It can be difficult for an interviewer to determine whether a person they are speaking to as part of an inquiry is telling the truth or not. Since it is difficult to distinguish between those who tell the truth and those who deceive, methods like statement analysis and behavioral observation frequently produce false results. It is the investigator's responsibility to make sure they maintain the agencies' trustworthiness by coming to a firm, conclusive decision. (Hartwig et al., 2006; Vrij, & Granhag, 2012). Many times, after the detectives have finished their presentations, new information surfaces that contradicts their findings. This paper will describe the best manner in which an investigator can determine if the witness or interviewee is being truthful.
Information is the greatest tool that can be used to eliminate untruthfulness in any investigation. One advantage that investigators have is that most times, there are many avenues and sources that they can utilize to obtain information. It is hardly possible that all the sources be compromised to form a perfect misinterpretation of what took place (Milne & Bull, 2003). Therefore, the best way that a criminal investigator can determine the truthfulness of the accounts given by interviewees is collecting as much information from as many sources of information as possible. This information should come from a variety of sources.
A crime is like a puzzle where many people will try their best to ensure that the truth does not come out (Klinkner, 2009). Despite these efforts, it is not possible that one can hide or compromise all factors that can lead to the truth. Information can be gained from a variety of sources such as physical tangible evidence related to the scene of crime or the suspects and information from people. An investigating officer should ensure that they get to the bottom of even the slightest indicator of what could have happened (Vrij et al., 2008).
The most crucial step in this procedure is putting together the information obtained from the various people and objects. This step is meant to single out any inconsistencies in the separate accounts. In the course of putting together the information from various sources, the investigator may find out that some of the pieces of information do not fit together (Mann et al., 2004). They should be able to rank the sources of information from the most reliable to the least reliable. Despite this ranking, all the information should be treated as provision. This means that if pieces of information from the most reliable source is inconsistent with all the rest, further investigation should be done rather than dismiss the majority that is consistent (Vrij et al., 2007).
If the information given by the interviewee coincides with that obtained from the other sources of information, the investigator can be satisfied that they are telling the truth. If the accounts given by the interviewee are inconsistent with information from the other sources, the investigator can arrive at a conclusion that either the witness or other sources have offered invalid information. This necessitates that further investigation work be carried out to bring out the absolute truth in the case (Inbau et al., 2011; Vrij et al., 2007). The process should continue until it is clear on which information is reliable and give a clear account of the crime.
References
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: When training to detect deception works. Law and human behavior, 30(5), 603-619.
Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2011). Criminal interrogation and confessions. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Klinkner, M. (2009). Forensic science expertise for international criminal proceedings: An old problem, a new context and a pragmatic resolution. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 13(2), 102-129.
Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: police officers' ability to detect suspects' lies. Journal of applied psychology, 89(1), 137.
Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2003). Interviewing by the police. D. Carson & R. Bull (Eds.), Handbook of psychology in legal contexts, 111-125.
Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2012). Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(2), 110-117.
Vrij, A., Mann, S. A., Fisher, R. P., Leal, S., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2008). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and human behavior, 32(3), 253-265.
Vrij, A., Mann, S., Kristen, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2007). Cues to deception and ability to detect lies as a function of police interview styles. Law and human behavior, 31(5), 499-518.
