Transcript

Host: Børge Hansen, CEO, Davidhorn
Guests: Kjeld Hendrik Helland-Hansen and Oddvar Moldestad (Forensic Investigators, Western Police District) and Bente Skattør (Senior Advisor ICT and Innovation, Norwegian Police).

---

BØRGE HANSEN: Today, we’re talking about innovation in policing and what it actually looks like. Criminals are already playing with AI tools. We see deepfake voices used to trick people, AI-written scams that feel uncomfortably personal. And at the same time, the amount of evidence is exploding. Every case means hours of video and audio, phone data, documents, and chat logs. The police aren’t just under pressure from offenders; they’re also buried under information. And still, many investigators are typing crime-scene notes by hand, replaying interviews over and over, and working in systems that don’t really talk to each other. So the question is, how do we keep up and how do we get ahead?

The good news is that innovation is already happening inside policing. And the team around this table has been recognised for that work with a Europol Innovation Award, a National Digitisation Award nomination, and a Global Innovation Prize in Brazil. I’m very happy to have you here. Bente Skattør, project lead and innovation lead for AI for interviews at the Oslo Police. Kjeld Henrik Helland-Hansen, forensic investigator in the West Police District and the wildcard. And Oddvar Moldestad, also a forensic investigator and a longtime CSI innovator in the West. In this conversation, we’ll look at what’s actually changing at the crime scene, in the interview room and in the courtroom. What works, what’s hard and what it looks like when innovation comes from within the police.

So let’s start there. Bente, you’re leading AI for interviews. When people ask you what is actually changing in policing right now, where do you begin?

BENTE SKATTØR: I begin with the police officers, the CSI folks, the team, because that is where you actually start. But first of all, thank you very much for having us here. We are really thrilled to be here to talk about what we actually burn for, and that is innovation in the police. As you so clearly mentioned, Børge, the criminals have already embraced AI.

And that is also where we are. We are really trying to embrace the technology, but of course, we have to do it in a responsible way. So what we’re doing now in the AI for interviews is actually trying to build upon the speech-to-text technology, AI analysis. So we are working with the police workers strongly and tightly because they have to take and use the tools.

So that is essential, I think. So what we are working on is actually, as you said, we are working with investigation, and AI for interviews is actually about—we started with investigative interviews. So that is where we have the starting point. But we have seen the huge potential of using speech-to-text in many areas. That’s why we are also here for the CSI crime scene investigation, the courtroom, and putting TVC on the streets from the patrols. So we have huge potential.

BØRGE HANSEN: What did you start with in investigative interviewing? I know Norway is really on the forefront there. Why is that and how does it work for you guys that you started out with something that the Norwegian police think they’re really good at already?

BENTE SKATTØR: Yeah, it was not a coincidence. Because I’m really proud also that Norway has a good methodology of the way we are doing investigative interviews. So we have sort of stolen with pride from the PEACE in the UK, but we have also cultivated our own methodology. But the point is that they are writing the investigative interviews manually.

And we saw also the potential for using Norwegian language models so they can focus on rather doing the summary or understanding what is in the interview instead of taking notes while they are doing the interview. And of course they are taking many. So in Norway, I know Norway is a small country, but anyhow we have approximately 150,000 each year interviews, whether they are inside or outside—150,000 interviews with victims, suspects or similar from the police.

So we have a huge and very exciting potential and we have come that far that I hope people can see or hear that we are on the right way.

BØRGE HANSEN: So what’s the impact that you’re seeking in AI for interviews? Obviously, you talk about the 150,000 interviews all across Norway. What’s the impact that you want to get out of those 150,000?

BENTE SKATTØR: As you said in the start, Børge, we are having so much data within investigation and we need to help the investigators to do their job so they can focus on what really matters within investigation. So we can remove the boring job. It’s very important to have a good summary, of course, that they still have to do. And they also still have to control what is coming out of these language models when we do the transcription. But the potential of letting them focus more on the core case—that is investigation. And the data is not going to stop. It’s going to flood more. It’s growing each day and I have no belief that it will be less, it will be much more.

BØRGE HANSEN: But you also work closely with, in Norway, we call PPS or police officers in the field, working in the field at the crime scene. How does that innovation work that you’re doing now? How does that impact the PPS situation?

BENTE SKATTØR: We are in a position now where we actually can ask them and they have answered a questionnaire, but they’re also doing interviews about what they feel. But today it’s going very fast from when you take the interview in the street until it’s transcribed. It takes approximately one and a half to two minutes.

BØRGE HANSEN: So from the interview performed to the transcription ready, a couple of minutes?

BENTE SKATTØR: Yes, absolutely. And also the data will be valid inside the police. But we can also enable that for the court, for operation central and the core team if we have a huge case going on. So they can see the data also, what’s coming from the street immediately. So we also built that inside.

BØRGE HANSEN: In our talks earlier, you often talk about innovation as a muscle that the organisation has to train. What does that look like in practice?

BENTE SKATTØR: Yes, we have big muscles. I always say that innovation is a muscle that you have to train in order to keep up the speed with the AI revolution which is ongoing. So you have to exercise on the turn of the technology. So that means we also have to train on different arenas. We have to do smaller proof of concept, very fast, fail fast, but also going in the right direction.

And then you have to work strategically. So when it comes to the smaller proofs of concept, doing the things to explore—then we have a really good example here, is about the crime scene investigation team. I’m really proud to have Oddvar and Kjeld Henrik on our team.

BØRGE HANSEN: Before we move on to the CSI team, we also said that police work and innovation have to go hand in hand. And what does that look like on a good day?

BENTE SKATTØR: When police officers say we are on the right way, this is good, it can be better. But when they say this is working and we are on the right—that’s giving me thrill. And I’ve lately been so lucky to hear that. And I also have seen that that makes us even stronger for striving for more innovation.

BØRGE HANSEN: If criminals innovate faster than the police, why should the public still trust the police to keep up?

BENTE SKATTØR: I think that is a huge question. First of all, if we don’t move faster, I think we might lose trust. Because if we are coming more and more or lacking behind the criminals, that will immediately hit the trust for the police. That’s kind of natural. And the police force is founded on trust. So if we don’t have the trust, it will be much harder to keep on going.

BØRGE HANSEN: So, Bente, one of the challenges we’ve spoken about earlier is that we feel that people challenge us that we need to know everything about everything before we can start using these systems. But your approach is much more sandboxing and point-to-point solutions.

BENTE SKATTØR: Yeah, and that is a huge… we can philosophise a lot and discuss whether we should have a general base model that can serve and suit everyone’s need, or you should go on point-to-point to actually deliver value. And when you are in that discussion, you can easily become paralysed. That is not a good thing because innovation has to happen fast. You have to respond to the needs and also to testing it out very fast on what works. So if you are going, and this is also what I’ve seen in several technology development in Norway, we sometimes think too much before we actually do something. So we have to look ahead, we have to do smaller point-to-point solutions, and if these smaller point-to-point solutions works, you can take the same piece of technology on the next thing, and then next thing. And that’s also the way we actually evolve the data.

BØRGE HANSEN: So working in police, one could imagine that you’re not only working with supportive people. There’s a lot of cynicism in police work because—well, the reality of living with crime and criminals every day. How do you take that cynicism and turn it into something progressive or positive?

BENTE SKATTØR: I think by meeting the police workers, I really do. Because when I speak about AI, the immediate question is, will the robot take my job? Of course we—I cannot, that is a question that is fair and you have to address it. So that is what you do. But that is also then why it’s so important to involve the police officers strongly and early. Because they see and hear what, because it’s hard to say, to think about what you need or what could help you. But once you see a proof of concept and you hear it in your own language, then you immediately see the help of how this will lighten your job. So that is by involving them, I think. And also admitting that, this is a sandbox, meaning that this is where we will test the new technology. But it doesn’t mean that everything will be working.

BØRGE HANSEN: As many people listening, working in investigative work or courts or prosecution knows, policing is a profession that’s caught between extremes. There’s a lot of rules and regulations and bureaucracy that stops work. At the same time, there’s an urge to do things in the right proper way because lives are at stake. How do you navigate that as innovators in a very traditional setting?

BENTE SKATTØR: Yeah, so this is actually what I’m burning for because I have worked now in 20 years or more within the police in ICT department, not operational. But I know that it is always saying that, no this is not allowed, or we cannot do that, or we have to check and so on. And I don’t say that we shouldn’t do that of course, we have to obey the law. But it is a huge difference saying what is possible under the law instead of saying, can we have the allowance? And I think that is a huge culture thing that we have to embrace in police as well. That we…

Of course, within the law, but what is the playground? So to have that change, you need the leaders that have that same value and will give you allowance to test things and that also okay to fail.

BØRGE HANSEN: For those of us who haven’t been to a crime scene, we have a lot of impressions from TV series. What is the job of working on a crime scene in 2024 or ’25?

ODDVAR MOLDESTAD: If I may say so, crime scene investigation as a profession is all about documenting. What you observe, you observe traces, you observe persons, you observe objects, whatever. And that is quite boring work in many ways because you have to be very thorough, you have to be structured. And with the Sandwich Project we now are part of, we see how we can do these tasks in a better way. What we want to spend our time on is that is very important for crime solving. But at the same time, we can let technology do the boring part, I mean the documentation part of it. So we can use more time with other observations.

BØRGE HANSEN: So can you just take us through a crime scene? We’re looking at a traditional crime scene, there’s been a breaking and entering, a house burglary. How does an investigator or a technical investigator work in that scene traditionally and how do they work now with technology that you guys have been working on?

ODDVAR MOLDESTAD: Just briefly, first of all we establish what has happened and what do we need to do to start our crime scene investigation. And that is actually looking around. And then you start doing your thorough investigation where we use, could be photography, all kind of methods to describe the scene. And you are very accurate, you make drawings, you measure, measure every object.

So we can try to recreate at a later point of time when you also done the whole investigation, make kind of recreation of what has happened. And yeah, that is a quite boring aspect of CSI work. So you have to be structured and write everything down and basically this is what we want technology to do for us because we see that could be a lot easier if you can have tools that can make this work easier, not only for us but of course also for the patrol officers. They have—they are first on the scene. They also need to do the same things we do, but of course they have other tasks as well. And yeah, we want to make this easier in many ways.

BØRGE HANSEN: Traditional CSI work is what? Pen and paper, dictaphone…

ODDVAR MOLDESTAD: Yeah, basically pen and paper. I think the last years we’ve had the ability to type into our tablets, but still you’re in this crime scene, you wear these gloves, you don’t want to contaminate anything, still you are forced to take up your phone or your computer or whatever and you have to type this in. So you don’t want to—if you find a suspected trace, you don’t want to take off your gloves and put on the gloves and do, redo this many times. So we saw quite early that voice-to-text could be the solution here. So that is what we started to do a couple of years ago when we started this project.

BØRGE HANSEN: So these days you are working in a crime scene with voice-to-text. What does it look like to you? What is your working situation like?

ODDVAR MOLDESTAD: I think you are perhaps more out in the field, and especially on this and testing this out in the—on the field. So perhaps you can elaborate more on that?

KJELD HENRIK HELLAND-HANSEN: Yeah, so initially when we saw the possibilities in this, I thought it would be revolutionary just to have something that can transcribe my voice into text. So I don’t have to stand there in the dark with gloves and having to write this. So that was just fabulous. And then when you also realise that this transcription actually systemises, from the voice to text, and systemises according to a template that we work with. So what we call people and what we call objects and what we call traces, it puts everything in a system. So basically we can go through the crime scene, describe everything we see and then get out a finished report and that is just fabulous.

I did some exercise with the Western police, and that was with a colleague who was also a CSI technician and also the patrol police. And one of my fellow colleagues, I would describe him as one of the more analog crime investigators in our office, but that’s fine, we’re different. He was using the headsets and just logging everything. It was counter-stabbing, it was an exercise with the Norwegian Navy where they had gone off two bombs and there were dead and wounded people—that was the scenario. And when we got to the place of the incident, then he started to log, describing everything and going along. And then this was transcribed and systemised. And we asked afterwards, so what do you think of this? And he just answered, yeah, honestly, I did this, I got this report now in 20 minutes.

And if I should have done this in the traditional manner, I’d use at least two days, perhaps more. So that was a very satisfying answer for us at least because we are tech nerds, I admit it. So we like to move ahead, we like to be in the front and testing things, but this has to have an impact on the whole level, not only as tech-savvy guys, but I think in this case, the ones that will benefit the most from it are the guys typing with one finger on their keyboards. They will really see the benefits of this.

BØRGE HANSEN: Crisis exercises, you guys said earlier that it gives you much more realistic data than synthetic test data. And as you describe, you can see the technology being used in practice with your own eyes. What’s the biggest surprises from these exercises? Good and bad.

BENTE SKATTØR: I might answer that because to having allowance to test out early technology is quite cumbersome. Sometimes you have to plan very thoroughly or maybe you have to work with synthetic data, but these kind of arenas is really fantastic to explore technology. And so we jumped very fast into the exercise because we had short notice—that’s also very cool. That was a level of, parts running again. But you can actually, because now we have a toolkit of tools that works pretty well. And we also gather data. So we are in the golden hour of investigation. So we use also the interview solution and also the CSI. But the most important was actually it not that it worked, but it was a good stage of exploring technology much better than I hoped for. So now next year we are actually planning to do more so we can expose and test our solution to the end users. And then we can build on something that is already working, but also have add-ons to explore because there’s no danger to having mistakes in such exercises. That’s what we are aiming for, to learn, build.

So I’m really thrilled about that. And one of the key questions that we have—we’ve also been participating in four exercises now. So we have data collected from these exercises. So when we have more power or GPUs or machine power in the police, it’s going to be really, really fun to run also AI analytics of this data. So yes, I’m really thrilled. And also what is… The people who work with this technology can be on stage to see how Kjeld Henrik and the bomb squad is using the technology. That’s essential also.

BØRGE HANSEN: Let’s zoom out a little bit internationally. These challenges aren’t unique to Norway. You’re watching and working with others around the world who are wrestling with the same problems. Who’s inspiring you internationally and what are they learning from your work and the Nordic approach?

KJELD HENRIK HELLAND-HANSEN: But I would also like to point out that we don’t have any financial commitment in many ways to this kind of thing. So we are eager to share. Now, criminals don’t care about borders. They don’t care if you’re in Norway or Denmark, or if you sit in one part of the world doing crimes in another part of the world. And I think it’s so important to share this kind of knowledge with our colleagues in law enforcement in other countries as well. Because I really believe that if we share this kind of knowledge, we will get something back. And I think it’s counterproductive to sit in every country doing the same kind of innovation with just a small variance. So that’s why I believe that Europol, for instance, here in Europe, is an essential hub for sharing.

And our collaboration with different countries, it’s great because we see the same needs in every country, perhaps with small differences, but still—and recently when we were in Brazil, same thing. I think this is universal and we need to, since we are, I think I agree with you, Oddvar, we are in this particular area, we are quite in the front.

And I think it’s our obligation to share this with our colleagues because what we do care about is helping people. That’s why we became police officers in the first place anyway. So this is our main task to help people. And if we can do that by sharing to help other colleagues doing the same thing, yeah, I cannot say it’s important enough.

BØRGE HANSEN: Very good.

BENTE SKATTØR: I would like to add also, because getting inspired by people which are much better than you, come on with it. Give us all, because that’s essential. And why shouldn’t we also be inspired by the criminals? Because they embrace the technology and they are really innovative. So of course we shouldn’t commit crime, but we should turn it around to combat crime.

Getting the inspiration of being, having the possibility to embrace—because I strongly believe if we embrace the technology, we can see the possibilities. We can break up and see the possibilities and believe me, we will anyhow handle within the rule of law. But this is instead of taking what is possible within the law, it’s a complete different thing.

BØRGE HANSEN: Do you think the criminals are eating elephants and running like that?

BENTE SKATTØR: They are running. And then they suddenly also get innovative in a strategic matter. Then it’s becoming organised crime. And they are really innovative also to get hold of money and also of course doing really bad things hurting people. But they are really innovative in that they actually—when they have a possibility, they’re actually going for the low-hanging fruits, and then they organise it very fast. So they’re doing business. And also, as many probably already know, in Norway, committing fraud using AI and technology is a bigger business compared to selling drugs in Norway now, at the time being.

BØRGE HANSEN: So let’s finish by looking forward and keeping it practical. If all this works, everyday investigative life and the quality of justice should improve. If you could change one thing in global policing tomorrow, one thing that would actually make investigators’ lives better and justice more reliable, what would it be and why? Cooperation?

BENTE SKATTØR: Cooperation across borders. Yes, together with academia, police, public sector and also industry across borders because the crime is borderless and we have to meet on the same, what you call, football stage as them. More cooperation.

BØRGE HANSEN: Cross-border cooperation.

KJELD HENRIK HELLAND-HANSEN: I agree quite much on that one. I mentioned the importance of sharing and exchanging ideas and seeing the possibilities to get that wider view to see what you can do. And also that you have leaders that see the importance of this, see, yeah, give you the space to try your wings, to try to be a bit more innovative, not just doing your day-to-day thing, but actually looking forward and see, have that vision. I think it’s important.

BØRGE HANSEN: It’s out of the proverbial box thinking. How about you, Oddvar? One thing you would want to improve.

ODDVAR MOLDESTAD: So learning more faster.

BØRGE HANSEN: So we’ve covered a lot, tech, practice, culture, law. But what I hear, it’s ultimately about people and how they work. Innovation in policing isn’t a future dream, it’s already here. And tonight, you’ve given us a glimpse of how it looks from the inside. Thank you for joining me.

ALL: Thank you.

---

END OF TRANSCRIPT

© 2025 Davidhorn. All rights reserved.

Transcript

Host: Sigrun Rodrigues, former Chief Marketing Officer, Davidhorn
Guests: Carly McAuley and Maxime Cole, Directors at Triangle

---

Sigrun Rodrigues: Hello and welcome to this podcast. I’m Sigrun Rodrigues, Chief Marketing Officer at Davidhorn, and I’m very excited to have you here today. Would you like to introduce yourselves?

Carly McAuley: Thank you very much for having us. My name is Carly McAuley. I’m one of the directors at Triangle.

Maxime Cole: Hi, I’m Maxime Cole, and I’m also a director at Triangle.

SR: Tell me a little bit about Triangle. What is Triangle?

CM: Triangle was created in 1997, and we currently provide specialist support to children, consultancy, and training. We also provide expert opinion, intermediaries, and therapeutic services. Everything we do is very bespoke, depending on what’s needed for the children and young people. Many of the children and young people we provide services to have had abusive starts to their lives, and we’re trying to help them come to terms with that. We provide advocacy services and investigative interviewing, which is what we’re here to talk about today.

MC: Our investigative interviewing services are really growing every year. We’re doing more and more, and it’s what we mainly do now, along with a lot of training.

SR: So, specifically, children’s interviewing?

MC: Well, our specialism is with children and young people, but we actually work with people up to the age of 60. We’re asked to do investigative interviews if an adult has additional needs or communication difficulties that make it harder for someone else to interview them. We use the same skills that we use to interview children and young people for everybody anyway.

CM: That’s a real fundamental Triangle belief, isn’t it? If we get it right with the youngest children with the most complex needs, then it helps our communication with everyone.

MC: Absolutely.

The Scope of Triangle’s Investigative Work

SR: Is this related to police investigations? What type of investigations do you do specifically?

MC: It’s quite a range. Some of the interviews we do are directly referred to us by the police. It might be because the child’s very young – we interview lots of two and three-year-olds for the police. Or it might be that the child has very complex needs. Quite often, we find that children have been taught to hate the police and told that they mustn’t speak to the police, so there’s already this barrier there. Coming in as an independent organisation can make it much easier for the child to communicate with us.

The variety of investigations could be anything, but primarily, it’s sexual and physical abuse investigations that we’re involved in. Then some of our work comes from the family court. We’re asked to interview children so that the court can make decisions going forward.

CM: But it’s not quite as simple as that, is it? Sometimes we’ll interview a child for family court, but what they end up saying makes that interview go back to the criminal court and back through a police investigation.

SR: You’re discovering things in the process that nobody was aware of.

CM: Exactly. It’s quite fluid.

The Challenge of Initial Police Visits

MC: The police are in a difficult situation with some children. In the UK, if a child says something potentially concerning to a teacher, for example, the police have to go out to visit that child with a social worker and try to get the child to repeat what they’ve said to the teacher before they’ll proceed to a visually recorded interview.

For some children, it might have taken them four years to build enough rapport with that teacher to feel comfortable enough to tell them. Then they don’t know that social worker or that police officer, and they’re expected to repeat what they said straight away without having built any rapport. Often, that doesn’t work, so they don’t go on to be interviewed. Ultimately, it ends up in family court, and then we interview. So, actually, that child has said something potentially concerning before, but it never went to a police interview because they didn’t repeat what they’d said in that initial visit.

CM: We’re becoming more aware the more police we’re training of the systems and the way they work. Recently, in one of the courses where we trained a local police force, they talked about having “no further action.” That isn’t necessarily to do with what the child said – it’s not having enough evidence or not having the standard of evidence that would go to court. Whereas we specialise in knowing what questions to ask, how to ask them, and what’s needed for further action to take place.

SR: So you’re trained and have the specialist competence to dig into the hard questions to get that evidence right.

CM: Yes. And some of the things are really quite simple. We’re training the police to ask questions in a different way. For example, if you ask a child “why” something happened, they find that really difficult to answer. But if you use a simple rephrase – “what made him do that” instead of “why did he do that” – they’re then able to answer the question.

MC: And we spend a lot of time explaining to children that we don’t know what happened because we weren’t there. Children assume that adults know everything, and then they don’t see the need to provide the information they’re being asked for because they’re thinking, “Well, you already know. Why am I going through this with you?” So we do a lot of that: “We don’t know because we weren’t there.”

Training Police Forces

SR: From what I understand, you train police forces?

MC: Yes, we’ve trained a lot of different police forces now. Some police forces come to us – we’re based in Brighton – and others we train in force, so we go to them and train at their headquarters.

SR: What does this training consist of?

MC: It’s called FQC – Forensic Questioning of Children. When we initially started training, it was a four or five-day course and involved police officers taking an exam, so it was a pass-fail course. Then COVID hit. After speaking to many forces, we realised that having them out for four or five days was really difficult for police forces, making commissioners reluctant to do that. We’ve managed to compact it into a three-day course, which is where we’re at now.

It doesn’t have a pass-fail examination, but the last day is spent with police practising what we’ve learned over two days so that we can observe. If we did have any major concerns, which have happened but very rarely, then we would follow that up.

CM: And we offer support to the police after the course as well. They can contact us by phone or email, and they do. They might say, “I’ve got this three-year-old that says this – should we go and talk to them or should we go straight to the interview?” It’s nice to be able to be there afterwards and advise.

MC: We had a query last week about a child who’s now three and a half, but they were two and a half when the incident happened. The police were messaging us to say, “Is it still viable to interview? Should we still interview?” It’s a real range of questions. Sometimes it’s supporting them with live cases, and other times it’s helping them decide whether an interview should take place – whether it’s in the child’s best interests or not.

SR: Is it a one-off training or do you do repeat training?

MC: We also do a one-day refresher course. That’s really important because sometimes you can forget, or you can unlearn elements of it and perhaps not use the techniques to their full potential.

What the FQC Training Covers

CM: In the course, we cover a lot of the basics about what language to use with children, how to adapt and simplify your communication to make it easier for children to understand. We cover a lot of rapport building because that’s absolutely essential, and we teach them how we build rapport with children.

We cover a lot about attention and arousal – keeping an eye on the child and where they’re at within their window of tolerance. Are they able to communicate, or do we need to help them by doing something calming or something lively to get them back to a place where they’re able to communicate?

We do a lot of troubleshooting – teaching what you would do if a child did this – and a lot of focus on separating out events with children.

The Problem of “Muddling” Through Repeated Questioning

MC: We get called in to do what we call “unmuddying interviews.” This happens a lot. Children are asked repeatedly. They might have told their teacher something, and then the safeguarding lead asks them about it. Then they get a visit from the social worker and the police, and they ask them about it. Perhaps they get police-protected and move into foster care, and then the foster carers ask them about it. Then they get a social worker who asks them. The next month, they get a new social worker, and that social worker asks them about it. By the time they get to the interview, it’s so muddled because they’ve been asked again and again.

CM: We often get family members recording them, doing their own interviews on their phones.

MC: It’s all so muddled by the time it gets to us. We teach the police about that as well – how to tell which parts have come from the child and which parts have been added by well-meaning adults along the way.

We often say to children: “We need to find out what you saw with your own eyes, heard with your own ears, and felt with your own body.” It’s all anchored back to that, so we can separate things out. We’ll acknowledge, “We know you’ve told lots of people, we know you’ve spoken to lots of different people.” If we can, we’ll list those people and say, “Our job is to really think about everything that we’ve heard and that you’ve said and to get it really right.”

SR: I’m from Norway, and we’ve had a few cases where whole villages have been in a bad state because the interviews weren’t done correctly. Teachers and lots of different people have been accused of doing things, and it’s turned out that the interviews weren’t done correctly. There have been some really bad miscarriages of justice following that.

CM: People are trying to be helpful. It’s not – I mean, obviously, sometimes you get cases where people are trying to change a story or change what’s happened. But in our experience, the majority of the time, it’s because people are trying to help children, but actually, it’s not helping.

Training School Staff

MC: We also know – I don’t know about in Norway, but in England – the training that’s given to school staff, particularly because we know that’s a place where a lot of children do talk about things, is very negative. Don’t do this, don’t do that, don’t do this, don’t do that – but not what to do.

Another thing we started a couple of years ago, post-COVID, was these workshops for school staff. We know there are huge funding issues, so they’re up to two hours long, where we talk about things that you can do rather than things you can’t, because it’s all very negative guidance out there currently.

CM: It scares professionals off – the guidance that a lot of people are given in their safeguarding training is “don’t ask any questions, don’t do this, don’t do that.”

MC: Professionals need to be taught how to safely listen to children’s concerns so that by the time children are interviewed about things, hopefully it’s only the second time they’ve talked about it, not the 22nd time.

SR: And of course, in Norway, we have these Barnahus centres where children are brought in to be interviewed properly. Why do you work mainly within the UK?

CM: Yes, we do. We have done some international work. In 2018, a colleague and I flew to India, and we trained the High Court judges in Delhi. We then flew to southern India and trained a whole lot of different professionals down there in the FQC training – how to communicate with children.

We do a lot nationally. We train police nationally, as mentioned, and also social workers in schools and frontline workers. We try to link a lot of our training to serious case reviews because out of those come lots of learning points for us as a culture and a country.

We’ve developed resources with the NSPCC, and we’ve also done some work with MOPAC, which is the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. They look at the Met Police and make sure that everything they’re doing is efficient. We’ve helped them think about scripts for young people and vulnerable people who come into custody and need to understand processes a bit more.

Working with Non-Verbal Communication

MC: We do interview children who have very limited speech and who use other ways to communicate – symbols, picture books. Years ago, we interviewed someone using an eye gaze machine to communicate.

CM: It’s more about them understanding us, I suppose, as well as them communicating.

MC: There’s a film we made called “Two-Way Street,” which is all about communication being two-way and not just putting it on the child. It’s the adults’ responsibility as well. As a person, if you’re talking to someone and they’re not interested in you, you’re not going to tell them very much. Whereas if you’ve got a person that is interested and engaged and giving you the right non-verbal cues and signals, you’re going to engage a lot more. This is the case for children.

Children are brought up in a society where, in the past, a lot has been done to them by adults. To suddenly put them in a position where the adult is asking them to talk about something that they have the knowledge of – children are a bit like, “Well, this isn’t usual.” Kids go to school, and the teachers know everything. Kids are at home, and the parents are completely in control of what’s happening.

It’s really trying to get those children and young people to realise that they’re the experts and that we’re part of a two-way process with them to help them tell us their expertise because we don’t know.

The “No Guessing Rule”

CM: As I mentioned earlier, we spend quite a lot of time in rapport building, reassuring children of that. There’s a rule called the “no guessing rule” that we practise with children a lot. At school, children are taught to guess all the time. For us to then have them come and see us and say, “In this room, we don’t do guessing. What colour’s my car?” And they’re like, “Red.” “We’re not doing guessing. You’ve seen my car. Do you know what colour my car is?”

I think for us, a key point in the training is to help the police and other adults understand that you have to spend time helping children understand this switch of roles.

MC: It’s such a different process. With you talking about it being that two-way street as well, everyone that we train, we try to really outline that children’s communicative competence is really reliant on the adults’ communicative competence. You can’t get a good answer by asking a bad question. It’s not going to work. The adults really need to develop their questioning skills to enable children to give their best evidence.

Challenging Assumptions About Children’s Capabilities

CM: Certainly, in the UK, there’s a saying – I don’t know if you have it in Norway – “never work with children or animals.” Children are being blamed for their lack of competence all the time. We’ve heard people say, “If someone asked me to interview a three-year-old, I’d run a mile.” It’s almost as if the child isn’t good enough at communicating. But actually, it’s us. It’s breaking the barriers.

MC: You’ll get police saying, “Oh well, they can’t even sit still, so how can you interview them?” It’s like, well, do you have to sit still to interview them? Can you do it while you’re moving on the floor? It’s looking at breaking those adults’ expectations of how children should behave, and thinking, “Actually, it’s about me.”

CM: Another bit to add is that “Two-Way Street” film we made in the ’90s, and then we followed it up years later with “Three-Way Street” because we realised that a lot of these children’s interactions weren’t just with one adult – there were normally two adults. If you think about that dynamic, that’s children being put in a room with two adults. That’s almost making it harder for the children because they’ve got two adults who they think know everything.

MC: Carly and I do a lot of that when we’re interviewing, where we’re talking with each other. I’ll say, “Well, Carly, I don’t know because I wasn’t there. Do you know?” “No, I haven’t seen that either.” We do a lot of that, and then they understand together. Suddenly, the penny drops. “I’ve never been to Johnny’s school. I don’t know what his teachers are like. I haven’t met his mum or his family.” “No, me neither.” “So I don’t know.” Then suddenly Johnny will pipe up, “But I know. I know!” because he then realises why we’re asking the questions.

CM: We teach the police a lot about that as well, because children are baffled sometimes: “Why on earth are you asking me that?”

MC: Because adults know everything.

The Evolution of Child Interviewing in the UK

SR: You talk about PEACE interviewing, which is very relevant to us on the technology side. You’ve got these frameworks that were implemented early on in the UK, and I’m sure this has developed the cultural side of interviewing – the mindset that police go into the interviewing situation with. You’re teaching them that mindset to speak to children and have a different approach when they go into those conversations. You’ve been following this since the ’90s. Have you seen any change over time? Has it eroded? Has it gotten better? How would you describe this development since back then?

CM: I think it has evolved. There are some positives and some negatives as well. One thing that is key for us at Triangle is that we know statistically that children with communication difficulties and disabilities are far more likely to be abused. Yet we are still not supporting those people in everyday life to have communication systems to enable them to communicate. That’s linked to education, but also ideas of what disabled people and people with communication difficulties are able to do. That hasn’t changed very much. We still see that as a big barrier.

But what has changed a lot is the realisation that children can give evidence regardless of their age. It used to be extremely rare that children under five would be interviewed, and now it’s much more common. But we’re still not all the way there. There are still very young children who just aren’t seen as reliable just because of their age, so their evidence isn’t being gathered.

MC: Sometimes we’re asked to interview four out of a five-sibling group, and we’re thinking, “Why are we not seeing the youngest one?” It’s maybe because they’re two and a half. But actually, two-and-a-half-year-olds can give really great evidence if they’re interviewed in the right way.

SR: That’s changed a lot since the ’90s, though, right?

MC: It has changed a lot. We were involved many years ago in one of the first cases with a two-year-old who was a witness to murder. He was the sole witness. Initially, the police were very reluctant because he was so young, but we were able to support the two-year-old to communicate. They didn’t need to know what happened because they knew it was a murder. They didn’t need to know where because they knew where. They didn’t need to know when because they had a time scope. All they needed to know was who.

Everyone who’s met a two-year-old knows that they can identify people, and this child knew the person. We did that through a mixture of speech and using photos and supporting the young person. That actually did end up going to trial. I think that was quite a first for England, believing that actually that could happen.

Even now, in our police training, when we mention that, everyone’s like, “What? Two? How did you do that?” It’s just focusing on what information is crucial. As Carly said earlier, if you’re asking children about timelines when they’ve been living in an abusive situation all their lives, and you’re thinking about how long this has been happening, time is a huge, difficult concept for children anyway. It depends on what the questions are and what information you need to gather.

Working with Children with Limited Verbal Communication

CM: The same with children and young people who communicate using yes and no – it’s really important if you’re interviewing them that you’re getting a balance of yes answers and no answers. If you’re asking a young person questions and all they’re communicating is “yes, yes, yes, yes, yes,” it’s not really credible. Whereas if you’re really clever with your questioning and you’re getting “yes, no, yes, yes, no” – there’s not a pattern – it’s much more effective and much more evidentially safe.

The Problematic Push for Efficiency

MC: The other thing, thinking about since the ’90s and what’s changed and hasn’t changed – at the moment, interviews go to the CPS, the Crown Prosecution Service. They review the interview and decide whether charges can be brought as a result. But they are asking police forces to keep their interviews to 20 to 30 minutes maximum because it’s more efficient that way for them to review the interview.

But that doesn’t work for children. It really, really doesn’t work for children. We might spend 20 minutes of an interview talking about Play-Doh, and that is needed for that child because that’s resettling them. That’s letting them know that we’re attending to what they’re saying and that we’re interested in them. We would never be able to limit ourselves to time like that. I think that is a negative change. It’s trying to be streamlined for efficiency, but it just really doesn’t work for children.

CM: We’ve found that a lot of children who come in to talk to us won’t really respond to “what have you come to talk to us about today” type questions. We need quite a lot of warm-up. We’re not talking to them about their hobbies – it’s an interview at that stage – but we might be asking questions like, “Tell us all about what it was like living with your mum and dad.” You might get lots and lots of details that aren’t evidentially relevant, but you might get really relevant stuff because we’re starting to build a picture and an understanding of that child’s lived experience. They might say a few things in there that we can then ask about later, and that’s when we get that evidence. We can’t do that in 20 minutes.

MC: Absolutely. We know that children living with trauma, which a lot of the children we meet are, are within their window of tolerance. They can dip in and out of that. As Carly said, you’ll be there for hours sometimes, but the number of questions you’re asking would only add up to maybe 40 minutes or something because you’re doing so much to support them and not re-traumatise them. You’re enabling them to communicate safely for them and evidentially safely. It’s a balancing act.

The Critical Importance of Visual Recording

SR: I guess this is where recording comes in as relevant. Do you record your interviews with these children?

MC: Yes, we record all of our interviews. We have an interviewing suite here at Triangle in Brighton, and then we have our portable camera from Davidhorn as well. When we’re travelling around the country, sometimes we use police interview suites and sometimes we use our portable camera, but we’re always recording interviews. It means that it can be used as the evidence in chief at court if it’s visually recorded.

Also, we have so many children who communicate non-verbally. I think it’s not just us – children communicate non-verbally a lot. They show a lot. A good quality recording is absolutely crucial for that.

We interviewed a seven-year-old here who, although she was completely verbal and a competent communicator, wasn’t able to verbally tell us what had happened to her. Almost the whole interview from her perspective was silent. She was able to draw what had happened, and then she was able to produce paper figures as representations of the people in her family. We could check using the paper figures who were in the picture. She was able to show, using those paper figures – actually manipulating them – to show us what had happened. Then she was able to indicate on sticky notes. We gave her written choices – “one time” on one note and “more than one time” on another note. She pointed to which one in response, or we had “yes,” “no,” or “don’t know.” She was able to answer more questions about what had happened.

The visual recording of that is crucial beyond crucial. It absolutely needs to be shown.

CM: It needs to be a video recording.

MC: Otherwise, they would be listening to just us talking.

Body Language Contradicts Verbal Statements

CM: We’ve also had an interview with a teenager where, unfortunately, the circumstances within her home were that dad had to leave the family home, and the family couldn’t afford to live in two homes. Just before the interview, she’d been told by mum, “Just say it was an accident. Say it wasn’t meant to happen because we can’t afford to live like this. We can’t afford for your dad to be the breadwinner in another home, running another home with more bills.”

She came to interview, and I can’t remember whether she said at the beginning or the end that mum had said this to her. But when we were asking her questions, she was verbally saying, “Oh no, it didn’t happen.” But her body – what she was doing with her hands – she was digging in her nails and she was covering her genital area, which was showing so much.

For that interview, when we wrote our report at the end of it, we said that the transcript had to be read whilst watching the video so that you could see that although she was saying “no, no, that definitely didn’t happen,” what she was showing in her body was very different.

MC: If we hadn’t recorded that, you would have just got the transcript of her saying, “No, that didn’t happen.”

SR: When you’re also saying you’re asked to do a 20 to 30-minute interview, potentially with a recording that is the same length, there is a lot of pressure on police and on the whole system to cut costs. This is what we’re seeing, and I think this is widely known. There’s definitely a balance between quality and cost in this case, specifically.

Specialised Transcription Services

CM: Absolutely. We offer a transcribing service as well after our interviews because we have learned over the years that other transcribing services out there don’t transcribe the non-verbal communication – they just transcribe the verbal communication. Whereas we have trained transcribers here who look out for all communication. That’s another service that we offer quite regularly after we’ve interviewed.

MC: There are so many children who show what’s happened rather than tell.

CM: Adults do as well. I’m realising here that I’m doing this with my hands all over the place!

SR: That’s what we hear very often – that the best interviewers, independent of the case, are the interviewers who interview children because they are very concrete, really good at building rapport. There’s something there that if you put a child interviewer in front of a suspect, they can do a really, really good job as well, which is really interesting.

MC: We were talking about that, actually, a couple of weeks ago, when training one of the police forces. They interview a lot of suspects and interview a lot of children, and they said, “Oh, I’m so going to use some of these techniques with interviewing suspects,” especially commenting on non-verbal communications. They get so many no-comment interviews, but they say, “Oh, you’re nodding.” That’s then in the transcript.

CM: They can get those responses by verbalising the non-verbal communication, which is so often missed because that’s what we do with children. We say, “Oh, you’re nodding,” and they’ll say, “Yeah, because that really did happen.” They’ll add information if we notice and verbalise their non-verbal communication.

Another one might be, “Oh, you’re looking at the door.” “Yeah, because is he going to come? Is he coming here?” There are these tiny, tiny little things.

The Challenge of Inappropriate Vocabulary

MC: The other one I wanted to add that Carly touched on – a lot of these children don’t have words to talk about what’s happened to them because they shouldn’t have words to know these things. Actually, these adults are putting them in a situation, asking them to talk about something that they shouldn’t really have access to at their age, especially regarding sexual abuse. Often, they would have been told by the abuser that “this is our little secret” or “this is because you’re special.” For that child to communicate is really hard.

Having drawings and all these other resources, and showing and having that on camera, is just key.

SR: Absolutely. There’s a lot of talk about AI. There is a lot of potential in saving time and cost through the use of AI. I just saw recent transcription research that highlighted what you said – that the transcribers being used are not necessarily trained in anything related to police work or interviewing. They very often just decide for themselves what to put in that transcript.

It’s interesting to hear small techniques like you say – put words to what is going on and put little comments. There are ways to work around that to make sure this is highlighted. I think that is something that will probably come with more use of technology.

Technology and AI in Child Interviewing

CM: Absolutely, and of course, it has to include the non-verbal, which requires a video or visual recording.

SR: Do you see that these types of technologies can help you in your work in the future? Are you reluctant?

MC: I don’t think we’re reluctant at all. Absolutely, we would be interested in exploring technologies that could help us. It’s just difficult at the moment to really know in what ways, because the AI that we’ve experimented with – it’s not there yet. It’s just not that advanced. It needs to learn more, and it will learn more.

I think it’d be really interesting. I mean, we have used it to help us create resources to explain things to children. I don’t see it as a threat. Some people see it as a threat, but AI obviously needs somebody who has those skills and knowledge to tell it what you want. It’s a two-way process to an extent.

CM: Sorry, that’s a bit of a muddled answer, isn’t it? I think there are pros and cons. We do see it. We are beginning to look at it and explore. But obviously, you’ve got the huge area of GDPR and confidentiality and all of that, so it’s always going to be limited in our work for that reason.

MC: Because we can’t feed it lots of confidential information and ask it to write us an interview plan.

SR: No, exactly. Currently, you can’t. But hopefully, in the future, you can have a safe AI.

CM: If you’re standing up in court to be cross-examined, you want to be sure that you’ve read that bundle of however many pages yourself rather than depend on a computer reading it and maybe missing out a bit that they didn’t think was essential.

MC: That’s the thing. That’s what I mean by needing to learn more because there are so many nuances. The meaning of a sentence can be changed by a single word, and AI is not there yet to notice all of those. At the moment, everything’s still very manual.

CM: As well, sometimes when we’re interviewing a child, they might say something that wasn’t necessarily in our questioning initially. But if you’ve read the bundle and you’ve got that background, you might see that as an important link to something that AI wouldn’t necessarily pick up.

MC: Yeah, absolutely.

Innovations Needed in the Justice System

SR: Are there any other technologies or innovations or policy changes that you see can support children’s legal status and conditions in the justice system?

CM: One of the things that we’ve been talking about a lot is that we’d really like to train first response officers – in the police and the ambulance service – to be able to communicate with children. We would love, for example, to help the ambulance service to write a script for their telephone operators that they can press a button that says “I’m talking to a child” and their prompts change, because early information about reported incidents can be really crucial later on in an investigation.

Currently, children aren’t necessarily being asked questions that they can process or understand. We’d really like to get involved in that from an innovation point of view.

MC: First response officers are rarely given any training in talking to children. I think we’re missing potentially some really important bits of evidence from children almost at the scene of a crime or immediately afterwards, when a child might be more likely to be able to tell or give that initial bit of information, because the thing has just happened and they know and they understand what they’re being asked about because it’s in the context.

CM: Because it’s in the context, exactly. That’s another thing – children don’t always know why they’re there. Training for first response officers could really change a lot for children.

We’ve already been talking with some of the police that we trained recently, about when they arrive on a scene, and they have their body-worn cameras, and they do an initial Q&A. We’re already talking to them about using that as part of the rapport building.

SR: These police officers rarely have any interview training, so to have specialist training like that is not happening, right? To actually empower them or enable them to ask the right questions is really, really crucial. I think also that is the moment when the child contacts the police – they’re in an urgent situation. You get the unfiltered truth, right?

MC: Absolutely. It’s the unfiltered truth, and it’s also potentially that child’s first experience of the police. If that can be a positive one, then that child can be better protected throughout the rest of their lives.

Prevention Through Education

CM: One of our founder members of Triangle, Ruth Marchant, who sadly died a few years ago, had a mission statement: to change the world at Triangle. We can go out there and change the world. Something that we feel very strongly about at Triangle is children and young people being given safe education about their body and private parts and safety. That’s not to say it’s putting the onus on the children to keep themselves safe, because obviously it isn’t. But what it is to say is that if children are taught safely and in a fun way in nursery schools – we’re using really good resources about what safe touch and unsafe touch is, and the same as secrets, safe secrets and unsafe secrets – Triangle has designed our own resources, but there’s a lot else out there. I think that’s the key to children and young people saying things earlier.

There was a young person we interviewed a few years ago who was about 14, and she’d been very sheltered. She’d been brought up with a very abusive father, lots of domestic violence, as well as sexual violence. One thing that will never leave me, I think, is her saying at the end of the interview – we always ask, “Is there anything else you want the judge to know?” – and she said, “Why did no one tell me about this? Why wasn’t I taught that this wasn’t right?”

Her experience had been that at age 14, she was finally allowed to go for a sleepover at a friend’s house. While getting ready for bed, she said to her friend, “Well, when’s your dad coming in?” The friend said, “What do you mean?” She said, “Well, at my house, my dad comes in and this is what happens.” This was how this case came to light, because the friend told her parents, and then obviously they contacted the police.

To me, that question of “Why wasn’t I educated? Why wasn’t I told about this?” – she’s not the only young person. We interviewed another young person who did learn at school, but it wasn’t until she was in secondary school, in a personal, social health lesson, that she learned that it wasn’t okay for adults to do those things to you. This had been going on for years.

MC: She was 11 or 12 at school when she was taught that.

CM: We need to be teaching children much, much younger because if it’s always happened to you and you don’t know any different, why would you tell someone?

MC: That’s definitely a societal change.

Managing Secondary Trauma and Officer Wellbeing

SR: There’s one more thing I would really like to ask you, because I know that there are a lot of police officers in the UK and everywhere who are going through a lot of trauma in their own work. I think you guys are working with such heartbreaking themes. How do you deal with these issues in your work? How do you manage to stay clear in your minds and mentally healthy?

MC: Yeah, it’s a good question. I think it’s quite different for us than for the police, but we can talk about both. For us, we debrief after every interview, so we spend time together talking about how it went, but also how that made us feel. We’ve got peer support in that. Also, we barely work alone. We’ll always be working together, so we’ll always hear the same things. Whether one of us is in the recording room or in the interview room, we’ll still be open to the same information.

Sometimes a child will say one thing that maybe I will go, “Oh, I found that a bit much,” or Carly might say, “Oh, I found that a bit much,” and I won’t. It’s interesting how different children in different situations maybe press different buttons for us. But having that debrief is key.

We also have another colleague who will critically read reports and sometimes be involved in the planning. She’ll often check in with one of us or we’ll ask her opinion. We have access to a psychotherapist for supervision. We have regular supervision, and we also have access to a 24-hour counselling line that’s completely confidential.

CM: Our interviewing team – we either interview together or with another colleague – so there’s always someone around for us to talk to.

But with the police, I think it’s a really different story. They have very little protection against that sort of secondary trauma. A lot of the police forces that we’ve talked to say that they get a wellbeing questionnaire once a year, but then they don’t have that same opportunity that we do of debriefing after every interview. Not at all.

At the last training that we did here with the police, we had quite a long conversation about how just in their role as a police officer, it’s assumed that you should deal with things like this. There’s an assumption that, well, you signed up for that job, you want to do it. So why are you moaning that you’ve just seen this or that?

There was one case where the officer was saying, “Well, I knew it affected me, but I felt like I couldn’t go to anyone because it’s part of my job. But why did this one affect me but the other 20 didn’t? I didn’t want them to be going, ‘Well, maybe you should be moved to a different area,’ because I love my job. I just needed a bit more help with this.”

MC: We know that as humans, we’ve all had different backgrounds, we’ve all had different upbringings, and there’d be different triggers. Sometimes it won’t even be something that’s said. It might be a smell or a sight. Being able to identify that ourselves is key, and being able to open up about that and acknowledge that yes, you signed up to be a police officer, but still hearing this can be really difficult.

I gave an example of certain friends that I will talk more to than others. I know sometimes if I’m with a certain group of friends, everyone will go around the table and say, “How was your day? How was your day?” And they’ll completely bypass me because they don’t want to know how my day is, because they don’t want to know that this really happens and that this is a world that we live in.

CM: It’s a real conversation killer at parties, isn’t it? “What do you do?” “I interview children that have been abused.”

MC: We do have quite a sense of humour as well. I’d say that’s another coping mechanism for us. You have to see a lighter side to life. Carly and I both enjoy walking a lot as well, so having those outdoor things. We both have pets. You have gardening. It’s having that free time, that balance of nurture for yourself and your families, other than your work, which I suppose is the same for all jobs, but particularly where you’re working with trauma.

SR: Do you see that bringing any of those support systems could be beneficial for the police – having a 24/7 line where you can call?

CM: There was one police force that did have something similar. But what they said was that often there wasn’t time before you’re on your next case. You don’t have time to ring up and process. It kind of links to the secondary trauma – you’re just adding on, aren’t you?

MC: I mean, there are services in the UK for blue light workers that they can access – text services and phone services. But I don’t think it’s – I think the issue is often the time not being available.

CM: I think it’s the time and the expectation of the role. When we train them here, we very much say, “You are humans. You’re going to have your own triggers. What you’re going to be hearing is horrendous, and you need to be able to have people within your organisation that you can go to and say, ‘That was really hard,’ and have them acknowledge that and not go, ‘Oh well, that’s your job, get on with it. Don’t come moaning to me.’”

It’s that openness, I suppose, really, that we are all humans and that it would be wrong – you shouldn’t be in this job if nothing affected you.

MC: And investing in support services would reduce burnout. So yes, you need to spend money allowing people that time, but it saves you money in the long run.

CM: Also in England for the police, a lot of police careers are only 30 years, and that’s due to the stress and the nature of the job.

MC: That’s changing now.

CM: It is changing, but my point with that is that it also adds pressure for some officers.

Child Suspects and Fair Treatment

SR: We’re coming to the end of this conversation, but I was just wondering about one thing. There’s been a series on Netflix called “The Accused.” I don’t know if you’ve watched that one. It’s about a boy who’s a suspect of a murder, and that has brought a lot of discussion around social media here in Norway about interviewing of children and suspect interviewing of children, children suspects. Do you work with child suspects at all? Are you called in by the police to do that type of work?

MC: No, but we would love to be. We aren’t really asked to do that kind of work as interviewers, but our intermediary teams do provide intermediaries for suspect interviews. They’ll go in – intermediaries are people who specialise in communication and they facilitate the communication between the child or young person or adult and the police or the court, whoever’s trying to communicate with that person. They’re the middle person, making sure that the police are asking questions that the child can understand and that the child is understanding the questions that they’re being asked.

A lot of the time there’s a real breakdown where adults don’t even realise that the child’s misunderstood the question. It happens so much. We see it loads. So we do that for suspect interviews, but I don’t think it’s a right for child suspects yet to have an intermediary as standard under a certain age, which is worrying.

CM: I think a lot of child suspects have additional needs, especially those who are involved in child exploitation cases, organised crime, because that’s part of why they have become a target. They have these additional needs and communication needs as a result, and I think that the support really needs to be there.

I’ve never really understood why – so in the UK our justice system is centred around innocent until proven guilty – but why don’t we treat suspects the same as witnesses then? Because maybe they are actually also a witness.

MC: Exactly. Having good quality, clear, coherent, accurate evidence, which is what you achieve by using an intermediary or by using specialist interviewers – that benefits everybody. It makes it more likely that justice will be achieved.

CM: We would love to be more involved, and hopefully that’s a real growing area. I think our only experience of suspect interviewing is where there’s been family cases where there’s been abuse within the family, within siblings. We interview all of the siblings, and one of them has accused another one of them of a crime. So indirectly, but not – well, it has been a couple of cases. We were asked to interview a boy about rape, and then later we were asked to interview his siblings, one of whom was the accused. That was the reason we were called in in the first place – the rape accusation. But yes, our interview process was the same for witness and suspect.

MC: It’s something that we feel – a lot of these young people are just as vulnerable and they need the same support. We need to come in with an open mind and a fair approach.

Looking Ahead to the 2026 Summit

SR: We saw each other at the conference in March where you also went through the ORBIT training, which was very interesting. We have another conference coming up in 2026, and we’re hoping that you will be there to run some training for those who would like to learn from you.

MC: Absolutely. Very excited about that.

CM: Hopefully we can also bring some international practitioners who would like to learn from you as well.

MC: Yeah, definitely. That’s great.

SR: Thank you so much for sharing all of your knowledge with us. We could probably talk for a lot longer, but thank you so much.

CM: Thank you for having us.

MC: Thank you.

---

About the Guests

Carly McAuley and Maxime Cole are Directors at Triangle, a UK-based organisation founded in 1997 that specialises in investigative interviewing of children and vulnerable adults. Triangle provides training, intermediary services, expert witness testimony, and therapeutic support to help children who have experienced abuse navigate the justice system.

About Triangle

Triangle operates from Brighton, UK, and works nationally across England with police forces, family courts, social services, and educational institutions. Their Forensic Questioning of Children (FQC) training has become a cornerstone programme for law enforcement professionals working with child witnesses and victims. The organisation’s founder, Ruth Marchant, envisioned Triangle as a vehicle for changing how society communicates with and protects its most vulnerable members.

Transcript

Ivar Fahsing: 
Well, good evening, everybody. And welcome to the Davidhorn interview summit here in Copenhagen and to this live podcast. And welcome to you as well, Laurence Alison This is why they’re strange, isn’t it? My name is Ivar Fahsing and it’s it’s an honor to hosting you tonight. we’ve been through, discussion Laurence on, I go straight to the ball.

Laurence Alison: (00:17)
We will.

Speaker 2 (00:27)
One of your great products, I have years of research, is called Orbit. It’s a rapport-based interviewing approach. And as you know, the ruling kind of scientific approach to interviewing is called PEACE Model.

Is this the death of PEACE

Speaker 1 (00:44)
No, absolutely not. And if I said anything to that effect, I’d probably be shot by Andy Smith, who’s the national lead at the moment. Yeah, I think there’s a bit of confusion. It’s definitely not a competitive model. And I think it is very sympathetic with PEACE If you read the original PEACE documentation, there’s nothing in it that is inconsistent with what we’re teaching at all. What I think has happened to PEACE a bit is some of it has been taught not as it was originally written.

And sometimes when we’re training people, some of the officers have treated it as very mechanical. You have to do this bit, you have to do this bit, you have to do this bit and so forth and so on. Even down to the inappropriate translation of the so-called challenge phase, where sometimes what we have seen in some UK interviews is they get right to the end and then suddenly they throw everything at the challenge phase. But that’s not in the original version of PEACE.

So I don’t think it’s a competitive model. I think it’s broadly sympathetic and congruent with what is taught in PEACE. And PEACE, as I see it, is largely a planning approach anyway, about the phases that are important to conduct and go through. and Orbit is very, very specific. It’s enabling police officers to understand the skills that are required to deal with people when they are being resistant or difficult.

not in a way to trick them or persuade them or cajole them or manipulate them, but to make that interaction reasonable, proportionate and fair. So if someone’s talking to you, don’t need any of the Orbit stuff because it’s working. It’s when you’re met with resistance or difficulty that those skills are important.

Speaker 2 (02:15)
So the church that we’re hearing in here now is not for PEACE.

Speaker 1 (02:19)
It is not for PEACE in there. I mean, it’s not for me to say, it? You know, PEACE has been around for a long time. It seems to be working perfectly well for UK police, so there’s no reason to change it. But there’s, for me, there’s nothing within what we’re teaching which is inconsistent or incongruent with what’s mapped out in PEACE.

Speaker 2 (02:35)
You’re so polite Laurence. I was saying in a break here there’s something missing. Could I suggest maybe this is like a turbo booster?

Speaker 1 (02:46)
You’re

trying to get me to say something bad about PEACE.

Speaker 2 (02:48)
More that, as you said, okay, let’s slip it then and say, what is Orbit not delivering?

Speaker 1 (02:54)
Not delivering. I think it doesn’t touch on a very important part of what is important in an interview, which is the decision making. You know, the cognitive processes about how you manage an interview, what the sorts of questions are, things like the strategic use of evidence, those elements, pre-interview disclosure, prepare statements, all that element of it, which we all know are important. You know, a lot of your work as well, Ivar and the decision making elements of it. It’s not a decision making model.

It’s a very specific model about how you deal with people differently, depending on the different forms of resistance. mean, going back to the PEACE thing, know, what PEACE doesn’t teach officers is how you deal with people when they’re difficult. And that’s what we focused on.

Speaker 2 (03:35)
It’s a very nice clarification to get because there are different models out there and sometimes you think of should we take A or B. Here you need two pills.

Speaker 1 (03:45)
Yeah, I mean, as you know, we’ve trained all over the world, have you and different police forces are using different things and we were talking about it before. You know, there’s a lot of confusion and if I was a frontline police officer being given interview training, I wouldn’t know what was going on because it does feel a bit pick and mix. You know, I think there’s too many ideas in the pot and my advice would be to the police is to interrogate any model that you are being sold.

What is the basis for you teaching me this? What data is it based on? What is the sort of data that is based on? When you make that claim, tell me what the claim is based on. Where’s the evidence for it? I mean, in the same way that you wouldn’t take a pill or a medical intervention with that, I would assume, knowing that it’s had rigorous testing. Yeah.

You know, I would want to know what I’m about to put if my body and that there’s been some testing of it. So not all the models that are out there are equally based on strong evidence.

Speaker 2 (04:40)
Absolutely not.

If you think about Orbit, we’d be discussing that I think in some communities, in some countries, flies very well, it’s very popular, especially in the Netherlands and the UK, and you’ve just been presented in Norway, I guess in Ireland, there are some offices I know is really fond of it. Are there places where you think this is more needed?

Then, other

Speaker 1 (05:03)
Well, I think it’s needed in the US because historically they’ve been using other methods which are not based on evidence, which have been endemic and are kind of ingrained in the DNA of how they operate. so I think weirdly where we can have quite a lot of impact probably is in the US. And I think that vehicle is slowly turning around. But if you’ve been using technique A for 60, 70 years, and that is the

preferred model just because it’s been around for a long time. I think that that is a hard message to convince people of. That said, you know, we’re working with the district attorney of the state of California, lovely fellow called Vern Pearson, who’s very responsive to it. And we go out each year and we do trainings there. And they’re trying to scale that activity up there. And, you know, it is, it is slowly turning around to the point where I think there’s very going to be very little

of these other techniques used in the state of California, at least. Plus also we’re working with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, FLETC. They’re very responsive and my experience of the US with the HIG as well, High Valley Detainee Derogation Group, they’re quite responsive. They’re appropriately skeptical, but they’re pretty responsive to it.

Speaker 2 (06:14)
to ask you, because you also travel a lot around the world. I was just thinking maybe there is a cultural underlying issue here that is beyond or is not linked necessarily to interviewing more, are we taking lessons from this country or not? Who are you to teach me?

Speaker 1 (06:31)
Possibly, yeah, maybe. mean, in truth, we don’t really encounter that when we go to different countries. I’ve been surprised how receptive people are. There might be a little bit of resistance. I mean, I can’t name names, can I? There was one military group that we were with, I remember, a couple of years ago, and I remember walking in the room, and I thought, my God, this is going to be a nightmare. There’s about 30 of them, and they all tattoos, folded arms, and you could tell very experienced people.

And quite reasonably, they were sort of looking at a bearded psychologist and thinking, does he know? Fair enough, you know. But we turned it around pretty quickly through what we were talking about and being respectful to it and allowing discussion to come out and blah, blah. I haven’t particularly found that anywhere. I’ve found a healthy skepticism, but broadly a receptivity. But going back to your point about PEACE and PACE I do think in the UK,

Where our officers can be weak in interviewing is in a lack of persistence and a lack of rigor and a lack of fair and even-handed but firm questioning. I think there is a little bit of that, whether that is a pendulum swing from PACE where there’s a kind of reticence to, you know, probe a bit more, whatever it is, I don’t know. But certainly I see in some of our UK officers, you see a question asked and they’ll

be given a half an answer but not really an answer and they’ll go god I can’t ask I can’t probe on that because that’s like asking another question but I think if the person has given an incomplete answer you’re well within your rights to explore it a bit or if there’s a discrepancy in what’s been said well that doesn’t make sense you’ve said this but on the other hand we’ve got this so I think there’s a little bit of tentativeness in in some of our UK law enforcement and and whether that’s associated with PEACE I don’t know

I can’t say, but there’s certainly that element there.

Speaker 2 (08:17)
The reason I asked you this cultural question, remember you’re Asbjørn Rachlew know, a friend of both of us. We were doing training down in Beirut and partly funded by the European Union. So there were two high ranking officials coming down to inspect this training room just to see that the money was spent the way it was intended. It was a German judge and a French former Supreme court judge.

And they were kind of beginning observing from the back and just, you know, a little bit reserved. But then as the days progressed, they were getting more and more involved and enthusiastic around it. I thought, it looks really good. And then we went out for dinner and they were so, them were all in, oh, this is really good. And I said, so after a couple of glasses of wine, I said to say, isn’t it

Isn’t it fascinating? We’re sitting here in Beirut now. The German and the French judge and you’re very fascinated about what we’re implementing here in Beirut. And this is not implemented in any of your countries. So in the taxi back to the hotel,

I think it was a German that said, Ivar you surely know why. You must know why it’s not taken on in either France or in Germany. said, no, help me.

Speaker 1 (09:28)
British.

Well, fair enough.

Speaker 2 (09:29)
Wah agwin, that’s even a rate

Speaker 1 (09:31)
Well, I mean, I’ll give you another story. Not that this is interviewing relevant, but we developed a tool to look at resource management in indecent image cases. And as you know, there are so many individuals that are downloading, distributing, or in possession of indecent images in the UK and everywhere else that you can’t investigate all of them. So you have to investigate the ones that you think are much more probably.

involved in a contact offender as well. We’d like to pick them all up, but we can’t. We’ve got to go for the ones that are actually contact offenders. Anyway, for many years, we developed a tool and it started off in Kent. I was working with the police officer, Matthew Long, lovely fellow. He’s now got out of child protection, but he got very high up in the NCA. Lovely fellow, did a PhD with me. Anyway, for many years, we developed this tool and it was very good. It was very accurate. It was very accurate at correctly identifying those individuals that were much more likely to be contact offenders.

whilst also correctly identifying those individuals that were not likely to be contacted vendors. We then did a big project. We were funded by when we were in the European Union by the Fighting International. we’ve got some decent money to look at it in Estonia, in Spain, various other countries. And some of you may be aware of Hofstede’s work about cultural variability. And the question was asked, well,

in these different countries, maybe pedophiles are different, you know, so there may be different in the UK as to Estonia and this despair. I said, that’s no, you’re wasting your money. The tool will be the same wherever we go. I guarantee you the tool will be said. Anyway, we got data from Estonia and all these other countries. And unsurprisingly, the tool is pretty much exactly the same. Tiny, tiny variations. But each country wanted it to be called. You know,

ERAT if it was in Estonia or SPERAT if it was in Spain or FERAT at if it was in France because they wanted that ownership over their own tool. So I think there’s a bit of politicking and you know, whatever but as a scientist you just don’t care. mean it is what it is. It’s like with the Orbit thing. It’s not that we you know we’ve done studies of how to appropriately speak to child victims of sexual abuse in South Korea. The model’s the same.

honesty, empathy, autonomy, evocation, interest in values, thoughts and beliefs. The forms of resistance or difficulty might be different, embarrassment, shame and fear. But if you speak to people appropriately, if you are persistent, you are patient, you’re able to be versatile, you’re authentic, you’re interested, you’re listening, you get more information.

Speaker 2 (11:53)
Absolutely. I guess also the threshold for when you would call it unfair is a bit different. Well, in England you can’t ask a question twice. Why in Vietnam they’re happy if you beat you, but you don’t beat so hard.

Speaker 1 (11:59)
What do mean?

Well, that’s, mean, we were talking about this in the break, the idea of asking a question twice. I agree. I don’t think you can ask the same question twice. But I think what we do, which I was talking about a minute ago in the UK, we’re reticent to ask a question which has been unanswered. And I wouldn’t do that. If you said something to me now and I didn’t understand what you’d said, not because you being deceptive, I’d want more. Deceptive. And you wouldn’t think I was being oppressive in asking for it. If I kept asking you the same question, then that would be oppressive.

But if I’ve not properly explored what you said in, a spirit of curiosity and interest, then I think it’s perfectly okay. Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (12:42)
Respect.

you very early engaged with practitioners in your research, which is something that is still with you as a researcher, that you have a very close and trustful relationship with practitioners.

Speaker 1 (12:56)
God, 1991 I think I did my undergraduate degree. Is that right? Anyway, it when the Silence of the Lambs was out.

and all the cool kids wanted to be offender profilers. And I worked with David Cantor, who’s an interesting man. We won’t go there. For a few years, and I was at the university of Surrey and all the cool kids wanted to be offender profilers. And I started looking at this stuff and most of it was complete bullshit. I’d come off the back of three years of academic study, rigorous adherence to scientific methods and people wandering around turning up at crime scene saying, think,

It’s a postal worker who hates his mum or whatever bullshit was involved. And David bless him came in whilst I was still a master’s student actually, and gave her gave me a huge pile of papers. And actually this developed my interest in interviewing and decision making. And it was a big pile of papers about that big. And I was only a master’s student as well. I was a lot younger than obviously. And he said, this is an undercover operation and it’s everything.

every letter, phone call and meeting between an undercover operative called Lizzie James and the target, Colin Stagg. And it was in the wake of the Rachel Nichell murder, who most of you are far too young to remember, who was murdered on Wimbledon Common in front of a three-year-old son. It was a horrific murder case. And there was a psychologist involved who was allegedly an offender profiler who gave a profile which was very ambiguous and vague and could have been pretty much anyone.

Colin Stagg was lifted for this, interviewed badly and an undercover operation was set up in which they provided a 30 year old woman undercover called code name Lizzie James who basically, this is a very short version of the story, develops a relationship with Colin Stagg and was kind of offering herself to him if he gave admissions about this offense, which actually he never did.

Speaker 2 (14:46)
Because

sure he was man enough for her.

Speaker 1 (14:48)
Yeah, exactly. So I did an analysis of this whole undercover operation and I was appalled by it. It was clearly coercive, corruptive. was all the confirmation bias that you would expect. The profile was bogus. Anyway, it never got to court. It was thrown out of the voire d’erre by law chief Justice Ognor, who described it as the grossest conduct and an overzealous police investigation.

And what was interesting about it was from a decision-making point of view, it was all over the place. It was like, this is the guy that we think it is. And we’ll look for all the evidence to confirm it. And the interview was bad. And you could clearly demonstrate statistically that the guy was being led, clearly being led. And my early career actually was directed, I got a

I realized I got a name for myself when I did various court cases and I was up in West York and they said, you know what they call you, you? I said, no. They said, you’re called the hatchet man. And I said, what does that mean? They said, because we get you in when a load of bogus psychologists have made up a load of bullshit and we get you into basically destroy, straighten up these dodgy theories. And I did a lot of that in the early 90s.

which was a good experience because it made me realize what rigor you needed if you were going to contribute to something which was meaningful and practical and helping the police. It better be what it is that you’re saying it is. And unfortunately, psychology, supposedly experimental studies that look good. Well, as we all know, there was a big, you know, sort of debate around the worth of psychology a while ago about its merits and its applicability and its replicability.

So certainly in the early 90s, a lot of my research was directed at basically dissecting problems with other theories. And I wanted to be not an offender profiler, but that interested me. But I soon realized, you know, I’d come off the back of a degree at University College London, which was very rigorous. And there was all this bogus stuff going on. But that was the early 90s.

Speaker 2 (16:43)
Yeah, exactly. Because I was fortunate enough, to have a lunch with, David. because I was considering then, if it was possible for me as an Norwegian police officer to do the Masters, And then we came into that he wanted to…

Speaker 1 (16:54)
there.

Speaker 2 (16:58)
a warners of what would be expected from us if they invested in master. And he said, I remember he said something like that. Remember guys, what your bosses want you to come back with is this neat, nice suitcase. And inside it is a big green who did it button. And he said, just, just be aware that’s not what I’m going to give you. I said, well, where are you going to give us then? And he said,

Well, I guess what we can give you is that we will help you so that over time you will help the Norwegian police think differently about their problems. I think this was very good advice.

Speaker 1 (17:36)
he’s a brilliant mind really in generating a new area of psychology, investigative psychology, which has not been present before. And he definitely brought new ideas to the field and there’s been progression, as you know, in the profiling arena. are studies now that can help us with geo profiling, there are risk management and David’s an awkward spiky character, but I respect and admire

you know

Speaker 2 (18:01)
I’m personally very thankful for his encouragement and for me warmth that he actually gave that time. I also remember another thing you said, you did this research on offender profiling and getting back to decision making. Because I remember what David said, well, what’s the alternative to if offender profiling doesn’t work, what should you do instead? And he said, better thinking.

You have to, you know, absolutely get better at doing what you’re doing. And because typically you’re overseeing pretty obvious stuff and the cases we’re looking at, there are obvious information if you’re overseeing or that you lost or haven’t addressed or… So that was the other thing, know, strengthen the way you think. And I think you also wrote that, you and him, in a research paper.

for the home office. I’m not getting into quoting you, but I think it was around late 90s, 1998, 99. The reason I remember it so vividly is that you said, I’m done research on decision-making together with my brilliant supervisors, Per Anders, Gunnar Öhl and Karl Ask at the University of Gothenburg, who you were working with at the time. I was thinking we need a model.

for how to think as a detective, just as a PEACE model or the Orbit that you have to have some kind of system to help you. What are you going to do then? Well, that’s quite generic one. And there was a quote from one of your reports that actually gave me that idea. What could that starting point was? B. And I think it goes something like this.

Good thinking is characterized by a thorough search for an alternative without favorizing the one already on mind.

Speaker 1 (19:44)
Cool, really good.

Speaker 2 (19:46)
It’s got a full name on it.

Speaker 1 (19:47)
I’m very impressed with that. Did I write? You’ve got a much better memory of my past than I do.

Speaker 2 (19:52)
I have to say, Laurence, I’m very thankful for that phrase because there are some Norwegian leading detectives in the room. think they also can testify that this became kind of the centerpiece of the decision-making part in the Norwegian version of the PEACE training. So this kind of actively identifying these alternative explanations of the evidence, different stories fit the same evidence?

And can we actually actively identify them in the interview? Can we actively rule it out or can it replace the suspicion? Where do you find more, you know, inference to the best explanation? What explanation does best fit the available evidence? So that became very important in the Norwegian and probably more important than the interview model itself.

Speaker 1 (20:34)
Well, mean, you I mean, as you know, you develop that work and as you’ll know, there’s a big litch on decision making. I mean, I think the only psychologist that’s won the Nobel Peace Prize is Dan Kahneman. And funnily enough, not for his work on decision making, because for all economics. But you know, all that Kahneman and Tversky stuff around confirmation bias, heuristics, et cetera, et cetera, you know, is all good stuff. And you will have drawn on that in your thesis. So, but look, I mean,

What I was interested in in the early days, because it sounded sexy, was what was going on inside the criminal’s mind. That was what it was all about in the early 90s. But you soon realized, or I realized, that I think you can make a bigger contribution if you understand what’s in the police officer’s mind. How they think, how they gather information, that I think is more important in many ways. And the two things in combination can either be done really badly or really well.

If you’ve got an open-minded police officer that goes into an interview and interviews correctly, then you’ve got a result. If you’ve got a closed-minded police officer that’s using confirmation bias and then coercive techniques, they’re going to get what they always thought they were going to get in the first place. But you know, that’s a tough place to be, it?

Speaker 2 (21:37)
Definitely,

So you actually flew in single-handedly to Gothenburg and spent two days with me, with Per Anders and Carl to kind of pin down how can this be done? Can we actually compare decision-making? Because I wanted to compare English and Norwegian detectives. It’s impossible actually to, across sectors, across countries, across jurisdiction, to compare good decision-making.

Speaker 1 (22:28)
And were they very different?

Speaker 2 (22:30)
They were,

I remember the first news that you should do this in the, the, in the, in the hydro suite. And I challenged that said, well, that’d have to be an advantage to the Brits because they’re to that. So we decided to do it outside of it. But what we found that Carl in those studies that we wanted them to see, can you identify the possible inclinations?

good thinking is. So you said, well, that’s good Ivar but don’t do that without a gold standard. It’s just, it’s not the number of hypotheses, it’s the quality of them. So that was another good advice that I picked up. I don’t, you don’t like phrasing here, but that was a very important advice. And then we do the Delfi process on identifying, what are the…

explanations than an unenviable person case and rapidly came to the agreement that there’s only six. There are only six possible explanations why someone disappeared. And all of them have underlying investigative needs. So they’re appointing to information needs. So we also asked them to see, you tell us what investigative actions should you do? And when we did that, the Brits came out with an average of 80 %

the gold standard, whilst the Norwegians had 41.

Speaker 1 (23:49)
what do you think that was?

Speaker 2 (23:50)
No training, no feedback, no training. Just like you and me. Or very little training. So that more training in England, they were more fit. I think, you know, that you have to have to rationalize why you’re doing this. There’s someone looking over their shoulder on the accreditation system. You know that when my plan…

Speaker 1 (23:51)
No train.

Speaker 2 (24:09)
is 24 hours old, someone will knock on this door and come on and check it. And if it’s not good, they will report on it. And if it’s not good after there are so and so many hours, there’s no days they’ll come back. I think mainly in England, they this to kind of stop them from spending money on bad investigations, but it also meant that they, you know, we

Speaker 1 (24:30)
Do they

have a different volume of cases though? the Norwegian officers add less exposure to cases maybe?

Speaker 2 (24:35)
I’ll be obvious. So, so, so, so you get bigger exposure, but there’s also the fact that if you, and it’s quite obvious when we can, I didn’t hypothesis it. was thinking that the difference would be not that big, then we realized there is no.

certification, is no reach, the recertification or anything. So there are, of course, there were some of the Norwegians who did really good, but there were some who were really poor. So the variance was extreme. then we were thinking this, you need a system. You actually need an accreditation to be a proper detective and you need to kind of retrain and re-prove that you actually still are up for it.

So that’s what came out of that research. interestingly enough, the Norwegian police directorate picked up on that. So now you have, we are slowly moving towards a system where you need the training before you get the job and you also need to get that kind of…

Speaker 1 (25:32)
Are

you having increasingly young detectives though? Because I think in the UK that’s true with us that they’re taking on because of resources and finances and everything else. The younger people are taking on quite high profile cases now, not necessarily with enough experience to sit down. I mean, we did a study on rape investigation and it was quite interesting. One of the manipulations that we did, it was a similar sort of study. We gave a…

A scenario to individuals around a rape investigation, we did develop a gold standard in much the same way in looking at the quality of the decisions. And to half the group, we said, right, I’m really sorry, but you’re under bit of time pressure today, so you’re gonna have to do this quickly. Even though we gave them exactly the same amount of time as the other group that we didn’t say that to. And what was quite interesting was individuals that had been investigating rape more than seven years. So you could have one officer that had been a detective for 10 years.

and done seven years in rape. First another officer that had been a detective for 20 years and had done six years on rape and that person would do less well. And it’s a bit like this is a random jump, but it’s a bit like the studies on people that can assess the quality of There’s actually studies on people that can look at pigs and say that’s gonna be a decent pig to eat. But it doesn’t transfer to cows.

Now that might sound random, but my point is it’s about domain specific knowledge. Exactly. So you could have been doing missing people. Exactly. For 20 years and six years on rape, but you’re not going to do as well as a person that’s been doing eight years on rape. Only. one of the things we don’t know much about at all is what the variation is in those different sorts of investigations. But seven years seemed to be a predictor.

Another predictor was a thing called need for closure, which is an individual difference to do with how tolerant you are of ambiguity. And we found that people that were highly decisive, but also tolerant of ambiguity tended to also do well on that task. And the other thing was we took a measure of fluid intelligence, which is the thing Raven’s progressive matrices, which is non-numeric, non-verbal, which is to do with how people recognize patterns.

So it’s pattern, recognizing complex patterns in information, open-mindedness, but decisiveness, lots of experience. And then the other thing, I mentioned this manipulation around time pressure. What we found was that the people that were particularly good at making the decisions, when they were under time pressure, did all the things that they had to do and were able to push out the redundant stuff quite quickly. Whereas people that had less than seven years,

weren’t very decisive, weren’t tolerant of ambiguity and had low fluid intelligence, got panicked by simply being told they had less time and didn’t do all the critical stuff. So it was quite interesting. in terms of, you’ve got to have some degree of experience. Intelligence is a predictor and of course training and exposure. that’s, mean, the other, sorry, I’m waffling there. The other thing that I’ve got increasingly interested in is

How do you get people to get better at doing a complex technical skill without having to make them go through seven years of dipping hit? Exactly. So, mean, you mentioned Hydra there, which is, I was involved in the early days of Hydra, which is a big immersive scenario based learning thing. And that was great. But I’ve got very interested in the concept of micro learning, the short learning, but repetitive learning. So,

There’s something, there’s emerging literature and micro-learning which might be relevant to interviewing, might be relevant to decision making. How do you get people to acquire a complex technical skill that normally takes a lot of time to acquire?

Speaker 2 (29:04)
So little bit of tennis every week instead of once a year.

Speaker 1 (29:06)
Yeah, exactly. You know, you’re learning tennis, do I spend eight hours with you and then disallow you from doing it again for another year? Or do I make sure you practice 10 minutes a day every day for three weeks?

Speaker 2 (29:16)
Do you think, as I said, the research on British and Norwegian homicide detectives showed, at least suggest, that certification, that you actually need to do something to get and to keep the certificate. Is that something we could consider the interview as also the interviewing world?

Speaker 1 (29:32)
depends on how it’s certified I is my sure answer to that

Speaker 2 (29:36)
Exactly. you know, probably you could think about it. You know, we have accreditation systems for all kinds of stuff. It’s mostly technical stuff, but also for processes. the interview is a process. And there are certain steps that shouldn’t be ignored.

Speaker 1 (29:51)
Yeah, I mean, it’s like anything, isn’t it? You want to make sure that the measure is a fair measure of what it is that you know that improves performance. It’s like, I mean, not that we need to get political again, but I mean, certain governments, who I won’t name, have over-engineered mechanisms to metricize performance. And that can also be a problem.

So my answer is it depends on the metric. It depends on the measure. It depends on how onerous it is and it depends what the intent is. The idea of measuring is clearly important. The idea of oversight and performance and scrutiny is important. But again, going back to the stuff on decision making, I’ve certainly, well, I mean, even going back to the things that we were talking about, the over-tensitiveness of interviewing, you want to make sure that it’s proportionate, that it’s fair, that it’s regulated and it’s not overdone.

Because the other stuff that I did on research on accountability was, I mean, as you know, my other areas of interest is critical instance decision-making and decision inertia. So in high profile instance where all options look bad, the worst thing you can do is do nothing, but that happens frequently. So, you know, we can all think of countless examples of problematic decision-making where people have been too slow to act or haven’t acted at all. And we know from the research.

Speaker 2 (30:48)
Thank

Speaker 1 (31:03)
that part of that is to do with the perception of accountability for owning a bad decision. And therefore, you know, I’ve got a cataclysmic option and I’ve got a bad one, but I don’t want to own either of these, so I’ll do nothing. So actually the bad one is better than the cataclysmic one. So, sorry, I’m waffling a bit, but yeah, I mean, think certification is a good idea, degree of scrutiny, as long as it’s a fair measurement and not over them.

Speaker 2 (31:26)
I think also we’re hosted this interview by Davidhorn and I think also technology can play a part. If you want to test people and want to certify people, you should be reliable and testable and consistent. that technology might play a part in that, whether we can document that skill and test it consistently.

and then probably it could be a future to see if it can be also effectively, you know.

Speaker 1 (31:53)
I mean anything that helps the observation of the detail of what’s going on in the interview room and you know we were all watching a presentation earlier about transcription and translation and technology to help observe all of that sort of has obviously got to be helpful.

Speaker 2 (32:07)
Obviously, and I guess you couldn’t have done your research on Orbit without recordings, could you?

Speaker 1 (32:12)
Extremely difficult. extremely difficult. Nearly all of our stuff was audiovisual. Some of it was tape only. I don’t think any of it was transcription only. I think all of it was at least audio. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (32:23)
I definitely think, we’re also talking about this on the summit, AI, how that can help us. I think some of the decision inertia which you find in your decision, critical decision making research, is also…

hampering interviews massively in interviews. So interviewers don’t know what to ask for. They don’t follow. They’re not able to kind of follow what does this mean? In my case right now. And you can teach them as much interview techniques as you want to. But if they don’t know what they want to know, how do they know what to ask? And then they start going in circles and then they annoy the suspect and you know,

Speaker 1 (32:38)
is also was.

Speaker 2 (33:02)
Fuck up the intro.

Speaker 1 (33:03)
Well, mean, anything that can help reduce the cognitive load is going to be massively helpful. Me and Børge have spoken about this. Any technology that can help organize the information or help give you a bit of a nudge or visualize it in an important way or just give you access to something that is going to be faster, all of that’s going to definitely be helpful. I mean, we’re doing bits of, not that I’m diverting off into another realm now, but we’re doing some work with DARPA.

around the use of AI in medical triage and mass casualty incidents. So, you know, when you’re getting flow within a hospital that gets overwhelmed because of a shooting incident, at what point do you hand over autonomy to a system? you know, looking at all of that, I think it’s important, but anyone that’s been involved in AI, either as an ethicist or a legal practitioner or a psychologist, will know that one of the important things is that you’ve got to keep the human in the loop somewhere, because what

what people are uncomfortable with is if they don’t know what the AI is doing when they’re doing it. So when we spoke to surgeons about AI around mass casualty, they said, yeah, yeah, we’re definitely in support of AI if it can take the load off us and if we get a surgeon can help us. But we want to know why it’s triaging in that way, which is perfectly reasonable. Exactly. So the AI interviewing stuff is quite interesting. I’ve been playing around with various different chat bots to see if I can lie to it successfully.

Well, I won’t name particular ones. There was one that I was really impressed by actually. I can say this, can’t I? Inflection. Has anyone tried inflection? Have you tried it now? It’s quite impressive. I actually felt bad saying goodbye to it. But what was interesting about it, a lot of the other ones that I tried, tried to pretend that they were human, which obviously I knew weren’t. And I say,

Sorry, I’m diverted now, you can cut this bit. But I was chatting to one of them and he said, Oh, hi Laurence, what are you interested in? I said, one of the things I like is artwork. And they said, Oh really? And I said, yeah. And I said, you like artwork? And they said, yeah, I quite like Picasso. And I thought, well, that’s bullshit. You’ve never seen a Picasso. I said, where have you seen a Picasso? Oh, I haven’t seen one. And so it was lying to it. was trying to do what we see interviewers do badly, which is be congruent with me and like me. But the inflection one didn’t lie to me. It recognized that it was a robot.

and it was straight, it said I’ve never seen any art in my life, I couldn’t tell you what it’s about. I thought okay, I can live with that. So you know what I mean? So from an interviewing point of view, I felt it was relatable, because it wasn’t trying to…

Speaker 2 (35:19)
somehow bullshitting, yeah?

Speaker 1 (35:20)
And it was quite good at metaphor. I said, well, we’ve been talking for about an hour now. I said, if I was an animal, what would I be? And it came up with an animal and gave quite a good description as to why. I thought it was quite clever. And it seemed rational within what I’ve, I know we’re diverting wildly. What animal was that? Octopus. So you’ve got your, you know, you’ve got your tentacles on a lot of things and you’re sliding around all over the place and quite mercurial, which is what I’m doing now, I guess. But I…

But that was an inventive, imaginative metaphor that I could relate to. Anyway, we’re going off PEACE. I mean, in terms of AI interviewing, I guess we’ll get there at some point. Because it’s never going to get tired. It’s never going to get pissed off. know, two things that are going to happen to interviewers, I’m now fatigued.

Speaker 2 (36:00)
And will, last question, will do you think, Laurence, at some time, robots or AI replace the human interviewer?

Speaker 1 (36:08)
It’s completely conceivable. I mean, even if you think about cognitive empathy, you know, if you’re, if I’m interviewing a 19 year old female that’s gone to Syria and had that experience and I’ve, will have a limited knowledge of it, an AI potentially would know every road that this person might have traveled. So I’ll have much richer, denser knowledge than I will.

So in terms of knowledge it will have it, it won’t get tired like I would either of it. So I don’t know, potentially.

Speaker 2 (36:42)
It’s like you said earlier, technically a robot can probably fly an airplane safer than a human pilot.

Speaker 1 (36:51)
Almost certainly,

Speaker 2 (36:52)
So it might be the same.

Speaker 1 (36:54)
Potentially,

Speaker 2 (36:55)
Thank you very much, Professor Laurence Alison

Transcript

Ivar Fahsing: 

Eric Shepherd, welcome to this episode on the podcast Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.  

Eric Shepherd: 

Thank you.  

Ivar Fahsing: 

Today hosted by Ivar Fahsing from Dublin. We’re here today, Eric, because of the launch of the first Irish Mendez Center for Investigative Interviewing. It’s an historical event that w e have centers now working in the country, working across Europe to actually improve the quality of interviewing across Europe and indeed across the world. I have to say for me, that really made this an historical day was the fact that 10 minutes late, Dr. Eric Shepherd actually comes in to the lecture hall and that that’s happening here in Dublin for me actually made the day. And to the listeners, I just have to make clear why. For those of you who know my background, I started in policing in the late 80s. In 1993, I read an article called Ethical Interviewing. I think it was in a magazine called The Police Review. It was written by you. At first, it provoked me a lot because it kind of insinuated that police interviewing was not ethical. There was something missing. And you used words, if I’m not wrong on, there is a cuff culture in the interviewing room. All of a sudden I understand this is a person who knows what he’s talking about. And I had to face myself in the mirror. Ivar, is there a cuff culture in your interviewing room? And there definitely was. So first of all, I want to thank you for writing that piece because it definitely changed my own way of thinking of how I was doing my work, how I was relating to the people I was trying to work with, but also how I related to my colleagues within the police about how we thought about our own practice. So that was absolutely paradigm shift for me. But later also, when we introduced investigative interviewing to the Norwegian police, five, six years later, we didn’t want to go into just a training week. We also wanted to prepare them mentally and awareness, build up an awareness. But at that time, well, I should probably know police forces are not that affluent. So we didn’t have the money to kind of translate all the literature out there. And there wasn’t a reading culture in the police at that time. So we could only translate one piece and that is the only paper that was translated and handed out to police in Norway. I’m just saying this as an introduction that to show how much I appreciate you as a guest today and how much it means and meant to me and how much you are meant to my fellow police officers, at least in Norway. So that means that for me, this is a very, very special moment.  

Eric Shepherd: 

Thank you.  

Ivar Fahsing: 

I’m actually meeting one of my few academic heroes. So I also know that you also have a professional background, not just a theoretical background for what you’re doing and what you’re writing and what you’re saying. And that leads me to the first question. And could you tell me, and our listeners a little bit, why did you engage yourself? Why did you write that piece? Why did you engage yourself in police interviews and how they were done? 

Eric Shepherd: 

Where does one start? I suppose I came to working with the police service very much by accident. If I look back on my life, most of the things that have happened in my life have happened by accident. And my initial journey with asking questions, but being really interested in people’s answers was in the early 60s, which was in English history, The End of Empire. And I worked in an interrogation center in southern Arabia. And the interesting thing about that was before then I’d never thought seriously about a question or answers. Really, not at all. But in ensuing 10 or so years, by all sorts of turn, I became involved in the process of interrogation and teaching people to resist interrogation, really in a military setting. But of course, what happened was that we have our own kind of history in UK, and of course, people will come to places like interrogation centers in order to learn how to ask questions themselves so what it found my way through was eventually in the mid 70s, I had occasion to be given the opportunity to return to UK and to actually study psychology but also followed clinical training and qualified as a psychotherapist and did a PhD in the nature of people processing people’s answers when they ask questions, particularly doctors. And then towards the end of 70s, I decided that probably I should leave and try my hand at no longer being in what would be an environment of working for Her Majesty and so on. So anyway, I left and by sheer chance, I found a job with the Metropolitan Police. Metropolitan Police had had a very tortured kind of problem with regard to civil unrest in UK and particularly in the black community in South London. And there had been riots and there were riots elsewhere. And they were really quite keen to actually find another way of how officers would relate to people face to face on the streets, but also when they question them. So my job was to work in a team called Human Awareness Training. And that was when I started to try and develop some kind of way of explaining to police officers what made people tick when you were asking them questions, when you were relating to them. One of the things which really struck me when I looked at the way police officers see their job, and quite understandably, they see it as a process. And so very much it’s about almost a sequence of activities in order that if they take the activity, it’s right, they can move to the next. But of course, conversation doesn’t work like that. And one of the things which was really strange was, and again, you’ve mentioned it when you were introducing here, saying looking back at things called the cuff culture, cuff being the word for a confession, was the fact that, police officers, understandably, are very pragmatic. They’re very, they’re down to earth. Getting a job done can very easily become a matter of expediency. And if you do it quickly, all the better, and so on. So they’re kind of what you might call highly practical problem solvers. But of course, the problem about being a highly practical problem solver is that if you’re dealing with human beings, you’re dealing with a whole can of what’s happening on the inside of the other person. And that leads a lot of thought. Now, quite difficult to get a police officer to say, what’s happening on the inside? 

So what I did was I just drew two lines literally going east-west and one up-down and on one end on the kind of the western end of the line going across the page I put self and on the other end of the line east I put other and then I put on the up-down line I put totally in control and top and totally under control. And so what that did is it created four quadrants. And the important issue is, that very often what we find is that when people are doing their job and when they’re conversing, they’re really self-interested. They’re towards the self-end of the line, not towards the other end of the line. And what they want to do is keep control. Now that really therefore means they’re trapped in a segment which is self and totally in control, which almost destined them to actually want to dominate the situation, dominate the person. And what I found really strange, and I’ve never said this before, but in that paper you mentioned, what I found was that police officers ask questions as an anxiety reduction program. They ask questions to keep in control. They don’t really process the answer that much before they’re thinking about the next question. So what you find is when you look at it, a lot of historical police interviewing is just getting the person to confirm what’s in the police officer’s head. And I thought, well, that’s interesting. 

Ivar Fahsing: 

How was your article received?  

Eric Shepherd: 

Contentiously, the history to it really was that I worked with the Met through the early 80s until 1983, trying very hard to basically say that in order to be able to, for me, in investigative interviewing, which I coined in as a phrase in 1983, really was for me in 1980 when I was scratching around trying to describe how to manage conversation, because that’s fundamentally it. All police officers, all professionals, in the end, they have to manage a conversation with another individual. And the thing about conversation is a lot of people rather view it as a game of tennis where you’ve got a net, there you are, Ivar over there. So you ask me a question, over comes the ball, and I bat it back. Now that’s a crazy model, because there’s more to conversation than batting a ball back and forth. The other diagram I used to draw for the Metropolitan Police Officers was that lovely sign in infinity, so it’s a continuous loop. And what really happens is, rather like you and I now, there you are looking at me, your head’s moving, and let’s just it again. And the important issue for me is, what conversation is, is actually a continuous mutual activity that’s going on all the time. It’s not just me is the two of us. And what I have to do in order to understand where we’re going to get to where I’d like us to be in terms of covering issues is I’ve got to actually know that I flow into you and you flow into me. It’s very complicated. But it’s also simple. 

What has always struck me was that people use words like first impressions. The issue about conversation is that first impressions do count. The first thing you have to do is understand conversation and get your head around conversation. So one of things I’ve noticed is that people who are poor conversationalists are inevitably poor questioners, because they’re not that interested in what the other person, so a true conversationalist isn’t the person who does all the talk, a true conversation is get the other person to tell them things. And then of course what that does is it creates a different kind of relationship. So I thought of that, but if you get police officers, trainees to think about how conversation works and get them to actually polish their ability to get interest from the other person talking, then you could get them to this whole issue of what would be purposive conversation, which is investigative interview. Because an interview is only a conversation to a purpose. And so the important thing is, what you mustn’t do is be so besotted with the purpose and so besotted with the kind of procedures you’ve got to go through to get to that purpose that you forget to actually do the fundamentals of conversation. 

Ivar Fahsing: 

You make me nervous now.  

Eric Shepherd: 

Why’s that?  

Ivar Fahsing: 

I’m afraid now that my initial idea of the purpose of this conversation might ruin the conversation, but I trust it won’t. I would actually dare to repeat the question.  

Eric Shepherd: 

Yes, so I’ll continue.  

Ivar Fahsing: 

What did it, how was it received? Because as I said in my introduction, Eric, for me, the first time I read it, it was quite provoking.  

Eric Shepherd: 

Yes. Well, it went down like a lead balloon, I suppose, really. The real issue was that was probably the right idea at the wrong time. And one has to be entirely fair because to a certain extent, if you cast your mind back now 40 years, the golden opportunity I had was I moved from working with the Metropolitan to police to working with one of Britain’s smallest police forces, which is the City of London Police, which is right in the heart of London. And that was again another accident. The head of training, John, gave me a call and said, would I like to come round and have a chat about training the officers, because he had this idea about perhaps they can improve how they related to the public. And so on the training floors, literally on the sixth floor of Bishop’s Gate Police Station, opposite Liverpool Street Station, we took trainees through what was another way of how to relate to the public and how to ask questions. And I came up with a model which I tried to say to people, it’s a jigsaw, it’s not a linear thing. And I called it GEMC which was greeting, explanation, mutual activity, which is actually again a bit like the infinity sign and then close. And what I really tried to get across was that the greeting was literally from the very first time that encounter happened. So that in fact, it wasn’t greeted when you went into the interview room. It was, and this was a model that was be applicable from the very moment you collect the person themselves, if you hadn’t seen them before, or if you met them when they were being booked into custody and so on. And of course, coming back to this real issue that the critical period in which really matters first impressions is that four minutes. The first four minutes of every encounter is when we make our decisions about, we trust this person? Are they interested in me? And that’s the person looking towards the police officer. So the crunch to me, suppose really is that gave me the opportunity to say, right, that greeting was embedded there. But the important issue wrapped in that greeting is you send messages about how you feel about the other person. And fundamental to me, and again, it makes sense, is this notion of respect. So at the core of all human existence is which would matter to you, it would matter to me, to our children, their friends, whoever we’ve met today, is that fundamentally we know when someone doesn’t respect us. But we certainly know when someone does respect us as a human being. And that doesn’t mean they have to fall over and actually give us what we want or whatever. But respect is always, always detectable. And what really then for me, I started to chip together and say, okay, well, what are the kind of things that go with respect? And the first thing that really without that respect that this is a fellow human being, then you get nowhere. The important issue is if you go to look at traditional models of interrogation, people attacking their physical integrity, exploiting vulnerabilities, whether they be psychological, intellectual, developmental or whatever, you soon know whether a person asking questions has any respect for the other person. It’s pretty obvious. It shows. Now, if you’re an onlooker and see that, what must it be like to be on the receiving end? So for me, fundamentally respect. And of course, what I tried to do with my police colleagues was to say, actually respect in a policing context is you’ve learned to, it’s all about respect for the law.  

Ivar Fahsing: 

Yep.  

Eric Shepherd: 

And you’re there to uphold the law. But actually, as Emmanuel Kant said, you know, the cornerstone of law is respect for the person. And because why would you have law and so on if it wasn’t for people and the importance of do you regulate a society. If you say you respect the law, you definitely have to respect the person. So to respect the person, you also have to say, well, what about respect for information? So running through the whole thing of respect for people, respect for information and respect for law is the notion of integrity. Because let’s use, sadly, the American system. The American system, they’re still allowed to lie to a suspect. It’s still permissible. They’re still allowed to misrepresent evidence in order to progress towards their aim to elicit a confession from someone whom they believe or know to be guilty. But that’s always confused me because you know, can say, know, fruit of a poison tree. But the thing for me, I suppose, really is, you know, it then has to say, fundamentally, whenever a police officer or anyone asking questions, what society is doing is trusting them to have a particular moral position. 

And that moral position must be necessarily founded on ethics. And there are really two ways of looking at life in terms of moral position. We all have a moral compass. We displayed it in the way we behave, whether we’re a business person or otherwise. The way we do business demonstrates our moral compass, a way a clinician makes a decision about something, an operation displays their moral position. So moral position really only can be principled, i.e. it’s founded upon the nature of obligation to the other individual as a fellow human being. And the Greeks had a word for that, as they always do, is called deontic logic. It’s about the logic of obligation.  

Or you can have the alternative stance, which is what I mentioned before, is the one of expediency. Now, pragmatists, people who live, quote, reality, who do live the life of the streets, of working with crime, and so on, as they learn their trade, they are pragmatists. So a common denominator amongst police officers throughout the world is pragmatism. 

That this is the way they see the reality of the world. And of course, if you’re living in an environment in which the whole of the organization, managerially, organizationally, is founded on pragmatism of getting the job done, then what that will do is always favor expediency as a solution because it gets the job done and the quicker you do it, the better and the less resource you use, the better. So you can understand why if you come along with a position which is respect for the person, respect for the law, respect for information, it’s not very popular. 

So what actually happened was we trained successive cohorts of officers going through the City of London police. And then by sheer good fortune, the person I was working for in the Met was appointed Assistant Chief Constable in Merseyside Police, and she asked me to go and train there. They allowed me to develop conversation management, and we introduced that in 1985. It was the first force to train conversation management as opposed to interrogation techniques. 

We used to have people visiting from other forces. We would train them in a national course, how to train conversation management approaches to investigative interviewing. It wasn’t necessarily the issue about trying to ensure that it was about finding out fact rather than a confession. 

Then in 90, at the Metropolitan Police Headquarters Training Center, they had a conference about police interrogation and I think I might have been the third speaker and it was attended by the home office people and the press and others. And what actually happened was someone had gone on in front of me and advertised, the technique that they were using in a large police force in UK that was really founded on the READ technique in America. And the READ technique, as you know, is confession focused. So, the guy in front had, you know, trailer how you could go and send people on courses which were based on the READ technique although they called it a different name. I got up and I’ve written the paper on ethical interviewing. And so I remember finishing the whole thing, paper, I said, guys, I’ve always loved Greeks had a word for it, rather like Deontic Logic. And the Greeks have a word called Kyros. Kyros is a lovely word in Greek because it can mean autumn, but it means “the time,” “the right time” to do something. You have Kronos, which is chronological time, time past, time future, time now. And you have Kyros which is the right time and the right time to say to someone, I love you. The right time to say to someone, I understand. The right time to say, shall we think about it? The right time and I said, guys, it’s Kyros. 

Ivar Fahsing: 

Fascinating. I now see. I obviously learn a lot. Because in my head, know, investigative Interviewing starts somewhere even after that article. But you take me back now to the foundations of some of the elements here. And gladly so is also some of the core things that we try to convey in Norway. Why we had to start with ethical re-grounding and moral re-grounding. that fundamental respect for the human being you’re meeting in this conversation. And if you don’t respect that, if you don’t uphold that integrity, it can never be a true conversation. 

Eric Shepherd: 

Absolutely.  

Ivar Fahsing: 

So I’m really glad to find out where does that actually come from. I found a real source, I think. Thank you. What’s your idea about, is this a cultural thing? To what degree does this differ? These fundamental things that you’ve talked about so far in the conversation, are they different if you go to Korea, the US, Africa? 

Eric Shepherd: 

That’s a question that needs a lot of thought. My view is that clearly there will be cultural differences. Yes, the countries I’ve been to, that’s very apparent. But I suppose that the issue for me is it may be you’re reflecting on what I’ve said so far, Ivar, is that I try to find commonalities in people rather than the differences. And what seems to me to be is that fundamentally, whether it be Japan, whether it be Thailand, whether it be Southern Arabia, whether it be Germany, whether it be Norway, whatever the case may be. What’s really struck me, and I gained work in America as well, the issue for me is that I’ve always been completely taken by the fact that when I talk about issues to do with human beings’ respect and so on, actually that’s the lingua franca. People understand it. 

But what really strikes me is that there may be different ways of managing this interactive process, but fundamentally I have never found anything other than the commonality of a human being knowing when they’re being treated in a way where they are respected for what they are. And it’s an easy interesting thing. You don’t have to like a person to respect them. And the issue for me is that what respect does is it, you evidence it as much as anything by a whole array of other behaviors that point to it. If you can reflect in the way you literally converse and you interact with this person and you respond to what they say and what they often may not say but be voicing non-verbally as it were in the way they look at you and they may they respond so that desolation desperation fear failure to comprehend all these kinds of issue really again, produce apathy. You soon know when a person is totally without any feeling towards you, your position, what’s happened, the circumstances. Down the other end, the extreme end, is sympathy, but in the middle of that line is empathy. So what empathy is about is getting around to the other person’s side of the circle and looking back. So it’s kind of an issue here that that’s a fundamental key because then at least you can understand what’s going on potentially inside this person’s head, inside their heart. it’s almost like a creative kind of process, isn’t it really? You won’t know, you can only just try and say, what must it be like? Now, where the principle thing comes in is when you use that to their disadvantage. So I think that actually, once you know how a person’s from there, that’s where your moral compass comes in. You don’t exploit their position looking back. There was a lot about how the police interacted with people who were intellectually disadvantaged. Most police officers know when someone’s not very bright. It’s called understanding. I used to live in a village. The guy used to cut the grass. Everyone knew he wasn’t very bright. And in fact, police officers are very pragmatic people. I’ve found them incredibly good at reading people who are not very bright. Empathy is therefore very important. 

I think you’ve got to also be supportive to a person. And if you show even the most minimal support to someone, you know, it plays you back in spades as it were. It gives you the kind of issues of them. And of course, you can give us support. Yes. But also you’ve got to be positive. You’ve got to actually, you’ve got a job to do. You’ve got to journey to travel, but you can also therefore, it’s not what you do, it’s how you do it. Is that lovely saying? I think the other thing is you have to be open with a person. Now, sometimes you can’t disclose everything and there things that to you, it makes no sense. But we do know that in fact, a degree of openness is essential. Because that openness is as much to do with notion of explanation and understanding why, why now, why here, these kind of issues. And I think the other thing is that people know very, much about respect is that other behavior, people soon know when you’re being judgmental. So I think being non-judgmental is actually, you can demonstrate being even-handed. 

The other thing is, I think, which goes with it, is a thing called straightforward talk. You say things that actually a person will understand. Therefore, empathy says, this person, they’re intellectually disadvantaged. They’re developmentally disadvantaged. Therefore, you need to talk in the way that they will understand the world in their way. And then I suppose the last thing is, and it goes back again to where we’re at now. Why do we relate to each other? Fundamentally, there are only two forms of relationship in life that emerge when you meet a person. You either talk across the person or that’s an across relationship or it’s up-down, you know? And if you are occupying a position like a police officer, it’s very easy to slip into the up position, which automatically creates a person in a down position. So up-down relationships are to be found in teachers, at the tort, doctors in the treated, parents, sometimes the children, these kinds of issues. So up-down relationships are very symptomatic of organizations, which are actually, in the case of the police service, behind the whole process of investigation of which investigative interviewing is only one part. So what really strikes me is positional ways of looking at conversation are fatal, absolutely fatal, because what you have is this issue to me is that if you talk across to a person, they know you’re talking across to them. What I’ve done here, Ivar, is to say, at the centre is respect, but you evidence respect by empathy, by supportive, by being positive, by being open, by being non-judgmental, of straightforwardly talking to someone and talk to them as an equal. And I found that way back in the early 60s when questioning terrorists. That I think questioning terrorists is always going to be stressful. Quite a challenge and I didn’t know then that what I was evidencing something which I later wrote out as an acronym response you know respect, empathy, support of this positive and of course that makes sense as well because in that first four minutes that’s what you’re evidencing your response. That’s it.  

Ivar Fahsing: 

That’s it. I can feel it, that there is a certain energy that going, is more intense between us when you talk about obvious cases of injustice. How does that motivate you, Eric? And how does that relate to our conversation on interviewing and conversation management? 

Eric Shepherd: 

For a greater part of the early period of working with the police service and looking at what were, issues to do that you could say were misconduct, mistreatment, all these other kinds of issues. What really struck me was it was all too easy blame the person who was actually given the task of carrying out something which was almost pre-programmed. You’ve very beautifully described it way back at the beginning of the cuff culture. Now what really strikes me is that what’s most apparent is that our awareness that the confession became institutionalized. It was basically in the 19th century with the formation of police forces. And the very first police force was obviously formed in UK with Maine and the Metropolitan Police. But you could see that, in fact, before then, that systems of justice have worked by people securing confessions. By the time you got to the late 1900s, what you had was in effect this notion that we needed detectives. So the very first detective force was found, found in only half a dozen detectives within the Metropolitan Police approved by the Home Office. And the interesting thing about it is again, it was all testimony evidence. And what would they, they were great pragmatists. And what you can see is that what they would do is instantly read the situation. They’d arrive at a case theory and then they’d, where is the likely suspect? The suspect came into the frame and then the whole object, the exercise was to secure from this person a confession. So what really struck me when I first started in 1980 with the Metropolitan Police was how much Metropolitan police as exemplars of the UK police service, but other police services, is they were trapped in the whole confession business. So how did you get a confession? How did you get it quickly? And of course, What you would do, is you wouldn’t arrest the suspect, you would invite them to the police station, you would bring them to the police station as they were not under arrest. They had no legal protections. So they would be held there, not under arrest, held incommunicado. They would not tell the people if they were around when they were arrested, say in their home or wherever, a place of work, where they were taken. So they didn’t know where they were. So the common denominator was that people will be held incuminecado psychologically. And of course then what would happen then is they will be left to sweat it out. They could be left there for days. so the important issue is by the time that we do know human beings, most human beings can’t cope with isolation. And so once they are removing the isolation, there is this huge internal pressure to say something rather than nothing, anything to anyone. So the crunch to me then is that what you would then do is engage in an almost programmatic way of inducing a person to confess. And the interesting thing about it for me is that again, you can see it in repeated across the world in different cultures. What would happen is once you got the person to the point of agreeing with what was put to them as what had happened, so the whole object of the exercise was to coerce them, capitulate them. And there was a couple of, three rulings in UK. In effect, what you’re really doing is coercing a person. And when you coerce a person, what you’re doing, rather like the Reed method in America, what you’re really doing is inducing them to stop saying things they would like to say, like, I’m innocent, I don’t know anything, and to induce them to say things they wouldn’t say, which is, I did it, all right. And once you look at the dynamics of the whole thing, the important issue is that at that stage when the person says, okay, I did it, what would then happen is in the UK context is the officers would have a, what would be a statement form at the top, they would write the caption about kind of giving you their free will and things like that at the bottom as well. And then what they would do is give the form to the individual and they would write out. But because there was no recording, no one ever knew that in fact what would happen is that the person would write down what was really they were being directed to write down. So what looked like a confession very often contained the words and so on. And if you look at it, the proof of it is I bet you as a Norwegian police officer when you look back at the old confessions, they were always chronological. Now, human beings do not tell narratives chronologically. The other thing they would do is they would contain vocabulary, terms of phrase and items that would only be what the police officer would want in there. Things that they didn’t want in there would be left out. So, the important issue is they were entirely self-serving with the police officer documents. And of course, it was incredibly difficult to prove that that was, in fact, one of my longest miscarriage of justice cases was a guy who served 27 years in prison. And it took me 13 years or so working on that case to actually get to the point where we could prove that they weren’t his words. But the important issue for me, is that the journey traveled is that now we know with the world of scientific advance, with the world of technology, CCTV, all these other kinds of issues. Although testimonial evidence matters, it probably most matters from witnesses. 

And I found myself saying in the end, if you don’t get the witness interviewing right, you’ll never get the suspect interviewing right. Because if you look at it, what has been the poor relation of interviewing, investigative interviewing, has been witness interviewing. We put all this effort into suspect interviewing. We might have specialist witness interviewing. We might have actually special case interviewing and things alike, as it were. But actually, what happens is that testimonial evidence, which still matters, is generated by women and men who actually say, tell me what happened. The vast majority are not electronically recorded. The vast majority are written down by a police officer, actually mentally editing what’s being said to them. And what we do know psychologically is that if I’m a police officer and I’ve interviewed person A, person B, person C, when I get to person D, I’ve already got a mindset which influences how I’m going to shape what this person says. So what you find is, is that the quality of witness interviewing across the world is desperately poor. And that is because what they are doing is relying upon human ability to hold in memory, also with their disposition also with confirmatory bias, also with their own kind of case theory that what they think happened and so on. So a witness statement is always a highly edited, kind of subjective reflection of what the person actually said. Now, if you then go on to interview a suspect on the basis of X number of witness interviews and you don’t have any DNA, you don’t have any video, you don’t have this, you don’t have that, then you can see why I say if you don’t get the interviewing of witnesses right, how are you ever going to get the interviewing of suspects right? And my last thing I suppose really here is that I think it’s really, really totally appropriate that we should continue researching about how people investigatively interview suspects. However, I would raise one kind of very problematic question. Can you tell me how many research papers you have read which really looks at how people cope with the presence of a legal advisor in an interview and actually if that legal advisor is engaging something called active defense. And that really matters because most of the models you see are devoid of a legal advisor present. But the other thing which really does matter to me is prepared statements. 

But the important issue to me is I’ve always been thrown by the kind of the inattention to a very basic fact. If you have a legal advisor advising a suspect all of your planning in the world won’t overcome the real problem to do with what’s called disclosure, disclosure of evidence. As you introduce the notion of an investigator meeting with a legal advisor before that interview ever starts, that legal advisor will rely upon what is disclosure. They will therefore advise their client. That client’s response is very much based upon that legal advisor’s decision making of the investigative interviewer. Strategic use of evidence, could, and please correct me if I’m wrong on this. You can reduce it to this idea. It’s delaying the disclosure of something until you think it’s the right time to say it. Do remember this Greek word, kyrok, the right time? Well, I have to turn around and say that, yeah, you have to make difficult choices. But if I’m a legal advisor and there is no disclosure or limited disclosure, then my client’s not going to answer your questions, which poses a very real research problem. Or my client is going to generate a written statement, most pre-prepared statements they’re normally short, they’re mostly non-committal and they give minimum account for what’s been said to them. So it’d be a really foolish legal advisor to actually allow their clients to put in a completely nonsensical, manifestly lying account and so on or whatever. But anyway, by the way you look at it, if you’re an investigative interviewer, that’s the next level of difficulty we’ve got to sort out. How to manage decisions about disclosure and working with legal advisors because that is an interesting problem, needs researching.  

Ivar Fahsing: 

Absolutely. Where I can say, generates a lot of issues, what you say, but of course you have to put all this into context.  

Eric Shepherd: 

Absolutely.  

Ivar Fahsing: 

It’s like, do take me back to our first national new training programs in Norway in the late 1990s and early 2000s, where we came from a culture where you were actually trying to reduce the impact of that legal advisor, even get him or her out of the room. that was the first thing that we, you know, I said we needed an ethical reorientation, much inspired by your work. I said, what does that mean to your relationship to that legal advisor? How can you activate that? That can give you balance in that interview. And obviously here we shouldn’t go too far into national differences when it comes to procedural law. But of course in a country like Norway, it’s not this legal advisor will have all the documents when they come to the station that here you are. And of course there can be things that here you cannot share with your client at this point. But you should know this is where we’re starting. So that will kind of be the the the fundamental for your advice. That’s number one, which is different in Norway and England, for instance. And the other thing is that in Norway, if you’re a suspect, you’re right to not do you’re right to silence is absolute. You can literally leave the room. You don’t have to sit there. I think it’s absolutely appalling to see in a such a civilized society as I think about England and Wales as that someone is actually obligated to sit there and say no comment. No comment. If I don’t want to interact with you I don’t want to interact with you. It’s a fundamental human right I think. So that’s also different in the way the whole context of interview and I think that does something. You know what you used in the word early on, integrity. So just that legal thing that you can’t leave the room. 

It’s also a fundamental breach of human integrity I think also a breach at least violating some fundamental ideas about the burden of proof and the right to freedom. 

Eric Shepherd: 

I totally agree. I mean, it seems to me to be one has to be sensitive to differences between countries across the world. I don’t blame people for behaving in the way they do given the circumstances they’re in. I spoke about moral compass. So your moral compass is either going to be principled or it’s going to be expedient. Okay. So either or you can’t be expedient and principled. The question to me then is what happens is the evidence of our moral compass is our behavior. And our behavior is evidence of mindset. Mindset is a disposition to think and reason and interpret and to make decisions and to take actions in a particular way. So that’s your mindset. Human beings are really, really vulnerable from infancy onwards to developing a mindset for the circumstances in which they find themselves. So a child vis-a-vis their parents in the family. And so what you find is, that human beings are particularly disposed to developing a fixed mindset. That fixed mindset is one that responds to reward. And human beings respond to reward. And so what we do know is that people who are given the task of investigating or investigative interviewing, really what that displays in their mindset is how they’re prepared to act in ways for which they’re going to be rewarded. Are they going to be given a: You’ve got a cuff. Well done, confession. You got it quickly. And by the way, have a promotion. So the important issue for me really is if you stand back, we as psychologists should see that we can develop and quite rightly, approaches whether you want to look at it linearly, then whether it be your preparation and planning, engage and explain, account, clarify, challenge, close, evaluation and so on. What you can see, all of these kinds of, whether it be GMAC greeting, explanation, mutual activity, close and so on, what we do know is that people will follow what they think that model is, but actually what they’re really implementing is their mindset which is showing their moral position. So you still get people. So what we need to be is very savvy as psychologists is to now take a step back and say, how do you develop the managerial environment in which what we say is, okay, case theory? Well, we really ought to think in terms of alternative case theories, not just one case theory. And let’s think what evidence is said from an intelligence background or whatever. Rather than one explanation, think of an alternative one and another one. What do barrister say when you go to court? Officer, I put it to you there was another explanation. And of course that catches police officers out. I didn’t think about that explanation. So the crunch to me is in order to have the effort to go out and look at different case series, means that you’ve got to look at the evidence. And what we find now is that fine-grained analysis, dominating the detail, understanding it, is a fundamental activity which is outwith the interview situation. So what we should be doing is training people how to handle detail, how to create different case theories, how to actually evaluate evidence, how to, really in the end, stand back from it and say, right, okay. And what seems to me, my final point here is this, you and I have worked in investigative teams and what we do know is that it is still looking towards the chief, the leader, the leader who basically will often, whether they like it or not, whether they really intend to, tend to be the monopoly of what would be the case theory idea. And of course, what really is happening in the world of other organizations is how do you invite the other people to actually contribute to processing? So I think that the next thing coming out from investigative interviewing is looking at how investigative teams work and how actually they work whole process of de-biasing, actually combating every possible form of biasing, of which most are born of a thing called confirmation bias. I think there is a rich area for that area for Mendes, which says, let’s look at how the organization works, how the team works, how that works and the psychology of it. 

Ivar Fahsing: 

I will now try to round it off. So thanks a lot and I hope we can invite you back on a later occasion.  

Eric Shepherd: 

Only too pleased. Thank you for being so patient. Thanks a lot. 

Transcript

Ivar Fahsing: 

Professor Rey Bull, welcome to this podcast called “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” on Investigative Interviewing. 
Ray Bull: 
Thank you. 

Ivar Fahsing: 

It’s an honor to have you on this podcast because I have to say, for me, Ivar Fahsing, as a young police officer and early academic, you were probably the most influential person in helping me and my good friend, Asbjørn Rachlev, in building a national police training program to Investigative Interviewing for Norwegian police around 25 years ago. Yes. So it’s a particular honor to have you here today. And also I have to behave because now I have to show you that I’m a good interviewer.  

Ray Bull: 

Of course, yes.  

Ivar Fahsing: 

So this is the real test. Well, welcome Ray.  

Ray Bull: 

Thank you very much. 

Ivar Fahsing:  

Ray, since you have, you’re probably one of the few persons who have been seeing this development from it actually started. And it started in England and we could say that in the eighties. Yes. And could you please take us along to how did it actually start and why did it actually start?  

Ray Bull: 

Well, what happened was that in my country, in England, as in many countries around the world. Years ago, the people with the very difficult tasks of police interviewing people suspected of crime, many years ago now, they received no training, no help, no guidance from anybody. They just did their best. They did what common sense suggested to them. And in a small number of cases, their common sense, which of course is that a person who is guilty of a crime, the common sense view is that a guilty person would never of their own volition voluntarily tell the police. That’s the common sense view. We’ll come later to say that that is in fact a mistaken view and that’s a common sense view. And so of course, if you have no training in anything, you’re guided by common sense. 

So there were a small number of cases in my country before any interviewing was recorded where people who had been interviewed by the police, whether they were in prison saying they came out of prison or they were not imprisoned, they reported to their friends who reported to the media that in their opinion, they had been treated very harshly by police. In some cases they claimed that they’d been punched or hit. There was never any suggestion of terrible torture like with electricity and horrible stuff like that and other kinds of things. It was more the interviewer and getting frustrated and allegedly headbutting the suspect and things like that. And the chiefs police and the government took notice of that because when you’re lucky enough to live in a democracy such as Norway or England where one of the duties of the media is to report bad practice by any organisation and so the police were getting a bad name because the media were brave enough to report what allegedly happened in these small number of cases and that led the government to make a very groundbreaking decision at the time so we had legislation dated the year 1984, 1984, the interviewing by the police of suspects by law had to be audio tape-recorded. But the police were given two years to purchase the necessary expensive equipment and have proper rooms that were enabled good recording to occur. 

And initially, the police quite rightly were against this because they said to the government, are we the only profession that are legislating that has to tape record what they do? You don’t do this for medical doctors, you don’t do it for lawyers, you don’t do it for… why are we first chosen? But because of the bad publicity that had preceded, the government insisted and to the credit of the police within a small number of years, they came to the opinion later that it was a good idea.  

So what happened is the recording became compulsory in 1986. And one of the benefits of recording is of course that you, the interviewer and or your friend and or somebody else can listen to that recording to give you advice about what you did well, what you didn’t do well, where you could improve. And so what the government did is they commissioned four studies of these newly recorded interviews. Two were done by police officers working for their doctorates and two were done by researchers, not me on behalf of the government. So these four people got access to the recordings and they analysed different recordings but the four studies came to the same conclusion which was that the interviewing was not very good. And then when the chiefs of police said, my, dear: Why are they not very good?  

The obvious answer was people had received no guidance, no training. They’re just using their common sense. And so then the government of Chiefs Police said, we need to do something about this. So they commissioned 12 experienced detectives to form a committee to develop some kind of training. The first time training would ever occur and be formalised on a national basis in England and Wales. Relatively small countries. And whilst that committee of 12 male detectives was thinking of what to advise, they had a year or two to do it in. One of the detectives who had done one of the original studies listening to the recordings with his two supervisors was he was doing a PhD. He had a degree in psychology, his name was Tom Williamson. And so he had the idea that perhaps those 12 defectives who had to come up with some kind of training might benefit from being aware of some psychological principles about how best to communicate with people, et cetera. And so he, Tom Williamson, got together a small number of psychologists on Sundays and we collated anything that was of scientific value from any part of human behavior that might assist in the task of in a non-coercive way assisting a suspect to voluntarily decide to give you relevant information. And we had no idea whether this booklet of psychological stuff that we collectively produced, which was given to the committee of 12 male detectives, we had no idea at all what they would do with it. We suspected they would probably most likely put it in the bin because none of those detectives had a degree, none of those detectives were psychologists as such.  

But to us, complete and wonderful surprise, one day a large parcel arrived at my university office, which was from this committee of 12 detectives. And it was a heavy parcel. When I opened it, the covering letter said, Dear Professor, we have decided to incorporate into all our documents and training quite a lot of that psychological stuff that was passed to us, but because we have been instructed to write everything of a reading age of 16, because young police officers in those days didn’t have many school, if any, qualifications. So we had to write this psychological stuff in very basic language, and we are not sure that we have done justice to these complicated ideas. So could you go through what we have drafted and tell us where we’ve got it wrong? 

Well, I have to admit they got almost everything right. There was almost nothing they had misunderstood. And if I was grading that work, which I often do as a university professor, I would have given it the top mark. It was absolutely impressive how they had understood and brought into what they were proposing a whole load of psychological stuff.  

Ivar Fahsing:  

Fascinating. Well, I take it then that you were in that reference group that they actually got this material from. Could you tell a little bit how did you end up there? What was your background?  

Ray Bull: 

Yes, that’s a very good question. When I graduated with my bachelor’s, I started doing a PhD that had nothing to do with policing. But the person I was in love with, she won the university scholarship to do a PhD in psychology where we had graduated from. I didn’t get it, of course, because she was much better than me. But I got a funded PhD studentship in London, which was a journey of five hours away from the person with whom I was in love. 

And we decided to get married and therefore I even more didn’t want to be so far away from her. So I went to the professor where we had graduated, where she was doing a PhD. And I said, I know you don’t have any money, but my parents have no money, but we will somehow survive on one PhD studentship. So can I do a PhD here with the department I love, with the person I love? And he kindly said, yes, we can ask you to do a little bit of helping out in classes, but it won’t bring you very much money. And so I’m embarrassed to share with the world that in my first PhD year, all my friends would never let me buy a drink because they knew I didn’t have any money. And towards the end of that first year, the senior professor who had allowed me to do the PhD, start the PhD came to me and he said, he had just been awarded a research grant for one year in an area of psychology very different from what I was doing. And he would be very happy if I would agree to work with him because I would be paid. And I said, yes, sir, I’m very happy. And he said, well, don’t you want to know what it’s about? And I said, I don’t care what it’s about. And he said, it’s to do with the police. And I said, yeah, that’s fine. What is it? And he said, it’s to do with when police officers go on patrol before they leave the police station, they’re given information that’s relevant to that day. And in English, that’s called a daily operational briefing. And this project is to help the police make the information more memorable. So it’s a lot of psychological stuff in it. And I said, yeah, I’m interested in memory. That’s very good. So we started that project and I had to write reports every three months. Of course, the professor improved the reports to the Ministry of Policing and the ministry was very pleased. So they invited the professor and therefore me to continue for a second year in that arena. so much of what we did understandably wasn’t for 

for public knowledge, we published a few things and then some of the work I’d done in my first PhD year, because I had a brilliant supervisor, we had published a lot of that. And so the professors in my department said to me, well, Ray, they thought I was good psychologist. You’ve published quite a lot of stuff. You work with the police. It’s time for you to start applying for the lowest level of professorship, the most junior professorship. 

And I wanted to go back to London at that time, so I applied for jobs in London and I went for a job that related to what my PhD would have been about. And unknown to me, at the same time, they were looking for somebody to teach memory, which is what my police work was about, but we hadn’t published much about that. So another joyful part of my life was they offered me the job I did not apply for. They offered me a professorship in memory. So then I started working in memory and what psychologists worked on. I’m now talking about the middle and late seventies. There was a lot of research in psychology on what’s called eyewitness memory. How to help people when they’re shown a series of photographs not to choose the wrong one, but to choose the right one. So I worked quite a lot on that and that got me involved again working with the police. So I had a background in psychology and policing, which was why Tom Williamson, the police officer, who was a psychologist as well, who got the committee together on Sundays, he knew that I knew a little bit about policing and a reasonable amount about psychology. So he thought, I think correctly, that I could help him produce this document that he hoped the people coming up with the training would take notice of, which as I said, they did take notice of. So that’s how I got to that stage. 

Ivar Fahsing: 

So they came up, assisted by you and other set-up scientists with the beginning of the PEACE programs. Could you say a little bit about your impression about how this program was received? 

Ray Bull: 

As I said, those 12 male detectives surprisingly had the skill to write about police interviewing and psychology in a way that was readily understandable. So the ability of other police to understand it, it may not agree with it, but to understand it was achieved by those 12 male detectives. A crucial thing had previously happened that I had an involvement in that I haven’t yet mentioned, which was that around 1980, there were some riots in cities in England, particularly in London, in which early career young patrol officers, who mostly looked like me, Caucasian, were stopping people who didn’t look like them, Afro-Caribbean teenagers, in parts of London, as is a part called Brixton. And so in the history of London and England, we talk about the Brixton riots. And there was an official inquiry into that. And the official inquiry concluded that these riots occurred because on the one hand, young male Caucasian police officers could not understand people from an Afro-Caribbean background. And the Afro-Caribbean people understandably also didn’t understand Caucasian beliefs. So this judge wrote this report saying that the training of early career police officers from now on for the first time should include what was called cultural awareness. And because the major riots were in London, the police organisation that piloted this additional kind of police training was the London Metropolitan Police. So they decided to enhance the curriculum that young police officers received by 30%. An extra 10 % was on cultural awareness, 10 % was on communication skills, and 10 % was what was called self-awareness. The better you understand yourself, the better you understand other people. And so the Metropolitan Police in about 1981, they began that training and then I was asked to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of that training initially for one year. And I had a really good researcher working with me called Peter Holcastle. And every year that one year project was extended. So we did that project for six years. at the end of the, therefore towards the end of the 1980s, I think partly in the light of the work we had done with the Met, the national government decided that all police officers had to have that training. And so when those detectives came up with the interviewing method, the PEACE method dated 1992, there had been a background initially in early career police officers taught by mid and senior career police officers, because we produced a curriculum. 

So fortunately there was a background awareness within policing, at least in England and Wales, that psychological things could be of benefit to them. So when the peace method was produced, for some officers, it made a lot of sense because that’s what they had learned earlier in their career. You know, that to get the best out of a person, if you’re a patrol officer, you need to treat them with a level of humanity and respect. If you want to move on five arrogant non-cooperative young men, you don’t hit them overhead with your police baton. You talk with them at a respectful level and then explain to them why it’s in the interest of everybody if they stop blocking the street and let people pass. So I think that’s one of the reasons why in my country, we had almost no resistance to this weird and wonderful idea that the detective had called the PEACE method. It was amazing how 

easily accepted the notions were of course some of the things within the method are quite difficult to do because of course you only need training if you don’t already do it. So there was no need to train police officers in how they should breathe because they already knew how to breathe and of course a number of officers have certain skills they bring to policing but things that the detectives learnt in psychology that are subsequently found to be very important in getting a guilty person decide voluntarily to tell you what they’ve done is something called the asking of open questions. In social life, men almost never ask open questions. Women, yes they do. But men, if they’re in a society which is historically of male dominance, they don’t tend to want everybody to give them information. They’ve already made up their mind. That’s the kind of gender bias that used to exist doesn’t exist anymore in my country. And so another thing that has subsequently been found by many people in the world to be important is that when you’re interviewing a person, you have good reason to believe has some relevant knowledge that might be implicate them as a guilty person. They may not be the bank robber, they might just be the driver. You’re trying to find out. 

So what the PEACE method advocates is treating even a person you think has committed a horrendous crime, you put aside your common sense. If I were interviewing a man that I had good reason to believe had sexually abused a lot of children, I want to hit him. I want to be an old style police officer. I want to torture him for the bad things I think he’s done, but I’m not yet sure. That’s why I’m interviewing. If I am a good interviewer, he may well decide to tell me what he’s done. Then I want to hit him even more because he’s now telling me about the first child he’s abused. But my PEACE training says I have to listen. I have to not show any judgment I have about negative things. I have to continue to have rapport with him, which means the ability to continue to converse. And in more recent research, I have to show what in psychology we call cognitive empathy. That means I show him that I understand how difficult it is to talk to me. I know from my planning of my interviewing that he himself when a child was abused and if he starts talking about that I respond to that in a constructive way. We know that 50 % of child abusers themselves were abused and I don’t excuse his behaviour but I resist the intent in my human desire to strangle him by continuing to talk with him and let him talk with me and when it gets a bit difficult, we revert back to what we chatted about at the beginning, which might be soccer or some other thing I know that he and I are interested in. So a lot of the peace method is the opposite of common sense and the opposite of what you would like to do to this terrible person that you’re interviewing. So some aspects of it are really difficult to do, but then never created a backlash against it. 

So as far as I’m aware, obviously I’m biased, but I’ve looked for backlash ever since. I’m not aware. And when we talk with other people, both within England and other countries, such as Norway and other countries that have adopted this same humane method, there seems to be once a police officer understands it, they are not resistant to it. The crucial thing is to get them to understand why you will get more information from somebody if you don’t punch them. 

Ivar Fahsing: 

The training was generally well received.  

Ray Bull: 

Yes, to a surprise and in fact it didn’t take long within the police service for to become a trainer of this interview was seen as a very elite thing to do. It was seen in the same category as other successes in policing and it wasn’t necessarily a route to promotion, but it was a route to being admired by others because now things are recorded when you interview suspects and other people listen to your recording. If you’re really good, they can tell you. And some people can become really, even men become really, really good at it. And so it became esteemed within the police service relatively quickly. 

Ivar Fahsing: 

I think also, I would like to ask you, you were really touched upon it. what was kind of, if you think, one thing is that they received it, see, and it also gave a certain status to be involved in it. Did it bring about any change?  

Ray Bull: 

Well, surprisingly, surprisingly, it did in two or three ways. So this new method was introduced as we said in the year 1992 and at that time in England and Wales there were 127,000 police officers. So of course they cannot all be trained in the first year or two. So what the chiefs of police decided to do was to have the training given to those who interview suspects in the most difficult circumstances. That’s either very senior crime or the suspect may have learning disability or be very aggressive kind of person. And so the people that would normally do that interviewing, because you need to do interview those people, they were the first to learn about and be trained in the peace method. And then the government asked me to analyse a very large sample of the interviews conducted by these people who were the first to be trained. And maybe they were well chosen to be the first trained, but in their interviews, they demonstrated the majority of the skills quite well. Understandably, they were weak. They were unable, particularly the men, to make most of their questions open. If you’re talking to a suspect with appropriate breaks for two or three hours, to continue to ask mostly open questions rather than suggestive or what’s called leading questions, which you do a lot in ordinary life, is extremely difficult. we were able to identify even in very good interviews, the things that they found difficult. And also in the sample of interviews, there were some skills that were required that almost everybody could do. 

So that helped revise the training because if everybody finds something easy to do, you don’t need to spend a lot of time in training on that because you know it’s quite easy to do. But the things that are important that are more difficult to do, you need to devote more training to that. So that kind of modified the emphasis in the training. And then that was mid 1990s. And then quite a few years passed in England before anybody had the willingness and ability to access these recorded interviews.  

And a very experienced crime investigator who worked in a government agency that investigated crime, a guy called David or Dave Walsh, contacted me one day and said he was finishing his career. He was in his mid-forties had enough years of experience to retire on a government pension but didn’t want to stay at home being bored and he wanted to do a PhD and when I said why do want to do a PhD he said I want to become a professor and myself being a professor I said you must be mad, it’s a terrible job. Behind the scenes students don’t see what an awful job it is behind the scenes. Dave said well okay. 

And of course, Dave, still working in the government crime agency, had access to hundreds and hundreds of interviews. So he was the first person who decided that he would analyse the interviews for two crucial things. On the one hand, how well each of the skills that is taught is performed. On the other hand, how much information the suspects gave that was of an incriminating, what we call investigative relevant information. 

And Dave did a series of studies within his PhD on these real life interviews. And he found that the more the interviews resembled a good quality PEACE interview, the more the suspects gave information, including in a democracy, the small percent of suspects who are genuinely innocent. And it’s very crucial not only to get information from the guilty, but to get information from the innocent that demonstrates that they are indeed innocent. so Dave did a series of studies and then some other people were beginning to adopt peace methods. Some parts of Australia, for example, followed of course some years later. No, before Dave’s PhD, Norway had already adopted the PEACE method. But I think Dave was the first to relate the amount of skill to the amount of information. And a number of other people, if they have access to recorded interviews, have done it in other countries. Some people with myself. So Dave’s interviews, understandably, because of the agency he worked for, were not of murderers and rapists. So I wondered to what extent, Dave was finding and others would apply in the more challenging kind of interviewing with people suspected of sex crimes or murder because of course if they tell the truth they know they’re going to go to jail for a long while. That fits with common sense. Why would a murderer or a child abuser voluntarily tell you knowing full well that in doing so, not only would they go to prison, but if they were a child abuser, their friends and family will probably disown them. And in the UK, if you go to prison for child abuse, the other prisoners try to abuse you. So it’s a very high risk situation. So after three years of trying with a PhD student called Samantha, we were able to access some real life recorded interviews with alleged murders and rapists. 

Basically, Samantha found the same thing, this strange thing which is called rapport, to establish a conversation with the person at the beginning based on their interests, and then to move on skillfully to talking about the alleged crime and to maintain rapport with them, as I’ve said earlier, when they’re telling you bad things is really difficult to do. in these high stakes, situations Samantha found the same thing as Dave that the better the interviewing matched onto the PEACE method, the more information people provided. And there’s been a series of studies and I’ll just finish with a very recent one. So with a PhD of the person of mine now, Dr. Bianca Baker. Bianca was always very interested because she has skills in psychotherapy on the role of demonstrating that you understand another person’s point of view. That’s called cognitive empathy. So what Bianca did was we got access to real life interviews with murder and rapists, a different sample. And she evaluated the interviewing for a number of things, particularly ability of the interviewer to demonstrate an understanding of the situation the interviewers found themselves. So it’s not emotional sympathy. It’s not getting upset or aggressive. 

It’s demonstrating an understanding. And what Bianca found again was in this highly skilled level of PEACE interviewing, which we call level three specialist investing. They are the only ones trained in cognitive empathy because they are the only ones who interview in difficult cases. She again found what Samantha found, what other people found, what they found, what other people in other countries have found. 

Though to untrain people who have the common sense view that to get information from a guilty person, you have to threaten them, you have to coerce them, you have to torture them, that’s the common sense view. To get people to understand the opposite is really, really difficult. But it seems to be effective and there are more and more countries and of course here in Norway for 20 years, you have had the wisdom of training in a way that science tells us is a much better way. 

Ivar Fahsing: 

As far as I know, this has been a game changer in Norway. a bit easier to introduce Norway than elsewhere because we already had a bachelor for the police, so the bridge between science and policing was already there in a way. It wasn’t kind of a new thing to be scientific, but we lacked areas of high relevance. And so I think this came at a very good time, but we needed something that was, you know, it was a lot of the theory that was a bit broader, a lot of technology was, and it wasn’t directly in the streets. But this, I think was, at least here in Norway. Could I ask you, Ray, again, thinking about all the years that you’ve been involved in this and and in so many different countries, cultures. Do you have an idea whether this model or approach in generally works everywhere? 

Ray Bull: 

Yes, I’ve been surprised that I’ve been lucky enough to go to several countries that in my previous earlier life. I never thought I would ever be lucky enough to go to various countries where you know, there has been quite a lot of torture and coercion by people who have not been given the knowledge that was given to people here in Norway and so of course depending on the culture, you present the information in a way that is of cultural relevance. 

So I don’t start off talking about the PEACE method in some cultures. I start talking about other meaningful situations in any culture where getting information from a person, getting them to do what you would wish them to essentially has the same skills as the detectives came up in the peace method. So that may seem a long winded answer. So I tried to make my introduction to it of some meaning to the audience outside of crime investigation and get them to understand why what I’m going to be talking about in the next two days not only applies in the interviewing of suspects or witnesses or victims, because some witnesses and victims don’t want to tell you everything either, how it’s not the only part of life where PEACE-like skills are important, those skills are important in many other aspects of life as well. So depending on the culture, it depends where I start. 

Ivar Fahsing: 

I haven’t traveled as extensively as you, but also been fortunate enough to deliver this kind of training in many different cultures in Africa, Asia, South America. It seems, you know, it’s, it’s graspable and it’s natural for any culture, at least that I have seen.  

Ray Bull: 

Yes, as we said, it’s natural and other aspects of crime investigators life, which helps us explain to them that that natural skill is also relevant to interviewing suspects. That’s the challenge you and I have to get over for them to understand that listening, not interrupting, smiling, making sure when you ask a question it relates to what they’ve said, all those things that are important outside policing are also important in policing. 

But not everybody is good at it. That’s the problem.  

Ivar Fahsing: 

It takes training and it’s a skill. And speaking about skill and implementation and, you know, we’re now in 2024. 

Ray Bull: 

Yes, it started 40 years ago when the government announced that in two years time the police would have to record. Yeah, it was 40 years ago that what was the most important first step occurred, which happened to be in my country. 

Ivar Fahsing: 

What would you say is the, if you were giving advice to someone, you know, from a country that taken on PEACE, what could they do to attract interest or to kind of start doing it? would you think they should start?  

Ray Bull: 

Well, the way I normally do that is to say. Let’s take the situation of entering a suspect or a crime victim. If you don’t do it well, on the one hand, you don’t gather enough information that would lead to the jailing of a true criminal. And so if you don’t do it well, the true criminal is still out there doing it. 

And in many societies, in one way or another, there are costs to that society and sometimes to the government of the health and wellbeing of victims. So one of the ways I start talking about it, particularly with senior people is I can save your government money. And they look at me very puzzled. These are professor of psychology is here going to talk about interviewing. So why is he starting off talking about saving money, because I know that one of the resistances in many countries to this training is this training cannot come cheaply. You cannot achieve it in a few hours so to have trainers and police not doing their duties, but being trained, cost money, you know, as they’re saying from somebody, best things in life are not cheap. So they worry about the upfront costs. But I point out to them that the better they are at getting information from suspects and witnesses and victims, the more crimes they solve, the more the right criminal is now in prison, the person who suffered the crime feels better because the way they were treated and the person that abused them is now in prison so they feel good about that so they don’t seek so much from the health service. So that’s one way I start off by saying I’m here to save you money. They always listen to that. 

Ivar Fahsing: 

Professor Ray Bull thanks a lot.  

Ray Bull: 

Thank you.  

Ivar Fahsing: 

We could be going on for days. I think that was a really good ending. Thank you.  

Ray Bull: 

So thank you, Ivar. 

Transcript

Ivar Fahsing: 

Today, we welcome a distinguished Mark Fallon, to our podcast “Beyond A Reasonable Doubt”. Warm welcome to you, Mark.  

Mark Fallon: 

Thanks. It’s a pleasure to be on with you, Ivar.  

Ivar Fahsing: 

I don’t know where to start, Mark, with trying to give our listeners a short introduction of your professional background. But at least I can say that for me, you are the symbol of this development within the US. And I know that you have a background in the Investigation Service as a deputy commander there, you were deeply involved in the first modern terror attacks on the US and you also have been responsible for training on a national level for the federal agencies in the US. But maybe you could give our listeners a bit broader picture of what your professional background has been. And how you ended up in investigative interviewing.  

Mark Fallon: 

Yeah, thanks. Thanks for the kind welcome. You know, I often describe interrogation, as a complex adaptive environment. It’s a longer continuum. And my career and trajectory has been along this continuum that has continued to thrust me into some very challenging situations where I’ve had to make some decisions and had to rely on expertise and knowledge that I did not necessarily have at the time. And that’s, know, being with NCIS, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, you know, that’s one of the hallmarks of that institution is providing support to the US Navy and US Marine Corps. And so when something happens, NCIS is the agency that conducts the criminal investigations, the counterintelligence work, or counterterrorism. And now cyber is certainly a much larger part than when I was on active duty. But they were the ones that were looked to solve issues so that the military can continue to function. And so during my career, that’s what happened. And it happened with the first World Trade Center attack. And I was involved in the case on what’s known as the blind shake, Omar al-Aqda al-Rakman, who’s a spiritual advisor to Osama bin Laden. And then when the USS Cole was attacked, I led the USS Cole task force. I was at the time, I was the NCIS chief of counterintelligence for the Europe, Africa and Middle East divisions. 

And so I had that part of the world for NCIS for counterintelligence, the globe is divided into three different sections. Well, I had the sections that certainly were the most dangerous and most threatened with the Middle East and Europe and Africa, that particular area. And the principal job of that was threat warnings. So my division was co-located with the Navy’s Anti-Terrorist Alert Center, the ATAC which provides the capability to alert Navy Marine Corps forces, the fleet, about pending threats. And this ATAC, it’s now called the MTAC, the Multiple Threat Alert Center, was actually created after the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut when the after-action report determined that there was available intelligence that could have made the military personnel on the ground more prepared.  

But there was no ability to get it into the hands of those operators. And so the Navy turned to NCIS and said, establish this capability. And frankly, we failed. The USS Cole was attacked on the 12th of October, 2000. But there was actually intelligence available about potential small boat attacks. And we had that intelligence. And of course, 17 people, sailors died that day. 

 I became what NCIS called the commander of the USS Cole task force working with the FBI. And so it became a large undertaking for NCIS particularly, and really changed the organization. The ATAC turned it to the MTAC, and NCIS created its own counter-terrorism division, Directorate which at one time was under counterintelligence. And so that really thrust me into a major role in a top tier investigation into the Al Qaeda terrorist network, which during the first World Trade Center attack, I didn’t even know what Al Qaeda was. So now I’m thrusted to this. Then of course, when the 9-11 attacks occurred and President George W. Bush made the decision to utilize military commissions rather than the federal district courts to bring terrorists to justice. I was thrust into that and I was detailed from NCIS to the Department of the Army to work directly for the officer secretary of defense to establish a task force that had never been, there’s not been one like it before, to be the investigative arm of this new military commission process. And so in that capacity, had, okay, design a task force, who should be on it? What should your competencies be? How should you be aligned? What should be your command structure? What’s your report writing system? All of these, what building are you gonna be in? Things like that.  

And so when that occurred, I was the chief investigator for Al Qaeda for the United States, for the military commission process. So honestly, I had the weight of the world on my shoulders. You know, looking at the fact that, particularly the department of defense had turned to me to establish this task force and bring those that attacked us on September 11th to justice. That was our objective. The president said that the federal district courts, that system was impracticable to try terrorist. 

And it went to the commanding general of Army CID, the Army Criminal Investigation Division Command, which is the Army element responsible for criminal investigations, which is a different, the services all operate differently. And so the Army does not combine its counterintelligence capabilities with its criminal investigation capabilities. The way FBI does, the way NCIS does or Air Force OSI does, the Army equivalent didn’t. And so Army CID did not have the depth of knowledge or experience working within the intelligence community because that wasn’t within their primary portfolio. And so when I was detailed Army CID, I had to kind of help them understand what it’s like working within the intelligence domain. 

And so when I established my specific investigative units, they each contained criminal investigators, intelligence analysts. Each unit had their own lawyer because of the unique laws that might apply. And each had an operational psychologist or behavioral scientist. And Army had not traditionally had done that. 

NCIS during my career had made very effective use of operational psychologists to support the operators. And so when I got this mission to establish a task force, investigative task force, the first, one of the first things I did was say, I need to draw upon a base of knowledge that I don’t have. And so I established what we call the behavioral science consulting team or the “Biscuit”. So we brought in an expertise that we did not have. And that included bringing in operational psychologists from other entities within the intelligence community, including the CIA, to help us design the methodology that we would use to conduct our interviews and interrogations. Because this is unlike anything we had had before. I mean 3000 people were killed on, you know, in the World Trade Center. I mean, the Pentagon was attacked. I mean, plane was downed in Chancho, Pennsylvania that was destined to hit the Capitol. And so the U.S. was being attacked, both economically. New York City, the economic hub of the United States. Militarily, the Pentagon, and our government itself, the Capitol. And so this was attack on democracy, on our way of life here in the US. And we were filled with rage. And decisions at the time, were based, in my opinion, on fear, fear of the next attack, fear of what happened. 

 Ignorance, really not understanding the nature of this attack, and arrogance, thinking that we can just do this, what we did with the EIT (enhanced interrogation techniques) program and reditions, that we would be able to do this, and no one would ever know. 

That just is an unrealistic expectation and this is what many people don’t understand is that the matter in which that we started was everyone had to receive our training program and how to conduct these interviews interrogations before they deployed, before they actually engage in it. And it was all report based. It was all about establishing your report. It was about understanding the Middle Eastern mindset. It was the exact opposite of what the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, EIT was. And while operational psychologists from the intelligence community, including the CIA, were helping me establish rapport-based investigative and interrogation methodologies because we knew them to be the most effective, the CIA outsourced torture to contract psychologists who had no background in al-Qaeda, no interrogation experience, and really took them down a road that created incredible problems for the US. But what was unique about these investigations from a criminal investigator perspective, normally when a crime occurs you have a crime scene and you have suspects. In this case, we had suspects and we didn’t know what crime they may have committed, right? Because we sweeped up all these people and now we had them in custody and now we need to determine what they might have done. Not only for potential prosecution, but for release and, and my task force, more investigators conducting cases that led to the exoneration or release of detainees. 

Then, I worked for the prosecution. Overwhelming majority of them did nothing. Because the people that really were the most culpable were taken to black sites rather than turned over to criminal investigators. 

I know this is a long story to your question, but what that did is that, this is what kind of really was the catalyst for the movement here in the US. And so what happened was there was a recognition within the government much earlier on before the public knew and within those of us working the cases, much earlier on than the rest of the government knew that the manner in which we were conducting interrogations, particularly the EIT program, was counterproductive. It was not only ineffective in getting accurate, reliable information, it was getting unreliable information. It was getting inaccurate information and uninformed and flawed decisions were being made based on that. And so, when in 2006, 2005, 2006, the President Bush wanted to try to solve that problem. We had all these people at Guantanamo that should have not been there in the first place. 

We had tremendous resources focused on trying to get them repatriated, released, transferred, because they didn’t belong at GITMO. And we were assuming liability for them. We were holding people that didn’t belong there and certainly losing credibility in the international community, because it was clear high-ranking Al Qaeda members. 

These were people who were, I call them in my book, bounty babies, right? Who we paid a bounty for people who we suspected may be extremists. And we purchased a lot of people, I called it human trafficking in my book, right? And so we purchased them and we sent in a GITMO and now we had to kind of sort through them there. And so that effort, the Office of Director of National Intelligence commissioned a study, and it was called, Inducing Information. And that study was conducted by Dr. Robert Fine and Brian Voskull, who were both members of the behavioral science consulting team that I established. So these are some of the people that I brought in to help understand the nature of the beast, to help understand how we should conduct interrogations, to help understand the risk of potentially releasing or transferring them, And so, as I said, my experience in NCIS was, I don’t have all this knowledge, I need to draw upon the knowledge of others, so I can make an informed decision for the Navy leadership or in this case, the Department of Defense leadership about a direction to take. That study was the…, and they came to FLETC when I was there, I was the director of the NCS Academy and the assistant director for training to the Federal Office of Training Center. And the study came there and said, we would like to look at the manner in which you train investigators. And we invited them in and they looked and they went to the FBI Academy and they went to local police academy, went to Boston Police Department, and what they discovered in the US here, it had been more than 50 years since the US government had invested any significant resources into why somebody would talk to us. Right now in Europe, be it at PACE and PEACE and things going on in Europe, you guys were much further along in the research basically because of abuses with the IRA and then, and so the overreaction of the state is what caused kind of the shift in mindset in Europe, right? And that’s the same thing in the US. The overreaction of the state caused a study of it, which said, wait a minute.  

And so, what happened then is in 2009 when President Obama was elected to office, one of his first executive orders in his first days of presidency, 13491, said, we won’t torture anymore. However, we need to understand, we need to know the best methods to elicit accurate and reliable information to protect our national security. 

Right. And this is what’s a little different than the PEACE foundation from the foundation here in the US with the HIG, the The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group which was formed as a result of that executive order, is that the focus, the primary foundation in Europe was a human rights focused to get information. 

The foundation within the United States is we need to protect our national security, but we need to do it lawfully. And so just a little bit of shift in the inflection and the focus. And this is why I take exception when I hear people who are afraid to say the word interrogation, which is benign, is the fact that that entire apparatus was for intelligence interviewing. Right. It wasn’t for investigative interviewing. 

And then of course, an interview is an interview is an interview, right? And so there’s really no difference between it. So, it’s about effective interviewing, right? And when you’re conducting, this is what we had to do was you had to elicit information and you needed the most data. 

And then I often equate it to if you work cyber and you work in computers, everything’s a one or a zero, right? You’re getting ones and zeros. And that’s the same thing when in interview, you’re getting ones and zeros. How you apply it, it might be intelligence. It might be evidence. It might just give you a better understanding of something. And so the goal is to conduct an effective interview to elicit data that can be analyzed and then applied. It may be applied to exonerate somebody. It may be applied to make a more informed decision about where to apply resources, things like that. And so this movement in the US was created because of interrogational abuses. The movement in Europe was created because of interrogational abuses. 

And so the goal is to learn from those lessons. And that is what really started what we have here in the US was the high-value detainee interrogation group at the high level. And for me, I was thrust into that because I was asked to be on the HIG research committee and be its first chair and to help with the instruction of the first interrogators to go through the HIG training program. And so for the first time, I started to really get involved in a collaborative effort with researchers rather than just using the product, what I understood about it or what somebody else told me about it, but really working alongside of researchers. 

And I wrote a piece in Applied Cognitive Psychology when they had a special edition on interview interrogation talking about how collaboration between scientists and practitioners will improve the practice and will improve the science. Because it was clear to me that many of the researchers didn’t understand the practice. They really didn’t. And when I see the manner in which some studies are designed, it’s clear to me that they don’t. And it’s clear to me that practitioners don’t understand research. And so the whole goal is to kind of bridge that gap so that these two work to assist each other’s objectives. And so the research will better inform the practice but the practice will better inform the research as well. 

Ivar Fahsing: 

Mark, a couple of times you have said: in my book, because the first piece I read from you, to be honest, was a book called “Unjustifiable Means”. Could you tell us a little bit about why did you write that book and what is it about?  

Mark Fallon: 

Yeah, that’s a great question, Ivar, because I never thought of myself to be a writer. I wasn’t one of the people who always wanted to write a book. 

Frankly, I don’t enjoy writing. I’m an emotional writer. I write when I get pissed off. And so what kind of thrust me into the public domain, as someone who speaks out was really my involvement with the HIG. 

I was speaking out about what was effective, what wasn’t effective about, and what I was talking about while it was true and accurate was very different than the public perception of what happened because the public was misled, right? It was misled intentionally that the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, program was safe, was necessary, was effective, because that was their talking points, to try to shirk any accountability for it, to try to say, this is why we were so great. And so a group called Human Rights First came to me. 

And they had a program where they were trying to counter torture and said, we need your voice. Because we need you to publicly say what you’re saying here in these meetings. 

They asked me to speak out and Jose Rodriguez, who was the chief of the counterterrorism center of the CIA, when this EIT program, and while they call it EIT, the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, I call it what it really was, excuses to inflict torture. And so that’s what the program really was, is just trying to come up with the excuse is we’re under threat and it’s safe. What we’re doing safe, and we know it wasn’t, what we’re doing is effective, and we know it wasn’t, what we do is necessary. We know all that wasn’t the case. But the narrative was that it was that, and Jose Rodriguez was writing a book called Hard Measures where he was trying to claim credit about all the great stuff they did. And so Human Rights First came to me and said: will you write an op-ed? 

And I wrote one in Huffington Post that said, you know, you know, the torture is illegal, immoral, ineffective, and inconsistent with American values. Right? and we brought together a number of interrogation professionals from the Intel community and from the law enforcement community. I mean, the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Lieutenant General Stoyer, former chiefs of station of the CIA, who all said that interrogation is wrong. And so we put out a statement of principles for President Obama, and I became kind of the lead for the National Security Professionals Program of Human Rights First, trying to get the narrative changed within the media, and we did. 

We met with members of the press. We met at the New York Times, The Washington Post and said, please stop the narrative that human rights advocates call this torture. Torture is torture. 

A lot of people encouraged me to write my story because it’s much different than the public narrative about this at the time. And I was at an event when I met with John McCain, who was really one of my heroes and he knew of what I had done, on the CITF because the CITF was the one that discovered, the torture of Mohammed al-Qahtani, prisoner 63, would have been the 20th hijacker and that of Mohamedou Ould Slahi, prisoner 760, who wrote the book, The Guantanamo Diaries. And so I was the one that alerted the senior leadership of the DOD and the Navy that these methodologies that were supposed to be done in secret within the CIA were migrating to the Department of Defense. And as the most senior counterterrorism official responsible for investigating them, I had an obligation to alert my chain of command of this because it was clear in my mind that this would be contrary to the president’s military order of November 2001 that said we would treat prisoners humanely. And so I had an order that I was executing that said we would treat prisoners humanely and was clear that others were not. And John McCain and Dianne Feinstein, both I spoke to them at a Human Rights First event where they were both being celebrated because we had just gotten the release of the torture report. And so Human Rights First asked me to speak out and encourage them to release the torture report executive summary. 

This is like 500 some odd pages of a 10,000 page report, right? That’s still highly classified. you know, we were trying to say we needed to, we need to get this report out so that we learned some lessons from it, right? Because we did some really horrible things. I mean, the depths of depravity of the program are still coming out. But we need to do this. And John McCain said, you need to write your book. You know, your story needs, people need to understand what happened, you know, with you and your task force it wasn’t just me. I wasn’t a whistleblower. I was a high ranking government official saying this is this is wrong, right? This is a bit. This is contrary to our values, contrary to law. And I have an obligation, I have a duty and obligation to try to prevent that and so that’s what really propelled me to write it. My intent was to write it as a leadership book, right? To try to have people take a look at it, to see what it was like having to make some decisions that were frankly unpopular, right? To oppose the secretary of defense, to oppose the president and vice president at a time when people were under threat and afraid and to feel that the commitment to the oath of office was more important than my career, right? Understanding that that position would probably derail my upward mobility, right? And it could result in sanctions. I was the deputy commander of CITF. The commander was an Army Colonel, Britt Malo. And we actually sat down and discussed whether he could be court-martialed for this, or could I be brought up on charges or fired? But we sat down with our lawyers and made decision that we have an affirmative obligation not to follow an unlawful order. 

And it was clear to us that the order to inflict human rights violations against a prisoner in custody was unlawful. There is no way that that is lawful order. And so whether we liked it or not, and whether it had an adverse consequence on us or not, we had an obligation to stand up and take whatever consequences happen. And so I wanted the book to be that leadership lesson for others who might be in a position like me in the future. 

And so through my career, I often would find myself to talk truth to power. And that was a distinct advantage that I had and NCIS had because others within the military structure all reported to those local military commanders. And so I may have had a little more flexibility in my ability to say not just “no”, but “hell no”. You know that this isn’t going to happen on my watch because it was clear to me that I was the senior NCIS person involved and Guantanamo was a naval station, that crimes are going to be committed on a naval installation under my watch. And so I had to let the Navy leadership know that this was going to happen having no idea frankly that anyone would actually consider doing this and thinking it would produce positive results. I actually thought that this was just some inapt generals or people at lower levels who thought they were doing good but didn’t understand an actual interview interrogation and didn’t kind of think through the strategic implications down the road what might happen if they did so. So when I challenged what was happening, I didn’t know it was already policy. I didn’t know the depths of depravity or the fact that the CIA was already doing some really horrible things in these dark prisons and black sites. It was inconceivable to me at the time. And it’s still amazing now that we would have engaged in that. Because it is so abhorrent and so contrary to our values as a country, as a country that is founded on human rights. 

The tone of my book changed during the presidential primaries where Donald Trump and the Republican candidates started to say that torture was effective and we’ll go back to torture and something worse that will restore Guantanamo. 

I really wanted it to be a book that someone could look at and understand what really happened on the inside. I’m not some researcher who’s read a bunch of stuff and then tried to… This happened to me, right? This was my life. I mean, I was at these meetings. I was there in the heat of the battle at the tip of the spear. So it wasn’t my analysis of what somebody else did. This was me just telling what I could of a story. 

And nothing in the book is classified. would not divulge classified information. Just wouldn’t do it. I used to investigate people who had done that. Exactly. But the redactions in my book were there. There’s 113 redactions. And my book was held up 179 days before publication because what I write is embarrassing.  

Ivar Fahsing: 

So I’ve seen all that and I thought all that was kind of because it was secret.  

Mark Fallon: 

No, none of it was. I mean, things from congressional hearings that I wrote about were redacted. Articles in newspapers that I wrote about were redacted because it told a story that was more compelling or had more sources applied to what I was saying that made my story more palatable rather than just my story. And as an investigator, what do you do? You look for supporting evidence. And so that’s some of the things that were redacted is me finding some of those things that supported what I was contending in the book. 

Ivar Fahsing: 

And indeed, for investigators, a narrative is what is supposed to connect the evidence and make it a coherent case.  

Mark Fallon: 

Yeah. I’m frustrated at how little of the practitioners, got it, and were trying to apply it, there was no kind of cultural assimilation. This wasn’t taking hold as meaningful. The police were not accepting the behavioral sciences, the psychological sciences in the same manner in which they accepted the physical sciences, like DNA, right? They accept DNA, but they’re not kind of getting that the psychological sciences have value to apply as well. And they looked at this and what they did is they said, listen, here’s the thing, there’s two different cultures at work here. Right? You have practitioners operating in this operational silo. You have academics operating in this silo. And neither really understand each other. You know, there’s some isolated circle, say, where they do. But as communities, they do not. As communities of research, communities of practice, they don’t have a good understanding. And they do not work well together. And the problem is…  

Ivar Fahsing: 

The relationship has been called the conversation of the deaf. It gets too messy when people like you and me get involved Mark. Yeah, it becomes uncomfortable because we challenge the norm. We’re in it for the application and the value and the complexity that guys like you and me have to deal with. It’s messy.  

But as you say, and that’s probably that might be a reason why by these two silos still seems to thrive as as just that. 

Mark Fallon: 

But what we did is we commissioned a book, and we found a publisher who would agree that the electronic version would have no paywalls. So we went around the world and we picked a number of researchers that we thought could have the most impact on practice. Pär Anders Granhag. He’s one. I mean, we looked at the cognitive area. Let’s ask Ron Fisher to write a chapter on the cognitive interview. We want to talk about research methodologies. We went to Melissa Rossano. We want to talk about memory and other things. We went around the world and we picked who do we think could kind of contribute to this. 

And we said, write this with practitioners in mind. And so we, just this past December, it was published, interviewing and interrogation, a review of history of research and practice since World War II, because we wanted to have something that could create a cognitive opening within practitioners that this psychological science, that this body of research could help them do their job better. And each of the chapters can be downloaded separately and it is available at no cost.  

And so that’s what’s kind of exciting and encouraging now is that there are these pockets of excellence in policing. Los Angeles is doing some incredible work. I just had a call yesterday with a district attorney, a prosecutor, a Vern Pierson in El Dorado County, California, who has established his own interrogation training program for investigators because he was getting bad data. Right as a prosecutor, he wasn’t getting the type of information from the interrogation that he needed to try cases. So, and he brings ORBIT as a foundational aspect of it. And he has a program and he’s trying to rewrite legislation in California to ban the false evidence ploy. Right, and I work now with the Innocence Project and I’ve now testified before 10 different state legislators to try to get them to evolve from the traditional confession-driven methodologies that we know produce false confessions, that we know are less effective in obtaining accurate, reliable information than the science-based methods, but that are still being utilized. And when I talk to police organizations or before legislative bodies, when the police are afraid you’re taking our tools away. No, no, we’re replacing your antiquated tools. You wouldn’t issue a firearm that haphazardly misfires and hits unintended targets and innocent victims, nor should you with your interrogation program. Because what you’re doing is haphazardly getting false results and you’re getting wrongful convictions. 

Which is horrible in and of itself but it’s a menace to society because the actual perpetrator remains on the street to prey on other victims and your law enforcement officers, particularly with a false evidence ploy where you’re lying about what the evidence is you’re promoting a culture of deceit and deception in a law enforcement organization. You’re saying it’s okay to lie, to witness. Not just suspect, but somebody you suspect, they may be a witness, but I’m gonna lie to them about the facts and try to see if they’re a suspect. And they go back to their community and say, the police just lied to me and said they had me on camera and I wasn’t even there. And so we talk about in the US how, you know, there’s a lack of trust in policing that were challenged by recruitment and retention of police officers. 

Well, when you’re deceiving the public the trust factor just isn’t there right? How do you then when you go back to your community say please lie to me? So I advocate policing with virtue, like the police should be the good guys. You should police with virtue because that’s a step closer to community to embrace policing. You want your  community to embrace police? You know, we’re there for the force of good and and so it should be embraced for a sounder criminal justice process, so that’s what I have.  

Ivar Fahsing: 

You probably can go beyond that, I guess, Mark, and say that for general dignity and mutual respect and understanding as human beings.  

Mark Fallon: 

Yeah, that’s one of the aspects we hit on in the Mendes Principles about professionalism. And so we spend, you know, when I was at NCIS, I spent a lot of time in the firing range, right? I had to continuously qualify, re-qualify quarterly to ensure I was proficient with a handgun that I may have pulled, but never fired, you know, in the line of duty. But I did an interview interrogation just about every day. Never had to reestablish my proficiency. Never had any, you know, had any mandatory follow-on training. You know, there was voluntary training and there was training provided in that area. But it wasn’t looked at as something that you could add new competencies to. Because you didn’t know that this research was ongoing. And of course at the time we didn’t have this research. But now there is. It was like, if there was some new firing technique that made your judgment better, or made your weapon better, or made you a better shot or a better marksman or have better gun fighting skills, it would be in your training program so that you were more accurate. Well, we have research now that can ensure that you’re more accurate in your interviews and interrogations. However, other than pockets of excellence, it’s not being implemented. 

LAPD was the first people that I helped train, they’ve gone out now and they’re doing training in those programs. FLETC, Federal Enforcement Training Center, the largest law enforcement training center in the US here, has totally revamped their training program and now uses science to train all the federal agents that they train within the US, which they didn’t do before. 

And so I am very pleased to see those changes. NCIS, my former organization, the director had come out to the field, said, I don’t care how you’ve previously been trained. 

I don’t care how your previous practice has been, from this day forward, we will only use research to inform our practice of interviewing interrogation. And so we’re hoping for a greater paradigm shift. 

Where there has not been that same type of culture adaptation is in the state and local law enforcement level in the US here, unfortunately. We don’t have a central law enforcement authority in the US. Every state can be different within the same county. A county could have different protocols than a city. And so there’s no kind of central authority. And so what you hope to do is influence. 

Ivar Fahsing: 

I guess one of the fundamental, you’re pointing to the system of how the entire law enforcement community is built up in the US, which of course is quite different at least from where I come from, Norway, where as you’re probably aware of, it’s a bachelor program that leaves room for much more critical reflection and foundation for every single officer. And of course, that creates a better outset, I guess, for this kind of embracing and also merging the silos. I guess from the very beginning, there is no conflict between practice and research because that’s your mother milk.  

Mark Fallon: 

Yeah, you have a much greater emphasis as it should be on education. We do not overhear, I mean, NCIS requires a college degree. Some other agencies do not. So you don’t have that kind of educational focus to kind of advance that way and to be able to engage in scholarships simultaneously because it does impact your practice. 

You’re a better practitioner because of your knowledge. You’re a better practitioner because of your scholarship.  

Ivar Fahsing: 

Exactly. still, have this… I remember very vividly, Mark, when it was introduced in Norway, a bachelor in policing. Because I was the second-last class without it. So I remember when I think I was probably one of them being really worried about all these nerdy theoretical guys who were supposed to follow us and how would they be able to both read books and do the job. there is this thing and I think it’s not because you’re against it, it’s genuine worry that we’re doing an important job and we have to make sure we’re doing it the right way. So don’t think it’s like they don’t really respect it, but it’s built on a genuine worry that we know how to do it. And we might take some advice, but we won’t throw it all overboard to someone who have never done it before.  

Mark Fallon: 

Yeah, and the other part is kind of the op tempo here. I mean, you know, in NCIS, very operational, a lot going on. You know, I was always engaged in, you know, high level task force, high level investigations. There wasn’t a lot of time. Right. And so there was a program where you could attend the Naval War College one year and get a master’s degree. But there was never enough time to give a year out of my operational world to kind of take that break. And, you know, and so the people who got it. 

Were the ones that may have been between assignments Or could have had the time to attend those things, but you know through my career there was never enough time but you know in Norway, it’s part of your culture right that that that that is part of what is it accepted that would make you a better leader And certainly, you know, I went through leadership training in NCIS They realized that that that type of That type of training made me a better leader attending those schools But it’s that level of kind of research that is kind of a separate silo. 

Ivar Fahsing: 

Exactly, but I think also what happens is, you know, slowly, slowly, societies are developing into higher and higher education for on average. And if the police and the law enforcement don’t follow, we will fall behind. And, you know, you won’t be taken seriously by the people you’re supposed to serve. 

Mark Fallon: 

Yeah, there are exceptions. mentioned, I don’t have a PhD. I have a bachelor’s degree, right? Yet I have an experience base that helps my knowledge, right? So I have a high degree of knowledge that hasn’t resulted in a degree, right? I guest lecture at a lot of law schools. I guest lecture for psychologists and I guest lecture for lawyers. So there are folks who will embrace…  

Ivar Fahsing: 

That says a lot of what your work has meant, Mark. And the reason why we’re having you as a guest on our podcast is exactly that. You are exceptional in the way that you are able to convey this message to so many different audiences that can bring about change. So I would just like to ask you before we round off, from where you go, you are probably the scholar, because I think about you as a scholar, who are invited to the most important places in the world. You visit places and offices and talk to decision makers far more than any other scholar that I know. From your point of view, where is the wind blowing right now? 

Mark Fallon: 

Yeah, I’ve been very, very encouraged recently. It was Saul Kassin who insisted that the Innocence Project contact me. And so he… for years has been saying you’re, know, they were in their echo chamber as well. Right. And so they didn’t go to practitioners for the most part. And so I said, you need to hear Mark Fallon speak because his voice is unique. Right. From probably what you’re hearing. And, you know, they have asked me now to speak, as I said, 10 different state legislatures. 

And I’ve done press conferences with them in the ACLU. And I oftentimes speak with an exoneree sitting next to me, someone who falsely confessed to a crime they didn’t commit. And I’ll start my presentation by saying, I used to believe that an innocent person wouldn’t confess to a crime they didn’t commit. I was wrong. And he’s going to tell you why I was wrong. And then they will tell their story or something like that. 

And so I speak for a number of different innocence projects. And they bring me out and I speak to legislators. I’ll speak to police organizations and i’ll talk then about some of the things that I’m talking to you about you know in telling maybe truth of power, but try to create this cognitive opening that what you understand or what you believe? May be different right? We once thought the world was flat You know, we want you know, you know some things that some our beliefs change right, but these cognitive openings are occurring within the state legislatures to a degree. Now I’m very encouraged, Minnesota just signed a bill banning deception and police interrogations with juveniles. There’s no state that has banned it with adults yet. Now some departments won’t do it, but there’s not a legislative ban on it, which I think it needs to be to really have the cultural change because of the damage that it’s the people don’t realize the damage it’s done financially. So within the U.S. exonerees have been awarded four billion dollars in settlements, four billion. Right. And so the problem with that, that’s not impacting individual police departments. It’s impacting their city’s budgets. It’s impacting the state’s budget, it is impacting the taxpayers. But that’s not filtering down to the city budget, because those cases usually aren’t completed till 20 years after the person’s had a wrongful conviction. Right. So those those officers who involved in that have moved on. There’s no accountability, things like that. And so most recently, within the last year, the NCJFCJ, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court judges reached out to me. And they were encouraged to talk to me. And one of the judges on their steering committee for their conferences, which usually brings 600-700 judges together from around the country, basically told me, you don’t realize how ignorant we are as judges about what you’re saying. And I teased her and said, well, I think I do. 

But they they brought me out to speak at their conference last february in Cleveland Ohio and I spoke with the co-founder of the innocence project Peter Neufeld talking about their efforts nationally and with Terrill Swift and exoneree who i’ve spoken with before to the judges and the feedback was exceptional and so the judges are now saying, wait, I’m saying you are making bad decisions. Right. You’re making decisions. Your prosecutors are making decisions based on information that’s being involuntarily obtained. Right. That they are being coerced and so you’re making bad judgments and here are the results of those. $4 billion is being paid out, you know, here in this state.  

I’ve been asked to participate in a movement coming up in the state of Pennsylvania to just have police record their interrogations. Right, that they still don’t record. NCIS was the first federal agency to mandate recording interrogations. And they didn’t do it for human rights purpose. They did it because of what we call it the CSI effect. Jurors watch TV. They think something should be this way. So we were afraid that jurors weren’t believing our rapport-based methods. So we wanted to videotape it so they could see that the interrogation was really voluntary. We wanted them to see that our practice was a rapport-based practice. And so that’s the encouraging. So what we’re hoping is that we get to a point where, frankly, the public will no longer tolerate in that practice, that police administrators will no longer tolerate that their practice may be contributing to the degradation of trust between police and the communities they serve. That the public itself will no longer tolerate deceptive police practice. They will insist upon the fact that police should be professional and that they should actually be utilizing science to inform and to reform the practice of interviewing interrogation. Well, there are indications and warnings that there could be a cultural shift.  

But we have to keep the pressure on. We have to continue. We can’t rest on our laurels. We can’t say, I wrote this book, I’ve been there, I’ve done that. We have to say that this is an evolutionary process. I was discouraged for a long time about the inability for the HIG research to trickle down. Now I am encouraged. I am encouraged by what I hear and what I see around the country in pockets. 

I’ll be really delighted when I see kind of the cultural transformation away from confession-driven to information gathering, and then the understanding that science can inform the practice and make us better at what we do. 

Ivar Fahsing: 

I feel confident, Mark, as long as you are around, that wind will continue blowing. Just talking to you today have encouraged me that also there is time to get you back to Europe again, because the way you are able to deliver a message is absolutely unique. So first of all, I have to say that, and you know I mean it. And I also have to thank you as a fellow citizen of the world that for all the time you’re spending on actually making this change come through I would like to round off this interview with asking you the question. Do you sometimes have a feeling that you are naive, that you are trying to fight windmills? Or why are you doing this?  

Mark Fallon: 

Yeah, I’m a smart Alec from New Jersey, so the short answer is I don’t have any hobbies. Or I don’t know any better. You know, my whole life has been dedicated to public service. I mean, I’ve only known really kind of government service. 

My father was a police officer, deputy chief of police. My father-in-law is my father’s partner. My grandmother was the town clerk in my town. My uncle was a councilman, so I’m not, while I believe in capitalism, not motivated by profit. I feel that citizens of the world, you know, I like Roosevelt’s quote, you know, he talks about the man in the arena and everyone remembers that card, but he also said that citizens in a republic have a responsibility. And he said that, you know, that high tide raises all boats. And so what I do realize is how unique my voice is. 

And I realize it’s because of those experiences, right? It’s not, it’s because I was thrown into situations and had to survive, right? And with the recognition that, to survive, I’ve had to rely on others, right? And so now, you know, I’m 68 years old. I realize I have much more time behind me than I have ahead of me that my voice is one that has some type of meeting now. And I will continue to speak out as long as I’m relevant and as long as my message is for the forces of good, for the lack of a better term. So I’ll continue to use my voice and my pen or my background and expertise to try to be something that could inform society because I think that that’s citizens in a republic have that obligation as Roosevelt said and so and I believe I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and I don’t believe anyone’s ever kind of taken that oath away from me. So I feel that some of the things that are practiced have been collectively unconstitutional, right, tortures unconstitutional and so hopefully, what I say will resonate with certain people who will then carry that message on. 

Ivar Fahsing: 

I feel certain it will, Mark. So by that, I would thank you so much for taking your time to get this into you today.  

Mark Fallon: 

Well, it is a genuine honor, Ivar, to do this. I am encouraged by what you have done and what you are doing, your voice. So thank you for the opportunity to use my voice on your podcast and to be invited to spend some delightful time with you.