One stop interrogation & interviewing resource

[Ken White]

Sorry, both Strategic Debriefing (ASI) and Interrogation (MOS) have been around since long before '73. And 96Cs - the old interrogator MOS code - were also doing strategic debriefings before then.

before that back unto the 50s, even -- not to mention during WW II.

And to bring up the subject of statement analysis:

....before I was stopped from further NTC training.

You could tell us more about that....

Yep.

[jmm99]

I'll leave aside any issues on separation of Strategic Debriefing (ASI) and Interrogation (MOS); when certain methodologies began; and the highpoints or lowpoints of Outlaw 7's career.

Here is what I've gleaned of interest.

from Ted (aka Jedburgh)
The "common goal" is simply obtaining intelligence information through human communications.

Pretty simple, but the core concept requires the humans to communicate. That is so whether the questioning is termed an interrogation, an interview or whatever. How to implement that concept is brought home in a short (8-page) memo, Suggestions for Japanese Interpreters Based on Work in the Field (17 Jul 43), linked by Ted in his post here. The context includes "interviews" in the front lines on the Canal and in more secure POW holding areas.

Of the many good points made by MAJ Moran (USMCR), a salient one is removal of the adversarial component from the conversation. So also Outlaw 7's example of the NVA officer:

from Outlaw 7
Example---I first unknowingly tried this on a captured high ranking NVA officer in 1969---I knew he had been living like a dog in tunnels and existing on limited amounts of food prior to capture. Threw him into a hot shower, gave him a clean set of clothes, and sat him down in front of a table full of food, and left him totally alone for a week. He was free to roam the CIDG camp but under guard-then sat him down and in a calm fashion started the questioning --three hours later we had the entire supply bunker locations for two full NVA regiments. I had my first taste of cognitive dissonance.

In short, turn the "interrogation" (perceptionally adversarial) into an "interview" (perceptionally non-adversarial)[*]

Stated as a more general concept:

from Outlaw 7
Spiral questioning evolved out of the need to get individuals to talk with you who leagally did not have to answer a single question---the core goal is to build rapport and build it fast and at the same time get a feel for information areas, and to check security issues constantly along the way. I also realized that the core concept of being able to "prove" that the person was lying became second in importance---the main goal in understanding the lying was why was the person lying and I then realized it had to do with protecting something.

I'd add that "lying" is not the only way one can attempt to cover a seam or gap. Often the witness truly believes what is objectively a lie. If so, he or she should be very willing to expand on the rest of the story (which may or may not comport with objective fact). Do you squash the "lie" ? I'd say not yet; that comes later down the road. I'd say become genuinely interested in the narrative and allow expansion, expansion, always expansion. [**]

That brings us to the heart of the matter:

from Outlaw 7
A simple explanation of the method is as follows;
You set up a number of areas to be covered-pick a point to start and you ask a very simple question on that topic until you have worked your way through the topics--but the question has to be extremely straight forward and simple, then you sart a second round of questioning starting from a different point and you repeat the original question and add more depth to the first question---absolutely no follow up questions which is a urge hard to resist. Once that series is finished you start again at another point and expand on the first part of the questioning.

I can't argue with that - cuz I've been doing "that", and Chip Morgan's Focused Interviewing, in both discovery and office client interviews, for the last 40 years. I've just thought of JMM TTPs as developing rapport and some "meanderings" (purposeful to me; hopefully not apparent to the other person). Trial direct examinations and cross examinations are a little different.

All of this involves "cognitive dissonance" (or terminal dumb on the part of the witness, or an abject lack of preparing the witness by his or her lawyer, in JMM terms):

from Outlaw 7
Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one's behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

It is remarkable how many people respond to a simple question by elaborate rationalizations.

E.g., in civil litigation, use of written interrogatories and requests for production of documents allow pre-deposition background checking (residence, employment, educational and criminal histories; as well as tax returns, etc.). Normally, you start off depositions by having the witnesss summarize what you already know - simply to settle down the witness. At some point, you toss in a simple question (actually a "closed" question, which could be fairly answered "yes" or "no"), such as "I see you attended Michigan Tech, a tough school. Did you graduate ?"; or "Did you file a 1040 for 2005 ?".

Often times the witness feels compelled to offer a long-explanation, rather than the simple "no" answer which the question calls for. Of what value is this (since non-graduation or non-filing is probably not a crucial issue in the case) ? (1) It tells you something important about the witness (some "cognitive dissonance" in Outlaw 7 terms); (2) it allows you to establish rapport with the witness by empathizing with his explanation - assuming it is irrelevant to the case; and (3) the long explanation may disclose seams or gaps, or lead to disclosure of seams and gaps (which is both relevant and material).

So leaving the inside baseball to you guys, I've found this and other discussions on interrogations (or interviewing, or whatever) most interesting - a form of comparative law study in its practical applications.

Regards

Mike

----------------------
[*] I enjoyed the first sentence of Moran's memo:

First of all I wish to say that every interpreter (I like the word "interviewer" better, for any really efficient interpreter is first and last an interviewer) must be himself.

both for the "be yourself" advice, but also for his suggestion to create an "interview-like" atmosphere to what is in reality an interrogation.

Chip Morgan makes the same point, over and over again, in his 2005 manual on Focused Interviewing, linked by Slap a few posts above.


[**] In that context, the methodology requires (1) "you" questions, vice "me" questions ("me" being the interrogator), which bring out the witness' narrative - not the narrative that the questioner would like to hear; and (2) "open" questions, vice "closed" questions ("closed" being simple "yes-no" questions, or most extremely, leading questions with a speech by the questioner), based on the adverb series: "how, where, when, why, etc."

It's remarkable how many lawyers violate these simple rules and try to "bulldoze" their way through what is supposed to be the "discovery" process. Of course, it is equally remarkable how many lawyers have a pathological fear of going to trial (fear of public rejection, I suppose; but I'm not a shrink ).

PS: to Outlaw 7. You're an "old guy" (which both Ken White and I will deny for somewhat varied reasons: I because I still have to figure out what to be when I grow up; Ken because he will never grow up). Thanks for the backgrounder.