I would ask to concentrate on objects. Description of said objects, color, size, weight, markings, scratches exact locations, etc. The sketch Plan works hand in hand with CCR. The subject could draw the object, articulate the markings, etc. The Sketch Plan facilitates communication during CCR.  

The same holds for Location Clustering. Locations can be different areas of a room the subject went to, and different rooms the subject was placed in (e.g., a kidnapped subject was moved and tortured in different rooms within a large commercial structure. The subject was tortured in each room by different suspects using different means). Locations can be physical locations the subject visited or was forced to travel to. This works very well with Haneen Deeb’s Mapping research. Location Clustering allows the subject to concentrate on one location at a time. This also works well with the Timeline technique, when the event being investigated is spread out over hours/days.

I have used the CCR concept when explaining the interview process (pre-free recall) and advising the subject to think about the different CCR categories. I like front-loading the categories before the free recall. After obtaining the free recall, I would select the topics from the free recall that required further follow-up. After exhausting the subject’s memory recall, I would still ask the subject to think about CCR general categories (PLATO) even if they were not mentioned during free recall. It is common for subjects to remember more when concentrating on one category at a time. (e.g., a witness who observed several people sitting in a vehicle only gave a general description during free recall. However, when asked to only concentrate on the individuals we obtained more fine-grain detail on the occupants as well as the subject remembering another person who had walked by the vehicle. Thus, another witness. This is compatible with laboratory research from Paulo et al. (2016) and Paulo et al., (2017) suggesting CCR can be effective in eliciting detailed information after a free recall, particularly person-related details.  

In a tactical situation when debriefing a witness (e.g., active shooter), the CCR concept is useful when we need specific information promptly. There is no time for CI/free recall, that would come much later. The CCR is a very flexible concept and appears to be easy to understand for the subject and flexible for the interviewer. Anytime a subject can concentrate on a single topic, we always receive more information vs. a request that includes many topics.

When we select the topics from the free recall that require further explanation, we use the mini-context reinstatement to focus the subject on only that topic. For example, the subject stated during free recall that a male suspect entered the convenience store, walked down the subject’s aisle, approached the subject, and pointed a gun at the subject, demanding his wallet.   

We would break down the event;

• When the subject first observed the suspect enter the store. CCR categories, other people near the suspect (additional witnesses), actions, objects, conversations, etc.
• When the subject observed the suspect walking down the aisle toward him. CCR categories, other people, objects, conversations, etc.
• When the suspect pointed a weapon demanding the subject’s wallet. CCR categories include the suspect (full description), objects (logos on clothing/hat), jewelry worn by the suspect, odors (cologne) conversations (exact words used by the suspect), and the weapon (full description).

Again, anytime we can have the subject concentrate on a specific category or event, we always receive more detailed information. Even with the free recall, we always would break down the free recall into smaller bites.  I am an avid believer in CCR and can attest that most events can be broken down into CCR general categories. Sometimes, the subject’s free recall is very general lacking any detail as supported by academic research that found CCR and LCR to elicit more detailed accounts in comparison with a free recall (Paulo et al., 2021; Shahvaroughi et al., 2021; Thorley, 2018). CCR categories are a good way of prompting the subject to extend the free recall.

The opinions expressed in this article, which was prepared in Mark Severino’s capacity, are his own and do not reflect the views of the Los Angeles Police Department.

References

Paulo, R. M., Jones, E., & Mendes, R. (2021). Testing two retrieval strategies to enhance eyewitness memory: Category and location clustering recall. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27, 140-149.

Paulo, R. M., Albuquerque, P. B., Vitorino, F., & Bull, R. (2017). Enhancing the cognitive interview with an alternative procedure to witness-compatible questioning: Category clustering recall. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23, 967-982.

Paulo, R. M., Albuquerque, P. B., & Bull, R. (2016). Improving the enhanced cognitive interview with a new interview strategy: Category clustering recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 775-784.

Shahvaroughi, A., Ehsan, H., Hatami, J., Monajem, A., & Paulo, R. M. (2021). Testing a modified cognitive interview with category clustering recall in Iran. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35, 148-159.

Thorley, C. (2018). Enhancing individual and collaborative eyewitness memory with category clustering recall. Memory, 26(8), 1128-1139.

No Need for a Confession

Science-Based Interviewing

Written by: Mark Severino (Los Angeles Police Department (Ret.))

At the beginning of an interview, the interviewer may have already formed an opinion about what had happened, who may have observed it, and who may be responsible based on the investigation’s findings. However, it is essential to find out what the subject knows, is willing to talk about, or what the subject’s alibi may be. The interviewer should not direct the subject to only talk about topics the interviewer is interested in. Instead, they should encourage subjects to speak on issues such as their alibi. When an interviewer enters an interview to seek a confession, the interview is conducted specifically to meet that objective. If the subject does not confess to the crime, techniques such as minimization, maximization, bait questions, or introducing false evidence have contributed to false confessions. The author believes there are additional objectives other than a confession that would deem an interview successful.

• The interview revealed additional investigative information
• The interview revealed additional prosecutorial information
• The interview elicited an admission
• The interview exonerated the subject
• The interview identified false statements in the subject’s alibi

Subject’s Alibi: A statement or evidence alleges the subject was elsewhere when the crime occurred.

Exculpatory Evidence: Evidence that, if true, may exonerate the subject from the crime investigated. This may include witness testimony, phone records, receipts, video footage, or evidence collected at a crime scene.

False Exculpatory Statements: When the subject offers a statement pointing to their innocence but is proven false, i.e., a lie. Depending on the legal jurisdictions (e.g., California), false statements may be admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt. The prosecution may instruct the jury on the inference of guilt they may draw from the subjects’ false statements. False statements may be stronger indicators of guilt than a confession, i.e., there is no need to lie unless guilty. Cross-examination by a criminal defense attorney may challenge the interviewer’s credibility to such an extent that a jury may believe the interviewer coerced the confession. However, juries usually believe an interviewer’s testimony when the interviewer can accurately identify the subject’s lies.

The Interview:

During an interview, the subject’s false statements will be highlighted during the evidence disclosure phase (e.g., when the subject’s statements contrast with the evidence disclosed by the interviewer). A science-based interview, i.e., establishing rapport, eliciting a free recall, proper questioning, and tactically introducing evidence using the Strategic Use of Evidence technique (SUE), will amplify truthful and fabricated statements. Before disclosing evidence, the SUE technique suggests obtaining a complete, uninterrupted account. Giving the subject a sense of autonomy, active listening, and appropriate questioning strategies will increase the amount of information reported and lock the subject into their true or false story (e.g., the subject stated he never left his residence the day of the crime). However, the evidence revealed a different story.

Evidence is arranged in the order of disclosure, beginning with vague evidence (e.g., evidence that shows the subject left his residence) and gradually introducing more precise evidence (e.g., evidence that shows the subject drove his vehicle to the neighborhood where the crime was committed), followed by the most precise evidence (e.g., a security camera captured subject entering the crime scene).

Questions are composed for each item of evidence, beginning with general questions (e.g., tell me in as much detail as possible everything you did on …) and progressing to more specific questions (e.g., did you ever leave your residence?) and gradually even more specific questions (e.g., did you drive to the neighborhood of …?) followed by the disclosure of the piece of evidence (e.g., video footage of subject entering the crime scene). Arranging the evidence in a vague-to-precise manner and disclosing the evidence using a general-to-specific questioning strategy magnifies cues to deception and truthfulness while increasing the amount of information obtained from the subject.

The interviewer has two possible options when confronting subjects on their contradictory statements. The reactive approach is to confront the issue of each contradiction as it becomes apparent. The selective approach only engages the subject on specific contradictions and not others. The author used both the reactive and selective approaches independently or in combination during an interview, and this was dependent on the type of evidence or the interview objectives. When confronting subjects on their contradictory statements, the interviewer asks for an explanation for the contradictions while maintaining a non-judgmental and non-accusatory demeanor. Science-based interviewing and the electronic recording of the interview process would show there was no coercion or fabrication by the interviewer, and the subject’s statements were given freely. The interview process would also show that the subject had multiple opportunities to explain away any contradictions.

Suggestions:

Inconsistencies may be deception cues, but they are also everyday memory phenomena. Therefore, any opinions regarding the veracity of the subject’s story should be withheld until the subject has given their entire account, all evidence has been disclosed, and the subject has had the opportunity to explain any inconsistencies. The interviewer should never be confrontational with a subject who is being deceptive. Instead, the interviewer should encourage the subject to continue to talk, i.e., lie and contrast with the evidence held by the interviewer. The author believes identifying a subject’s false statements is like a bomb that drops down on the subject’s alibi and would make it difficult for a criminal defense team to overcome, unlike a confession. That said, identifying truthful statements is as important or even more critical when the interviewer can exonerate the subject from wrongdoing.

Conclusion:

This report is one example of why the success of an interview should not be based solely on a confession. When the interviewer can demonstrate how s/he methodically elicited the subject’s false statements, it can facilitate prosecution and offer powerful testimony in front of a jury. The author believes the SUE technique is a fundamental concept and is considered one of the most effective lie detection techniques. Identifying deception in the subject’s alibi allows the prosecutor to present the false exculpatory statements as evidence of consciousness of guilt. The author encourages interviewers to consult their local prosecutors regarding false exculpatory statements. The author also urges interviewers to seek additional information on science-based interviewing, the SUE technique, and other verbal lie-detection methods.

The opinions expressed in this article, which were prepared in Mark Severino’s capacity, are his own and do not reflect the views of the Los Angeles Police Department.