Using Contrast In The Interview Process
Recently, I interviewed a man accused of stabbing another individual
. The circumstances involved drinking, an altercation and a woman who was the object of two men's affection.
Witness statements were unreliable (as usual) because most people don't actually see an event until they hear a commotion, then they look to see what's going on. By asking others what happened, hearing people talk and just by a process of logical deduction, most witnesses then swear that they observed an event. It's kind of like a traffic accident - how many people hear the crash, then look up at the aftermath, but swear they witnessed the wreck?
In this case, one guy (the suspect) was dancing with a girl. The dancing became slow and sensual, which infuriated the girl's date (the victim), who was watching the couple dance.
Words became pushes, pushes became punches and then the victim slumped over holding his stomach - the victim of a stabbing.
The suspect was apprehended by bouncers right inside the bar, but the knife was found on the dance floor, so this case had some big holes in it. No witness could put the knife in the suspect's hand at any point.
The suspect was arrested and had already been interviewed three times by the time I talked with him. I was retained by his attorney.
When I interviewed him, he seemed a little cocky, displaying a fake-tough attitude.
A little research showed that he virtually had no record (some traffic stuff, no arrests). He was, in spite of his cocky attitude, a little guy. I suspected that he was putting up a tough act because inside he was scared to death.
The arrest reports showed the victim being about 3 inches taller than the suspect, 4 years older and 40 pounds heavier. Additionally, the victim really was a tough guy, with an arrest record full of assaults, batteries and weapons charges. In fact, the victim had been on probation at the time of the fight in the bar.
I decided to use an interview approach which has worked well for me in the past: contrasting. Specifically, contrasting the suspect's actions against that of a "normal" person in the same circumstances.
Here's how it goes: when the suspect told me about the pushing and punching, I asked him if he was scared. Quickly, before he could deny being scared, I then said "because I would have been scared in that situation, any normal person would have been."
As we worked our way through the fight scenario, at each juncture in the story I would contrast his behavior against that of a normal person. I asked him the following:
"Did you carry a knife that night for self-protection? That would have been normal, being by yourself."
"Were you scared when you were dancing with (the victim's) girlfriend? That would have been normal."
"Did you even know the girl was (the victim's) girlfriend? If it was me, or any normal person, I wouldn't have ever danced with her with that big guy watching."
As I talked with the suspect, he gradually started agreeing with me about acting like a "normal" person. By the time we were done, he admitted stabbing the victim during the fight. He said he was scared to death of the bigger guy and I believed him. In fact, I said any "normal" person would have been scared.
The case is still working its way through the system, so I don't know the outcome. But, the prosecutor now has a confession from the suspect. Even more important, a better picture emerged about the total circumstances. Who knows, a jury may even acquit the suspect if they believe he was in fear of his life and acted in self-defense.
The important thing here is that this method of contrasting has worked well for me in countless situations. Simply by telling suspects that they may have acted in a "normal" fashion usually gets acceptance, agreement and admissions.
Like all interviewing techniques, just try it and see if it works for you. What is there to lose?
by: Chip Morgan
Preparing For Common Interview Questions