One stop interrogation & interviewing resource

[Jedburgh]

Show me.....

--join us

You talk....

I could.....

Look - this isn't about me and/or you. I'm not going to get into a pointless 'net discussion talking about my experience vs your experience. Why don't you simply enter openly and substantively into the discussion? I already said let's hear less about you and more about the methodology. You have yet to attempt that.

I was throwing open a discussion on a way of educing information.....

You contributed to a discussion that was already open and active without appearing to link in with what was being discussed. Your post appeared to be primarily self-promotion. As has been pointed out several times - if you actually made the minimal effort to read and search the board on interrogation - that there are several focused discussions about interrogation on this board. Please feel free to join one. This is a discussion board, not a blog. What that means is that we should be engaging in the free interchange of ideas.

So, instead of talking at the board blowing your own horn about how great spiral questioning is, how about discussing with the membership the strengths of spiral questioning as opposed to other interrogation methodologies. Compare it with the methodology as delineated in FM 2-22.3, compare it with Cognitive Interview methodology or the Reid technique, or LSI......or do you feel that it can be integrated with and complement other methodologies? Does it include kinesic or NLP considerations? etc. etc. etc.

Any moke can come on the board and say they've conducted thousands of interrogations/debriefs and claim they've come up with the greatest questioning method since the Syrian Chair. What matters here is substantive discussion of the current topic, not claims of past greatness.

Have learned from this to avoid your site as a number of others do.

If anyone learns anything from this, please let it be not to come on this board in a self-promoting manner making numerous questionable claims. There are too many regulars on this board, from several nations, with experience across the operational spectrum. Between their collective memory and the gathered historical expertise, little that is questionable will fly for very long.

[jmm99]

Since Outlaw 7 may or may not be any longer with us, what are your views re: Chip Morgan's Focused Interviewing, MAJ Moran's theories on "interviewing" Japanese prisoners, and my own take in this thread on the subject matter in Comments on methodology.

I'll omit the number of parties and witnesses that I've "interrogated", "interviewed" or "communicated with" (to say zip on lawyers - it also works there, direct communications with the officer making the calls on the other side - think about it ), lest I become a "moke".

Cheers

Mike

[slapout9]

I just want to hear exactly what Spiral Questioning is?

[Jedburgh]

What are your views re: Chip Morgan's Focused Interviewing, MAJ Moran's theories on "interviewing" Japanese prisoners, and my own take in this thread on the subject matter in Comments on methodology.

Mike, I’ll just comment on Major Moran’s memo, because I’m not familiar with Chip Morgan and I haven’t had the time to read the linked text of his material.

Major Moran’s memo, despite its age and brevity, remains a very insightful and useful read for those interested in interrogation methodology and techniques. The author focuses on two aspects of interrogation (although he never uses that term in the memo): the attitude of the interrogator towards the source, and the interrogator’s knowledge and use of language.

As he states, the attitude of the interrogator is of primary importance and is critical to success or failure in the interrogation. The discussion of attitude in this memorandum is specifically focused on Japanese prisoners of war, but this is worth the time no matter what area of interrogation the reader may work or have an interest in. Considerations of environment, culture, physical condition of the source and the nature of the interrogator’s character as perceived by the source are critically important to any interrogation.

Dividing and defining language used in the conduct of interrogation into “knowledge” and “use” is an important point for interrogators to consider, even when working in their native language, but obviously more so when working in a second language. Regarding “knowledge” of language, the author stresses the importance of idiomatic language, as opposed to technical vocabulary, for rapidly developing rapport and initiating conversation with the source. (Oreste Pinto is another WWII interrogator who has written useful material on the understanding of language in interrogation) As for “use” of language, the author discusses in a simple and general manner concepts of rapport, cognition, questioning methodology and leveraging aspects of culture in questioning. He also describes the difference between empathy and sympathy, and the dangers of the latter, although not in such precise terms.

Mike, one comment you made about the article was that it illustrated that an interrogator could, ”…turn the "interrogation" (perceptionally adversarial) into an "interview" (perceptionally non-adversarial).” Your caveat about perception is astute – the interrogation remains adversarial in that we still need to extract information from the source that he is unwilling to share. However, developing rapport in such a way that it creates this type of source perception facilitates drawing out information from the source without his clear realization as to what he has just compromised.

One book that myself and others on this board have previously mentioned as regarded by military interrogators as “the” classic in the field is The Interrogator: The Story of Hanns Joachim Scharff: Master Interrogator of the Luftwaffe. Although he does relate some coercive psychological methods – such as faking the execution of a prison during an interrogation of another – the majority of the content provides an outstanding illustration of the manipulation of source perceptions from adversarial toward non-adversarial communication for effective elicitation of intelligence information.

Ted

[jmm99]

Thanks for the kind words - I like to be "astute", even though I am not always that.

My impression of MAJ Moran's 8-pager is the same as yours. Your summary of "knowledge" and "use" hits it on the head:

Dividing and defining language used in the conduct of interrogation into “knowledge” and “use” is an important point for interrogators to consider, even when working in their native language, but obviously more so when working in a second language. Regarding “knowledge” of language, the author stresses the importance of idiomatic language, as opposed to technical vocabulary, for rapidly developing rapport and initiating conversation with the source. (Oreste Pinto is another WWII interrogator who has written useful material on the understanding of language in interrogation) As for “use” of language, the author discusses in a simple and general manner concepts of rapport, cognition, questioning methodology and leveraging aspects of culture in questioning. He also describes the difference between empathy and sympathy, and the dangers of the latter, although not in such precise terms.

In my world, your concepts run throughout client conferences (non-adversarial), witness interviews (which may be adversarial or not) and formal depositions (adversarial, if an adverse party or witness). I might sound very impressive in using "technical vocabulary" (whether legal or scientific), but I will miss the boat by doing that. The trick is to translate the technical vocabulary into idiomatic language.[*]

My impression of Chip Morgan's manual is that it parallels MAJ Moran's memo in many respects (being non-adversarial in the interviewee's eyes; not being a bulldozer; empathy vs sympathy, etc.). It is more bullet-point than academic in style.

Similar concepts also apply to witness preparation, direct examination and cross examination at trial; but they require other, overriding concepts as well. Each is a specialized area of practical trial work, but getting information from discovery and interviews underlies all of that.

So, 95% of it is preparation and perspiration; only 5% is the flashy stuff at trial. And, if you follow the Columbo model (as I do), the trial stuff is not all that flashy.

Regards

Mike

-------------------
[*] Whatever the subject matter area, it is important for me to become something of a subject matter expert in that area - albeit with a limited focus. For example, if you have a forklift accident at a loading dock, you have to learn all you can about loading operations at that particular dock (and maybe some other docks as well).

[jmm99]

Hi Ted,

The Interrogator: The Story of Hanns Joachim Scharff: Master Interrogator of the Luftwaffe, is both a collection of war stories - and an educational manual underlying the war stories.

It reminded me a bit of Francis L. Wellman's, The Art of Cross-Examination (from 1903, but still valid), since both emphasize brains over brawn with some humor interspersed (e.g., from Wellman):

"The plaintiff, a laboring man, had been thrown to the street pavement from the platform of the car by the force of the collision, and had dislocated his shoulder. He had testified in his own behalf that he had been permanently injured in so far as he had not been able to follow his usual employment for the reason that he could not raise his arm above a point parallel with his shoulder. Upon examination ... I asked the witness a few sympathetic questions about his sufferings, and upon getting on a friendly basis with him suggested that he be good enough to show the jury the extreme limit to which he could raise his arm since the accident. The plaintiff slowly and with considerable difficulty raised his arm to the parallel of his shoulder. 'Now, using the same arm, show the jury how high you could get it up before the accident,' was the next quiet suggestion; whereupon the witness extended his arm to its full height above his head, amid peals of laughter from the court and jury."

Thanks for the suggestion to read The Interrogator.

Mike