At the turn of the last century, January 2000, I was declared “The Greatest Singer on the Continent.”

 Okay, so the continent was Antarctica which was inhabited by only about 1200 people at the time, only of which 200 or so were in the bar that night for the karaoke contest.   But I was still declared “The Greatest Singer on the Continent.”

The contest was judged by applause and noise after you sang a song.  In the first round, I sang the Bocelli song “Con Te Partiro.”  I figured no one else could sing opera and given the thirty seconds I had to get into the contest, I made this choice.  I got through to the second round leaving 10 persons behind – halfway there.

For the next song I did the classic “God Bless the Child.”   I did it ala Blood Sweat and Tears since I would never try to imitate Billie Holiday who did the only other version I knew.  Another half the group eliminated, down to five of us.

I had time to think now and I chose my next song carefully -- “Paradise by the Dashboard Lights” by Meatloaf.  I sort of look like Meatloaf anyway, and I have an operatic voice, so why not get a song everyone would be singing by the end.  It worked.  By the time I was “praying for the end of time,” everyone was up and singing and the girls were “glowing like a metal on the edge of a knife.”  It worked, and I was crowned “The Greatest Singer on the Continent.”

Actually, it wasn’t that easy.  You see, there was a tie as far as the noise went.  One of the contestants was really good at generating noise.  She was not a very good singer at all, in fact awful, but right at the end of her song she would open her blouse and expose her rather well-rounded 20-something mammary glands and the 10-1 male crowd would explode with noise and applause.  During the last vote, they did a recount, actually numerous recounts since the judges were male and “couldn’t make a decision” between the singer and the chest.  The judges had a real dilemma.  A karaoke contest is sort of like a job interview.  I had answered all the questions right, but she had something special for them to ponder.  She had actually figured out a way to circumvent the interview.

Interviews, interrogation, examination, and source debriefing are the main tools used in accessing what exactly is going on in a court case.  Lawyers, guardians, DA’s, judges and court experts basically use a combination of the techniques to extract what is going on from litigants.  The lawyers need to find the information that will best help them represent their client.  The judges need information to make a decision.  But, the forensic psychologist sees these techniques a completely different way and have started to study the most effective techniques.  If an attorney or judge could understand these processes as a forensic psychologist, they will have a whole different perspective on their work which could make them more effective.  So let’s go there!

The true interview is “infocentric.”  The desire is to get information from the client or patient making them feel good about talking.  They need to put the talker in the mood to give information as they can facilitate the flow of thought.  Techniques to create rapport, help a patient relax, and give the patient a sense of confidence in the examiner, all aid the person in opening up.  It is a positive reinforcement paradigm where the person is made to feel good about a response and gets a reward.  You give a lot of paralinguistic responses to words from the client like “mmmm” or “uh-huh” and you repeat their sentences to let them know you are listening.   In the middle of the second hour, I relate some stupid story about myself to relax the client and make them feel I am bringing them into my confidence.  This could backfire if done too soon or frequently, but it seems one incident in the middle of the second hour really works.  The goal of an interview is to get as much information as possible from the person that you can use in the forensic situation.

Interrogation is a completely different perspective on gathering data.  Interrogation is “confession-centric” or

getting the person to admit to something that occurred or information that they have.  Techniques such as confrontation, not letting a person rest, or drink, or even making things up to get them to admit to something lesser are all used to pull a confession out of a person.  It uses a negative reinforcement paradigm which means that the person is rewarded by stopping a painful process.  For example, the alarm clock ringing in the morning causes you to reach over and turn it off to stop the sound which rewards you with some quiet.   In an interrogation, a person’s heart rate goes up, their breathing changes, they get their blood pressure raised and all kinds of physical symptoms occur leading the person to give a less filtered response, so the questions better be carefully chosen.  Negative reinforcers are very powerful and the misuse of confession-centric techniques can lead to error.  A recent study in North Carolina compared confessions to actual DNA evidence on crimes and found that 24% of crimes thought to be solved because of a confession conflicted with the DNA evidence.  All the subjects had said they confessed at the time just to get out of the interrogation.  The evidence on people admitting to knowledge they didn’t have was even higher than the 24%.  I guess that is why all confessions need corroboration in criminal cases.  Twenty-four percent is certainly enough for reasonable doubt.

Cops are know to combine the two techniques above in what is known as good cop-bad cop scenario where one cop uses negative reinforcement techniques and the other uses positive reinforcement techniques.  Unfortunately most cops strongest training in interview and interrogation comes from CSI or Hill Street Blues reruns on TV.  That is where they are vulnerable on the witness stand.

Direct Examination and Cross Examination are the techniques lawyers are most familiar with.  They are not actually information or confession-centered, but are “structure-centric.”    They focus on organizing information in a certain direction without respect to the goal of accurate and complete elicitation.  Some direct examinations are a rehearsed reenactment  of an opinion or viewpoint, others give the impression of being exploratory but in reality the answers to the questions should be known and the goal is just to organize the information for the judge(s).  Cross-examination has goals of confusing the person on the stand, leading them to admit fault or degrading their information.  You have studied these techniques more than I, so I will leave you with your knowledge.

Source debriefing comes from the extraction of “intelligence” from outside sources not involved in the case.  On the world scene, it might be a person that knows about a terrorist activity about to occur but is not involved.  With policing, it might be getting information from informants.  In court, it might be a bystander or CPS worker, or a collateral source on a divorce or personal injury case.  This person needs to feel safe about what they are telling you and don’t want to be linked to their intelligence.  Often they don’t realize what they know, so the process of a source debriefing is often “exploration-centric.”  The examiner must get the person comfortable and then explore their world, their knowledge.

What does all of this mean to a lawyer?  There’s the rub.  Let me give you a few brief ideas.  If free flow of information is important, use the sensory language the client uses.  If they are visual (easy to asses in an interview), your statements should start with “I see, or you can see.”  If auditory, “what have your heard,” etc.  If they are emotional reactors, use textured language to talk about “colors” and the “fields of grass” before a question to get the best response from the interviewee.  If they are more logical reactors use precise language such as “about twelve degrees to the left.”   If the conversation is meant to be confession-oriented, use an opposing sensory language and texture/precision in your speech.

If security is real important, speak softer, design your room for no sound, address a security issue as an aside during the first part of conversation.  Never take a phone call in their presence – send them out of the room.  If structure is real important, make sure all questions are sequential when examining.  Check for fine detail.  If you are trying to confuse a person, mix parts of your cross-examination slipping questions in and out of your main points.  The human brain cannot make quick switches in pressure situations.  And there are many more suggestions that a quick search on the internet will reveal to you.

The elicitation of information and intelligence has become a big field in police and forensic psychology especially since the country went to war.  Development in the field is burgeoning, and many techniques you can find of use of in your practice.  I know I have in mine.

After much deliberation in Antarctica, the decision was made to award the young lady with the interesting endings to her songs the title of “The Best Entertainer on the Continent.”  As due my performance, I became “The Best Singer on the Continent.”  A happy ending for all, although I wished they had done just one more recount!

Dr. Aumiller is the executive director of the Society for Police and Criminal Psychology, an international network of police and forensic scientists, therapist and researchers.  He consults in the court systems of Long Island and lectures throughout America and Europe.