Questions and Evidence Disclosure: The QED of skilled investigative interviewing?

1. Questions and Evidence Disclosure: The QED of skilled investigative interviewing? Dave Walsh, University of Derby, UK With thanks to Ray Bull

2. Testing /exposing of criminal wrongdoing • Weight of evidence (Beauregard et al., 2010; Gudjonsson & Petursson, 1991; Gudjonsson & Sigurdsson, 1999, 2000; Kebbell et al., 2006b) • Interviewer attitude (Holmberg & Christianson, 2002; Kebbell et al., 2006a; 2010) • Tactics, attitudes, & skill (Leo, 1996; Soukara et al., 2009; van der Sleen, 2009; Walsh & Bull, 2012) • Fraud cases – establishing mens rea also important in decision making as to disposal/prosecution as well as actus reus

3. Evidence delivery • Disclosure conditions • Early (Baldwin, 1993; Kebbell et al., 2006a) • Gradual (Dando et al., under review; Dando & Bull, 2010) • Late (Hartwig et al., 2005, 2006) • But just examining detection of truth/deception • Confessions - Late disclosure & strong evidence (Sellers & Kebbell, 2009)

4. Research question • What is most likely to predict exposing criminal wrongdoing in fraud cases? • where evidence was either • very strong • strong • or to be at such a weight as to suggest likely that actus reus had occurred

5. Materials and procedure • 85 fraud interviews conducted between 2004-2007 • Three sets of raters each working blindly

6. Weight of investigative evidence Very weak or non-existent =1 Weak = 2 Medium = 3 Strong = 4 Very strong = 5 Evidence disclosure Three conditions (Early, Gradual, Late) Interviewer skill Unskilled – 1,2 Satisfactory - 3 Skilled - 4,5 Exposing criminal wrongdoing Scores 4, 5 – strong or very strong appearance of the commission of a criminal offence 3 – on balance of probabilities wrongdoing occurred 2 - on balance of probabilities wrongdoing has not occurred 1 – clear that wrongdoing has not occurred Rating scales

7. Results of logistic regression tests -exposing criminal wrongdoing • In interviews where evidence disclosed suggests strongly or likely actus reus • Significant model (2 [5, N= 58] = 36.73), p < .001). • Explained between 35.1% (Cox and Snell R square) and 50.4% (Nagelkerke R square) of the variance in outcome (correctly classifying 82.4% of cases) • Interviewer skill (scores 4/5) was strongest predictor of interviews where criminal wrongdoing exposed (odds ratio of 13.37) • Also evidence disclosure (gradual condition- odds ratio of 9.33) • Evidence disclosure mode (late condition - odds ratio .82) less likely to expose criminal wrongdoing

8. What does a skilled investigative interview actually look like? • Modified GQM (Griffiths & Milne, 2006, revised by Oxburgh, 2011, and further enhanced by Walsh & Bull, in prep.) • ‘Good’ questions v ‘Bad’ questions • Ratio of Open v Probing • Pattern of questioning • Evidence disclosure (Walsh & Bull, 2012) • Summarising (Walsh & Bull, 2012)

9. GQM – Revised – examples only E S Example 2 Use of good questions and ratio of probing to open increases as interview develops Example 1 Erratic sequence & ‘bad’ question usage

10. Interview #33 - unskilled – gradual evidence disclosure – actus reus likely evidence weight medium – criminal wrongdoing not exposed Open Probing Enc/Ack Echo Closed Leading Multiple Forced choice Opinion/ Statement E E E E EE

11. Interview #4 – unskilled gradual evidence disclosure – actus reus very likely – evidence weight strong – criminal wrongdoing not exposed Open Probing Enc/Ack Echo Closed Leading Multiple Forced choice Opinion/ Statement EE E E E E

12. Interview #65 – unskilled late evidence disclosure – actus reus likely Criminal wrongdoing not exposed– evidence weight medium Open Probing Enc/Ack Echo Closed Leading Multiple Forced choice Opinion/ Statement E E E

13. Interview #41– skilled late evidence disclosure – actus reus very likely – evidence weight heavy – criminal wrongdoing not exposed Open Probing Enc/Ack Echo Closed Leading Multiple Forced choice Opinion/ Statement E E E E

14. Interview #22 – skilled gradual evidence disclosure – actus reus very likely – evidence weight medium –criminal wrongdoing exposed Open Probing Enc/Ack Echo Closed Leading Multiple Forced choice Opinion/ Statement E E E E E E E S

15. Interview #80 – skilled early evidence disclosure – actus reus unlikely – evidence weight light – criminal wrongdoing not exposed Open Probing Enc/Ack Echo Closed Leading Multiple Forced choice Opinion/ Statement E E

16. Discussion • Interim findings suggest skilled interviewing in line with PEACE model and, also, gradual evidence disclosure mode appear important in exposing criminal wrongdoing in cases where evidence suggests actus reus likely or very likely

17. Future directions • Larger sample required to continue to include range of evidence disclosure modes, interviewer skill levels of tactics & attitudes, weights of evidence, interview outcomes • Wider range of offences • Interview strategy map (ISM) incorporating, (i) Bull and Soukara, (2010 – timing of tactics); (ii) Dando & Bull, (under review – evidence disclosure); (iii) Griffiths & Milne (2006 – GQM); (iv) Ormerod et al., (2003- investigative decision making) (v) Oxburgh, Myklebust, & Grant, (2010 – question types); (vi) Soukara, Bull, Turner, Vrij, & Cherryman, (2009 – tactics); (vii) Walsh & Bull, (2012 – attitudes, tactics & skill levels).

18. Interview #22 – skilled (score 4)- gradual evidence disclosure – actus reus likely Criminal wrongdoing exposed(5) – evidence weight medium Open Probing Enc/Ack Echo Closed Leading Multiple Forced choice Opinion/ Statement E E S E E E S E E S Tactic1, 2, 7, 10. &12 Attitude 6, 3, 7, Tactic1, 2, 7, 10. &12 Attitude 6, 3, 7, Tactic1, 2, 7, 10. &12 Attitude 6, 3, 7, Tactic1, 2, 7, 10. &12 Attitude 6, 3, 7, Investigative Interview Strategy Map specimen only

19. Any questions • D.walsh@derby.uk