One stop interrogation & interviewing resource

[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