Transcription

Guest: Thomas Skou Roer

Host: Dr. Ivar Fahsing

Recorded: 26 November 2025

---

Dr. Ivar Fahsing (Host)

I would like to invite you, Thomas Skou Roer from Denmark, to this episode of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, Season 3. As you know, Thomas, the topic of this year’s season is the implementation of investigative interviewing. Although you no longer work for the Danish police authority, you worked for them for quite some time and you are deeply engaged in investigative practice in Denmark still. It is an honour to have you here today. Welcome.  00:00

Thomas Skou Roer (Guest)

Thank you very much, Ivar. Thank you for inviting me. It is a big honour for me and I am looking forward to a good conversation.  00:38

Dr. Ivar Fahsing (Host)

Fantastic, Thomas. You and I go quite far back, so some of these questions I am fairly sure we share opinions on — which makes it all the more interesting to discuss them over the next 40 minutes. Let me begin by inviting you to share with me and our listeners: what do you think is the ethos of investigative interviewing?  00:45

Thomas Skou Roer (Guest)

Well, the ethos — at least from my perspective — is, I think, ‘do no harm’. But I also think there is another side to it: it has to get the job done as well. So it is ‘do no harm, but get the job done’. By saying that, I mean that we need safeguards, but we also need efficiency in our investigative interviewing practice — so that we obtain the information we need while taking care of the people we need to safeguard. It is a double-edged sword, you might say, although it is of course heavier on the safeguard side.  01:12

Dr. Ivar Fahsing (Host)

That is a really good answer. If you try to reflect critically — don’t you think our colleagues from a generation before us would say that they did exactly the same?  01:50

Thomas Skou Roer (Guest)

Probably, yes. I think it is also about philosophy — about how much weight should be placed on each edge of that double-edged sword. I think there are still two edges, but the safeguard edge is becoming slightly heavier these days than the efficiency part. Whereas earlier, I would say it was probably more efficiency over safeguards. The balance has shifted.  01:59

Dr. Ivar Fahsing (Host)

Definitely. It is, as you say, about having your sword sharp — but about how to wield it in a safer way.  02:38

Thomas Skou Roer (Guest)

Yes. And maybe it is not about the sword itself, but about the wielding of it. Yes, I think that is a very good analogy.  02:47

Dr. Ivar Fahsing (Host)

So if you take us into a Danish context, Thomas — what is the situation in Denmark today? And looking back over the years you have been involved in strategic development there, why is this development important for Denmark?  02:56

Thomas Skou Roer (Guest)

Well, if we start with a brief historical perspective — around 2010, we had a very good researcher, one you know as well, Kristina Kæpinski-Jakobsen, who did some very interesting research on the interviewing of suspects. Before that, she had also done research on general witness interviewing — very important work. There were efforts to build on that and expand upon it, to change the landscape of investigative interviewing. But it remained fragmented. There was no national standard for how investigative interviewing should be conducted in Denmark. Different districts still had different approaches, although broadly there was probably reasonable agreement. But there was no standard.  03:15

I was part of a working group and had the pleasure of leading one of the projects on developing the new standard for investigative interviewing in the Danish police, which was implemented in 2015. With that, we had a new national standard — there could no longer be different perspectives. It was one perspective. At least, that was the idea. And in practice, of course, challenges remain. But that was the intent.

This also meant that from 2015, training in investigative interviewing began to be implemented on a much larger scale than we had been used to. Not large enough, but bigger. There were a number of basic programmes — perhaps one to three days — just to create an appetite, if you will. And then further courses for volume crime, and of course a course for video interviewing of child witnesses. That is essentially where we remain today, ten years later.

Some local initiatives have attempted to expand the training regime, with mixed results. There have been efforts on trauma-informed interviewing for sexual assault victims, so things are still being done. But what is really interesting is this: we implemented the standard in 2015, and yet in 2021, for the first time in almost 100 years, two police officers were convicted of attempting to coerce a confession. Which was quite surprising — we had this new standard, and it had been implemented, but apparently not well enough. And in 2024, another officer was charged with the same offence, though acquitted. That too speaks to where Denmark stands right now.

The status is that we have implemented investigative interviewing and developed the Danish model of interviewing, but implementation-wise we still have some way to travel. We are not there yet — in the Danish police at least. I say it that way because I also train the Danish Immigration Service, and they have fully adopted investigative interviewing as their standard. Everyone is onboarded using this method, and there are two courses — basic and advanced — as well as a child interviewing course. So the police is not alone in this. There are a number of actors employing the principles of investigative interviewing in Denmark, as is the case globally.

Dr. Ivar Fahsing (Host)

When we talk about the ethos of investigative interviewing — in my world, Thomas, it is probably not about interviewing at all. It is about how you think about an investigation, and what your job is. As you know, we often talk about what I call the change of mindset — the mindset that is traditionally more guilt-presumptive and confirmatory, which is not only something that comes from being a police officer. It is 100% human: to be suspicious, and to confirm that suspicion, especially if your job is to investigate. If you do not actively address that, the mindset will not change.  08:13

Thomas Skou Roer (Guest)

That is very true, Ivar. I absolutely agree. It is very much a mindset change. Investigative interviewing and investigative practice very much rely on professional critical thinking skills — and mostly, I would say, metacognition. Asking questions of your own thinking: why am I thinking this? What am I basing this on? That is one of the most difficult aspects of this.  08:59

And it is very often trained as an appendix — ‘Could you do a bit on bias? A bit on System 1 and System 2 thinking?’ But mostly, people want something about techniques. In some ways, you should perhaps switch that around: put the emphasis on the mindset, with techniques as a smaller component.

Dr. Ivar Fahsing (Host)

That is so interesting. And of course very difficult to do. I remember, Thomas, many years ago — when I was approaching this task in Norway together with my good friend and colleague Asbjørn Rachlew — I was called up by the director of the National Criminal Investigation Service in Norway, Kripos. His name was Arne Husse. He was quite a well-known figure in Norway at the time. He called me when I was still a very young officer at the homicide unit — on a temporary placement, not yet in a permanent position. They wanted to observe and evaluate you before offering a permanent role, given the travel and teamwork involved.  10:18

He said he had heard I wanted to do a master’s in forensic and investigative psychology in England, and asked me why. My head of the homicide department joined that meeting — and he was clearly not a fan of me going to England. He was one of the older gurus of confession-based interviewing in Norway. He saw it as a threat to the way things were done. He could not say no to the director outright, but he made clear he did not approve: ‘You should send one of the older officers.’

The director challenged him in front of me: ‘Listen — what this young man is asking for is not support to spend two years on a beach in Thailand. He is asking for support to sit exams and work hard at a university in England. Do you understand that?’ And then, to my boss: ‘Help him do it. Get out of here.’ On the way out, the director stopped me, took my arm, and said: ‘Ivar, if you have any more problems with this man, come straight to me.’

That is the kind of leadership you need from senior officers — the courage it takes to embrace change in a national police culture. Thinking about that, Thomas, and relating it to the top management of the Danish police — have you seen similar change cultures or similar agendas?

Thomas Skou Roer (Guest)

Interesting question, Ivar. I have to say — no. Not directly like that. The closest we had was a period when Denmark had a bachelor’s degree in policing — during that time, top management were involved in supporting officers to pursue master’s degrees, partly to secure the required accreditation. But even then, it was more practical than visionary. It was not driven by a sense of direction towards evidence-based policing. The idea of evidence-based policing has been attempted multiple times in Denmark and is still being pursued, but senior management have called for it without necessarily understanding what it fully entails. Which makes implementation very difficult.  13:19

My own story about doing a master’s is almost the complete opposite of yours. When I was accepted at a British university, I wrote to everyone in the Danish police — from the National Police Commissioner to my own district leaders — telling them I had this opportunity and asking for their support. And they all responded, in effect: ‘What a wonderful opportunity for you — have fun doing it on your own, because we will not support you.’ To be fair, my local managers supported me with time, for which I was very grateful. But at the top level, the response was not visionary. Practical, at best.

Dr. Ivar Fahsing (Host)

Exactly. From a Norwegian perspective — and we are not saying right or wrong here, Thomas, only history will tell — when I look back to when I started as a detective in Oslo in the early 1990s, Copenhagen was always very close. We had close cooperation and learned a great deal from each other — perhaps more accurately, we learned a great deal from the Danish. I trained at Politigården for months and learned a lot. Denmark was in many ways more modern in its general policing approach. But when it comes to this particular topic, I feel Denmark has been absent from the international stage in a way that is surprising. Norway has advanced considerably. And it is genuinely interesting — because you would expect Denmark, as a country that leads on human rights and modern liberal democracy, to be at the forefront.  16:07

Thomas Skou Roer (Guest)

Yes, absolutely. The Danish police is a very closed organisation — as I imagine most police forces are. There is a very small research community looking into police practice, and access is very difficult because the police is protective of itself. That means knowledge within the organisation is largely tacit. And you cannot easily develop tacit knowledge. I think that is the biggest problem in Denmark: a great deal of hard-earned experience exists, but it is all tacit — there is no development.  17:41

And when development does occur, it tends to be practically oriented: a new piece of software, a new piece of equipment — as opposed to a new methodology. Interestingly, there has been significant development on the operational side of policing — riot control, for instance. The dialogue concept for public order situations has evolved considerably, and new tactics were developed following a major incident in 1993. So within that part of the police, there has been meaningful change. But within investigative practice, we are not there yet. We miss people like your director. We miss people who will stand up and say: we will no longer do it this way. We will do it this way.

Dr. Ivar Fahsing (Host)

Absolutely. And as you will know, the Attorney General of Norway has since made it very clear — in writing, through national circulars — that there is no other way. That brings me to our next topic, Thomas. Thank you for being so open and frank about this. I do not enjoy speaking about Denmark in difficult terms — it is one of my favourite countries, and the Danish are among my favourite people. So thank you for being honest and scrutinising this uncomfortable subject.  20:36

Thomas Skou Roer (Guest)

You are welcome.  21:18

Dr. Ivar Fahsing (Host)

Does the Danish police record their interviews today?  21:19

Thomas Skou Roer (Guest)

They record some of their interviews. All child interviews are recorded. And there is a pilot scheme, running for a couple of years now, allowing sexual assault victims to be interviewed on video for use in court. But it has had mixed results. Not everyone chooses to do it, and defence attorneys are not always supportive. It turns out that some defence attorneys refrain from asking critical questions during the recorded interview, reserving them for court — because even though victims are recorded, they may still be required to attend court to answer additional questions that arise during the investigation. Victims have reported feeling that they end up going through another interview, which is the opposite of the intended effect.  21:31

As for other serious cases — homicides or similar offences — some districts have implemented recording and may choose to do so, but they are not obligated. That is a significant difference. They can, but they are not required to. And I do not know how many actually choose to record. Transparency on that is essentially non-existent.

Dr. Ivar Fahsing (Host)

Yes.  23:16

Thomas Skou Roer (Guest)

And I feel I need to add: I was part of the police for 18 years, and I want to be clear that there are many very committed, very talented investigators and leaders in the Danish police. It is not all bad. But there is some structure around them that needs to change for them to do better work.  23:35

Dr. Ivar Fahsing (Host)

Sometimes I think about this as a systemic change, Thomas. You cannot blame the individuals inside the organisations. It is a systemic change, and linking it to individuals would not be fruitful. I completely agree.  24:15

The reason I am interested in recording is this: from a Norwegian perspective, it was what I believe was the tipping point for many leading Norwegian detectives. When we agreed to pursue a national implementation of recording equipment — already in 1998 — officers felt extremely insecure about pressing that red button and recording themselves. And that feeling made them think: I need training, backed by science. There is a very interesting link between recording and professional development.

Thomas Skou Roer (Guest)

Yes, I agree. If officers were obligated to record all their interviews, and those recordings were subject to scrutiny — by an external authority, or at least internally, not every interview but a sample — I think that would make a huge difference to both implementation and quality.  25:28

Dr. Ivar Fahsing (Host)

It is like the old saying from Lord Kelvin: if you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it.  25:56

Thomas Skou Roer (Guest)

Yes. Yes, exactly.  26:02

Dr. Ivar Fahsing (Host)

A last question, Thomas, and then we will wrap up. Looking ahead — from a Danish perspective, and also more broadly, given that you work internationally and are heading to the Caribbean next week to lecture on these topics — what innovations, technologies, or policy changes do you think we need to effectively support positive change in investigation quality and interview quality? What do you hope for, or see coming?  26:04

Thomas Skou Roer (Guest)

That is a big question, Ivar. Globally, every officer feels under pressure resource-wise — they feel they do not have enough time to do quality work. My hope for the future is that we find suitable technologies to help officers manage an investigation and to think. I know that last part may sound controversial — of course we want officers to think for themselves. But they have been doing that for 500 years, and too many errors occur. We need decision support.  26:37

In this era of AI, it should be possible to develop tools that can flag things during or after an interview: ‘The interviewee said something interesting here — explore that further.’ Or for the investigation more broadly: ‘This hypothesis looks weak — the leads in this direction need to be strengthened.’ Or: ‘This line is strong — can we make it even stronger?’ Something that helps officers analyse the vast amounts of data that flow into an investigation today. The sheer volume — from digital and physical forensics to interviews and many other sources — is massive. Managing that information to know which directions to pursue is a significant challenge.

So the hope is technological support for decision-making. Of course, that is also risky — if the system says ‘go’, people just go. So we still need to train officers in critical thinking. Technology should support, not replace, that.

On policy — that is more difficult. In Denmark, I hope we are approaching a critical mass for change. We have many gifted and talented officers, but some structures that need to change. One specific hope: moving away from New Public Management principles as a way of steering the police, and towards measuring what actually matters — are you creating a safer, higher-quality society for your citizens? Rather than: ‘In a violence case, you must complete step one within five days and step two within ten.’ That is a skewed way of measuring police efficiency. A significant policy change is needed, and I hope we are getting closer to the critical mass that would enable that discussion — how to create and maintain an efficient and legitimate police force in Denmark.

Dr. Ivar Fahsing (Host)

Thank you, Thomas. That is a really interesting answer. It makes me think that what we sometimes call investigative interviewing becomes in many ways a denominator for something more fundamental — for what police work should really be about. And I think your answer reflects that. This is about something bigger. It is not just a technique.  31:49

Thomas Skou Roer (Guest)

No, definitely not just a technique. And Ivar, we could talk about this at length — and we have, many times. There has to be awareness at upper management level to drive this change. I honestly do not think the problem lies with the people on the ground. They want to do good work. But they need their managers to help them do quality work. And those managers need support from their managers, and so on up the chain. So when we talk about top management, we also need to talk about the political level — how political leadership needs to be on board with changing the system around the police. I do not think it is enough to have police managers on board, because those managers have managers in the Justice Department, and so on. Ultimately, this requires political will.  32:21

Dr. Ivar Fahsing (Host)

That is an interesting discussion, Thomas — because if you compare the two great forces in a country supposed to keep the people safe: the police, from an internal perspective, and the military, from an external one. What you are saying about equipping officers for the job expected of them requires big investments in technology and people. And that becomes even clearer when you compare policing with the armed forces. Norway and Denmark, like most Northern European countries, are now buying F-35s — an enormous investment to give pilots the technology they need. Norway is buying new frigates — major investments so our naval officers can operate effectively in the North Atlantic with equipment that is not outdated. And I think what you are saying is that the same mindset is necessary when it comes to policing, all the way from the top down.  33:51

Thomas Skou Roer (Guest)

Yes, absolutely. And I think the difference right now between the armed forces and the police is that there is a great deal of public and political awareness driving military investment — the war in Ukraine, the conflict in Gaza, wars around the globe. That is pushing the agenda. What I am talking about with critical mass is that we need similar awareness when it comes to policing. That is the hope.  35:24

Dr. Ivar Fahsing (Host)

Thomas, I would like to close with this. A wise man once said: if you are the smartest person in the room, you are in the wrong room. Today, I was in the right room. Thank you so much for a really engaging and thoughtful conversation.  36:03

Thomas Skou Roer (Guest)

Thank you, Ivar. And I feel exactly the same — what an honour.  36:27

---

END OF TRANSCRIPT

© 2025 Davidhorn. All rights reserved.

Transcription

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.

Transcription

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.

Transcription

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.

Transcription

Ivar Fahsing :

Professeur Rey Bull, bienvenue dans ce podcast intitulé « Au-delà du doute raisonnable » sur l’interview d’investigation.
Rey Bull :
Je vous remercie.

Ivar Fahsing :

C’est un honneur de vous recevoir dans ce podcast car je dois dire que pour moi, Ivar Fahsing, en tant que jeune officier de police et jeune universitaire, vous avez probablement été la personne la plus influente pour m’aider, ainsi que mon bon ami, Asbjørn Rachlev, à mettre en place un programme national de formation à l’entretien d’investigation pour la police norvégienne, il y a environ 25 ans. Oui. C’est donc un honneur particulier de vous recevoir aujourd’hui. Et je dois aussi bien me comporter, car je dois maintenant vous montrer que je suis un bon intervieweur.

Ray Bull :

Bien sûr, oui.

Ivar Fahsing :

C’est donc le vrai test. Bienvenue à Ray.

Ray Bull :

Je vous remercie de votre attention.

Ivar Fahsing :

Ray, puisque vous l’avez fait, vous êtes probablement l’une des rares personnes à avoir suivi cette évolution depuis le début. Et cela a commencé en Angleterre, dans les années quatre-vingt. Oui. Pourriez-vous nous expliquer comment et pourquoi cela a commencé ?

Ray Bull :

Eh bien, ce qui s’est passé, c’est que dans mon pays, en Angleterre, comme dans de nombreux pays du monde, les personnes chargées de la tâche très difficile d’interroger les personnes soupçonnées de crimes n’ont reçu aucune formation, aucune aide, aucun conseil. Il y a de nombreuses années, les personnes chargées de la tâche très difficile d’interroger les personnes soupçonnées d’avoir commis un délit n’ont reçu aucune formation, aucune aide, aucun conseil de la part de qui que ce soit. Ils faisaient simplement de leur mieux. Ils faisaient ce que le bon sens leur suggérait. Et dans un petit nombre de cas, leur bon sens, qui est bien sûr qu’une personne coupable d’un crime, le bon sens veut qu’une personne coupable ne se confie jamais volontairement à la police. C’est le point de vue du sens commun. Nous reviendrons plus tard sur le fait qu’il s’agit en fait d’un point de vue erroné, mais aussi d’un point de vue de bon sens. Bien entendu, si vous n’avez aucune formation, vous êtes guidé par le bon sens.

Dans mon pays, avant que les interviews ne soient enregistrées, il y a eu un petit nombre de cas où des personnes qui avaient été interviewées par la police, qu’elles soient en prison, qu’elles sortent de prison ou qu’elles ne soient pas emprisonnées, ont rapporté à leurs amis, qui ont rapporté aux médias, qu’à leur avis, elles avaient été traitées très durement par la police. Dans certains cas, ils ont affirmé avoir reçu des coups de poing ou des coups. Il n’a jamais été question de tortures terribles, comme l’électricité et d’autres choses horribles de ce genre. Il s’agissait plutôt d’une frustration de l’Interviews qui aurait donné un coup de tête au suspect et d’autres choses de ce genre. Les chefs de la police et le gouvernement en ont pris note, car lorsque vous avez la chance de vivre dans une démocratie comme la Norvège ou l’Angleterre, l’un des devoirs des médias est de dénoncer les mauvaises pratiques de toute organisation. La police avait donc mauvaise réputation parce que les médias étaient assez courageux pour rapporter ce qui s’était prétendument passé dans ces quelques cas, ce qui a conduit le gouvernement à prendre une décision très novatrice à l’époque : nous avons eu une législation datant de 1984, 1984, l’interview de suspects par la police devait légalement être enregistrée. Mais la police disposait de deux ans pour acheter l’équipement coûteux nécessaire et disposer de salles adéquates permettant un enregistrement de qualité.

Au départ, la police s’y est opposée à juste titre parce qu’elle a dit au gouvernement : « Sommes-nous la seule profession qui doit enregistrer ce qu’elle fait dans le cadre de la législation ? Vous ne le faites pas pour les médecins, vous ne le faites pas pour les avocats, vous ne le faites pas pour… pourquoi sommes-nous les premiers à être choisis ? Mais en raison de la mauvaise publicité qui avait précédé, le gouvernement a insisté et, à la décharge de la police, en l’espace d’un petit nombre d’années, elle a fini par se rendre compte que c’était une bonne idée.

L’enregistrement est donc devenu obligatoire en 1986. L’un des avantages de l’enregistrement est que vous, l’intervieweur ou votre ami ou quelqu’un d’autre peut écouter l’enregistrement pour vous donner des conseils sur ce que vous avez fait de bien, ce que vous n’avez pas fait de bien et ce que vous pourriez améliorer. Le gouvernement a donc commandé quatre études sur ces nouveaux enregistrements. Deux d’entre elles ont été réalisées par des officiers de police qui préparaient leur doctorat et deux autres par des chercheurs, et non par moi, au nom du gouvernement. Ces quatre personnes ont donc eu accès aux enregistrements et ont analysé différents enregistrements, mais les quatre études sont arrivées à la même conclusion, à savoir que les entretiens n’étaient pas très bons. Et lorsque les chefs de police ont dit, mon cher : pourquoi ne sont-ils pas très bons ?

La réponse évidente était que les gens n’avaient reçu aucun conseil, aucune formation. Ils font simplement appel à leur bon sens. Le gouvernement des chefs de police s’est alors dit qu’il fallait faire quelque chose à ce sujet. Il a donc chargé 12 détectives expérimentés de former un comité chargé d’élaborer une sorte de formation. C’était la première fois qu’une formation était organisée et formalisée à l’échelle nationale en Angleterre et au Pays de Galles. Des pays relativement petits. Pendant que ce comité de 12 détectives masculins réfléchissait à ce qu’il devait conseiller, il disposait d’un an ou deux pour le faire. L’un des détectives qui avait réalisé l’une des premières études en écoutant les enregistrements avec ses deux superviseurs était en train de faire un doctorat. Il était diplômé en psychologie et s’appelait Tom Williamson. Il a donc eu l’idée que les 12 agents défectueux qui devaient mettre au point une sorte de formation auraient peut-être intérêt à connaître certains principes psychologiques sur la meilleure façon de communiquer avec les gens, etc. Tom Williamson a donc réuni un petit nombre de psychologues le dimanche et nous avons rassemblé tout ce qui avait une valeur scientifique dans n’importe quel domaine du comportement humain et qui pouvait aider à aider, de manière non coercitive, un suspect à décider volontairement de vous donner des informations pertinentes. Nous n’avions aucune idée de ce qu’ils feraient de ce livret d’informations psychologiques que nous avions produit collectivement et qui avait été remis au comité de 12 détectives masculins. Nous nous doutions qu’ils le mettraient probablement à la poubelle, car aucun de ces détectives n’était diplômé, aucun de ces détectives n’était psychologue en tant que tel.

Mais à notre grande et merveilleuse surprise, un jour, un gros colis est arrivé au bureau de mon université, provenant de ce comité de 12 détectives. C’était un colis très lourd. Lorsque je l’ai ouvert, la lettre d’accompagnement disait : « Cher professeur, nous avons décidé d’incorporer dans tous nos documents et notre formation une bonne partie des éléments psychologiques qui nous ont été transmis, mais comme nous avons reçu l’instruction de tout écrire à partir d’un âge de lecture de 16 ans, les jeunes officiers de police de l’époque n’avaient pas beaucoup de qualifications scolaires, voire pas du tout. Nous avons donc dû rédiger ces informations psychologiques dans un langage très simple, et nous ne sommes pas sûrs d’avoir rendu justice à ces idées compliquées. Pourriez-vous donc relire ce que nous avons rédigé et nous dire où nous nous sommes trompés ?

Je dois admettre qu’ils ont presque tout compris. Il n’y a pratiquement rien qu’ils n’aient pas compris. Et si je devais noter ce travail, ce que je fais souvent en tant que professeur d’université, je lui aurais donné la note maximale. C’était absolument impressionnant de voir comment ils avaient compris et intégré dans ce qu’ils proposaient toute une série d’éléments psychologiques.

Ivar Fahsing :

Fascinant. J’en déduis donc que vous faisiez partie du groupe de référence qui a fourni ce matériel. Pourriez-vous nous dire un peu comment vous en êtes arrivé là ? Quel était votre parcours ?

Ray Bull :

Oui, c’est une très bonne question. Lorsque j’ai obtenu ma licence, j’ai entamé un doctorat qui n’avait rien à voir avec la police. Mais la personne dont j’étais amoureux a obtenu une bourse universitaire pour faire un doctorat en psychologie à l’université où nous avions obtenu notre diplôme. Je ne l’ai pas obtenu, bien sûr, parce qu’elle était bien meilleure que moi. Mais j’ai obtenu une bourse de doctorat à Londres, à cinq heures de route de la personne dont j’étais amoureux.

Nous avons décidé de nous marier et, par conséquent, je ne voulais pas être aussi loin d’elle. Je suis donc allé voir le professeur où nous avions obtenu notre diplôme, où elle préparait un doctorat. Je lui ai dit : « Je sais que vous n’avez pas d’argent, mais mes parents n’ont pas d’argent, mais nous survivrons tant bien que mal avec une bourse de doctorat. Puis-je donc faire un doctorat ici, dans le département que j’aime, avec la personne que j’aime ? Il m’a gentiment répondu : « Oui, nous pouvons vous demander d’aider un peu en classe, mais cela ne vous rapportera pas beaucoup d’argent ». Je suis donc gênée de partager avec le monde entier qu’au cours de ma première année de doctorat, tous mes amis ne m’auraient jamais laissé acheter un verre parce qu’ils savaient que je n’avais pas d’argent. Vers la fin de cette première année, le professeur principal qui m’avait permis de faire mon doctorat est venu me voir et m’a dit qu’il venait d’obtenir une bourse de recherche pour un an dans un domaine de la psychologie très différent de ce que je faisais. Il serait très heureux que j’accepte de travailler avec lui car je serais payé. J’ai répondu que oui, monsieur, j’étais très heureux. Il m’a alors demandé si je voulais savoir de quoi il s’agissait. J’ai répondu que je m’en fichais. Et il m’a dit que c’était à propos de la police. Et j’ai dit, oui, c’est bien. De quoi s’agit-il ? Il m’a répondu que lorsque les policiers partent en patrouille, avant de quitter le poste de police, ils reçoivent des informations pertinentes pour la journée. En anglais, cela s’appelle un daily operational briefing. Ce projet vise à aider la police à rendre ces informations plus mémorables. Il comporte donc de nombreux aspects psychologiques. Et je me suis dit, oui, je m’intéresse à la mémoire. C’est très bien. Nous avons donc lancé ce projet et j’ai dû rédiger des rapports tous les trois mois. Bien sûr, le professeur a amélioré les rapports pour le ministère de la police et le ministère a été très satisfait. Ils ont donc invité le professeur, et donc moi, à continuer pour une deuxième année dans ce domaine.

Nous avons publié quelques articles et une partie du travail que j’avais effectué au cours de ma première année de doctorat, parce que j’avais un directeur de thèse brillant, a été publiée en grande partie. Les professeurs de mon département m’ont dit qu’ils pensaient que j’étais un bon psychologue. Vous avez publié pas mal de choses. Vous travaillez avec la police. Il est temps pour vous de commencer à postuler pour le niveau le plus bas du professorat, le professorat le plus junior.

Je voulais retourner à Londres à l’époque, j’ai donc postulé pour des emplois à Londres et j’ai choisi un emploi en rapport avec le sujet de mon doctorat. Et, à mon insu, au même moment, ils cherchaient quelqu’un pour enseigner la mémoire, ce qui était le sujet de mon travail dans la police, mais nous n’avions pas publié grand-chose à ce sujet. Un autre moment heureux de ma vie a donc été qu’ils m’ont offert le poste pour lequel je n’avais pas postulé. Ils m’ont offert un poste de professeur de mémoire. J’ai donc commencé à travailler sur la mémoire et sur les travaux des psychologues. Je parle ici du milieu et de la fin des années soixante-dix. Il y avait beaucoup de recherches en psychologie sur ce qu’on appelle la mémoire des témoins oculaires. Comment aider les gens, lorsqu’on leur montre une série de photos, à ne pas choisir la mauvaise, mais à choisir la bonne. J’ai donc beaucoup travaillé sur ce sujet, ce qui m’a amené à travailler à nouveau avec la police. J’avais donc une formation en psychologie et en maintien de l’ordre, et c’est pourquoi Tom Williamson, l’officier de police, qui était également psychologue et qui a réuni le comité le dimanche, savait que je connaissais un peu le maintien de l’ordre et assez bien la psychologie. Il a donc pensé, à juste titre je pense, que je pourrais l’aider à produire ce document dont il espérait que les personnes chargées de la formation tiendraient compte, ce qui, comme je l’ai dit, a été le cas. C’est ainsi que je suis arrivé à ce stade.

Ivar Fahsing :

Ils sont donc venus, aidés par vous et d’autres scientifiques, avec le début des programmes PEACE. Pourriez-vous nous faire part de vos impressions sur la façon dont ce programme a été accueilli ?

Ray Bull :

Comme je l’ai dit, ces 12 détectives masculins avaient étonnamment la capacité d’écrire sur l’interrogatoire et la psychologie de la police d’une manière facilement compréhensible. Ainsi, la capacité des autres policiers à comprendre, même s’ils ne sont pas d’accord, a été réalisée par ces 12 détectives. Vers 1980, il y a eu des émeutes dans les villes d’Angleterre, en particulier à Londres, au cours desquelles de jeunes patrouilleurs en début de carrière, qui me ressemblaient pour la plupart, caucasiens, arrêtaient des gens qui ne leur ressemblaient pas, des adolescents afro-caribéens, dans certains quartiers de Londres, comme dans un quartier appelé Brixton. Dans l’histoire de Londres et de l’Angleterre, on parle donc des émeutes de Brixton. Une enquête officielle a été menée à ce sujet. L’enquête officielle a conclu que ces émeutes s’étaient produites parce que, d’une part, de jeunes policiers caucasiens ne pouvaient pas comprendre les personnes d’origine afro-caribéenne et, d’autre part, parce que les personnes d’origine afro-caribéenne ne pouvaient pas comprendre les autres. D’autre part, les Afro-Caraïbes ne comprenaient pas non plus les croyances caucasiennes, ce qui est compréhensible. Ce juge a donc rédigé un rapport indiquant que la formation des policiers en début de carrière devrait désormais inclure ce que l’on appelle la sensibilisation culturelle. Comme les principales émeutes ont eu lieu à Londres, c’est la police métropolitaine de Londres qui a piloté cette formation supplémentaire. Elle a donc décidé d’améliorer de 30 % le programme que recevaient les jeunes policiers. Dix pour cent supplémentaires ont été consacrés à la sensibilisation culturelle, dix pour cent aux compétences en matière de communication et dix pour cent à ce que l’on appelle la conscience de soi. Mieux vous vous comprenez, mieux vous comprenez les autres. La police métropolitaine a donc commencé cette formation vers 1981 et on m’a demandé d’évaluer les forces et les faiblesses de cette formation pendant un an. Un très bon chercheur, Peter Holcastle, travaillait avec moi. Chaque année, ce projet d’un an a été prolongé. À la fin des années 1980, en partie à la lumière du travail que nous avions réalisé avec le Met, le gouvernement national a décidé que tous les officiers de police devaient suivre cette formation. Ainsi, lorsque ces détectives ont proposé la méthode d’entretien, la méthode PEACE datant de 1992, des policiers en début de carrière avaient été formés par des policiers en milieu et en fin de carrière, parce que nous avions élaboré un programme d’études.

Heureusement, les services de police, du moins en Angleterre et au Pays de Galles, étaient conscients que les méthodes psychologiques pouvaient leur être utiles. Ainsi, lorsque la méthode de la paix a été élaborée, certains policiers l’ont trouvée très logique, car c’est ce qu’ils avaient appris plus tôt dans leur carrière. Vous savez, pour obtenir le meilleur d’une personne, si vous êtes un agent de patrouille, vous devez la traiter avec un certain niveau d’humanité et de respect. Si vous voulez faire bouger cinq jeunes hommes arrogants et non coopératifs, vous ne les frappez pas de plein fouet avec votre matraque. Vous leur parlez avec respect et leur expliquez pourquoi il est dans l’intérêt de tous qu’ils cessent de bloquer la rue et laissent passer les gens. Je pense que c’est l’une des raisons pour lesquelles, dans mon pays, nous n’avons rencontré pratiquement aucune résistance à cette idée bizarre et merveilleuse que le détective avait appelée la méthode PEACE. C’était incroyable de voir à quel point

Les notions ont été facilement acceptées, bien sûr, certaines des choses de la méthode sont assez difficiles à faire parce que, bien sûr, vous n’avez besoin d’une formation que si vous ne le faites pas déjà. Il n’était donc pas nécessaire de former les officiers de police à la respiration car ils savaient déjà comment respirer et, bien sûr, un certain nombre d’officiers ont certaines compétences qu’ils apportent à la police, mais ce que les détectives ont appris en psychologie et qui s’est avéré par la suite très important pour amener une personne coupable à décider volontairement de vous dire ce qu’elle a fait, c’est ce que l’on appelle poser des questions ouvertes. Dans la vie sociale, les hommes ne posent presque jamais de questions ouvertes. Les femmes, si. Mais les hommes, s’ils sont dans une société historiquement dominée par les hommes, n’ont pas tendance à vouloir que tout le monde leur donne des informations. Ils se sont déjà fait une idée. C’est le genre de préjugé sexiste qui existait autrefois et qui n’existe plus dans mon pays. Une autre chose qui s’est avérée importante pour de nombreuses personnes dans le monde, c’est que lorsque vous interrogez une personne, vous avez de bonnes raisons de croire qu’elle possède des connaissances pertinentes qui pourraient l’impliquer en tant que coupable. Il ne s’agit peut-être pas du braqueur de banque, mais simplement du conducteur. Vous essayez de le découvrir.

La méthode PEACE préconise donc de mettre de côté son bon sens, même lorsque l’on pense qu’une personne a commis un crime horrible. Si j’interrogeais un homme dont j’ai de bonnes raisons de penser qu’il a abusé sexuellement d’un grand nombre d’enfants, je voudrais le frapper. Je voudrais être un policier à l’ancienne. Je veux le torturer pour les mauvaises choses que je pense qu’il a faites, mais je n’en suis pas encore sûr. C’est pour cela que j’interroge. Si je suis un bon interrogateur, il pourrait bien décider de me dire ce qu’il a fait. J’ai alors encore plus envie de le frapper parce qu’il me parle maintenant du premier enfant qu’il a maltraité. Mais ma formation PEACE me dit que je dois écouter. Je ne dois pas montrer le jugement que j’ai sur les choses négatives. Je dois continuer à avoir un rapport avec lui, ce qui signifie la capacité de continuer à converser. Selon des recherches plus récentes, je dois faire preuve de ce que l’on appelle en psychologie l’empathie cognitive. Cela signifie que je lui montre que je comprends à quel point il est difficile de me parler. Je sais, grâce à la planification de mes entretiens, qu’il a lui-même été victime de maltraitance et s’il commence à en parler, j’y réponds de manière constructive. Je n’excuse pas son comportement, mais je résiste à l’intention de mon désir humain de l’étrangler en continuant à parler avec lui et en le laissant parler avec moi et, lorsque cela devient un peu difficile, nous revenons à ce dont nous avons parlé au début, qui peut être le football ou une autre chose que je sais que lui et moi sommes intéressés. La méthode de la paix est donc en grande partie le contraire du bon sens et de ce que vous aimeriez faire à cette terrible personne que vous interrogez. Certains aspects de cette méthode sont donc très difficiles à mettre en œuvre, mais ils n’ont jamais suscité de réactions négatives.

Pour autant que je sache, je suis évidemment partial, mais j’ai toujours cherché à savoir s’il y avait eu des réactions négatives. Je n’en suis pas conscient. Et lorsque nous discutons avec d’autres personnes, tant en Angleterre que dans d’autres pays, comme la Norvège et d’autres pays qui ont adopté cette même méthode humaine, il semble qu’une fois qu’un officier de police l’a comprise, il n’y est pas opposé. L’essentiel est de leur faire comprendre que vous obtiendrez plus d’informations de quelqu’un si vous ne le frappez pas.

Ivar Fahsing :

La formation a été généralement bien accueillie.

Ray Bull :

Oui, à la surprise générale, et en fait, il n’a pas fallu longtemps au service de police pour devenir un formateur à l’entretien, ce qui était considéré comme un travail d’élite. C’était considéré dans la même catégorie que d’autres réussites dans la police et ce n’était pas nécessairement une voie vers la promotion, mais c’était une voie pour être admiré par les autres parce que maintenant les choses sont enregistrées lorsque vous interrogez des suspects et que d’autres personnes écoutent votre enregistrement. Si vous êtes vraiment bon, ils peuvent vous le dire. Et certaines personnes peuvent devenir vraiment, même des hommes, vraiment, vraiment bons dans ce domaine. C’est ainsi que le métier est devenu relativement rapidement apprécié au sein des services de police.

Ivar Fahsing :

Je pense aussi, j’aimerais vous demander, vous avez été très touchée par cela. ce qui a été, si vous pensez, une chose est qu’ils l’ont reçu, vous voyez, et cela a aussi donné un certain statut pour être impliqué dans cela. Cela a-t-il entraîné des changements ?

Ray Bull :

Et bien, étonnamment, c’est le cas de deux ou trois façons. Comme nous l’avons dit, cette nouvelle méthode a été introduite en 1992 et à cette époque, l’Angleterre et le Pays de Galles comptaient 127 000 officiers de police. Il n’est donc pas possible de tous les former au cours de la première ou des deux premières années. Les chefs de police ont donc décidé de former les personnes chargées d’interroger les suspects dans les circonstances les plus difficiles. Il s’agit soit de crimes très anciens, soit de suspects souffrant de troubles de l’apprentissage, soit de personnes très agressives. Ainsi, les personnes qui mènent normalement ces entretiens, parce qu’il faut interroger ces personnes, ont été les premières à apprendre et à être formées à la méthode Peace. Le gouvernement m’a alors demandé d’analyser un très large échantillon d’entretiens menés par ces personnes qui ont été les premières à être formées. Elles ont peut-être été bien choisies pour être les premières à être formées, mais dans leurs entretiens, elles ont démontré la majorité des compétences de manière assez satisfaisante. Il est compréhensible qu’elles aient été faibles. Ils ont été incapables, en particulier les hommes, d’ouvrir la plupart de leurs questions. Si vous parlez à un suspect pendant deux ou trois heures avec des pauses appropriées, il est extrêmement difficile de continuer à poser des questions ouvertes plutôt que des questions suggestives ou ce que l’on appelle des questions orientées, ce que l’on fait souvent dans la vie ordinaire. De même, dans l’échantillon d’entretiens, certaines compétences requises étaient à la portée de presque tout le monde.

Cela a donc permis de revoir la formation, car si tout le monde trouve quelque chose facile à faire, il n’est pas nécessaire de consacrer beaucoup de temps à la formation sur ce point, car vous savez que c’est assez facile à faire. En revanche, pour les choses importantes qui sont plus difficiles à faire, il faut consacrer plus de temps à la formation. C’est ainsi que l’accent a été mis sur la formation. C’était au milieu des années 1990. Il s’est ensuite écoulé quelques années en Angleterre avant que quiconque ait la volonté et la capacité d’accéder à ces entretiens enregistrés.

Un enquêteur très expérimenté qui travaillait dans une agence gouvernementale chargée des enquêtes criminelles, un certain David ou Dave Walsh, m’a contacté un jour et m’a dit qu’il terminait sa carrière. Il avait la quarantaine, suffisamment d’années d’expérience pour prendre sa retraite avec une pension du gouvernement, mais il ne voulait pas rester à la maison à s’ennuyer et il voulait faire un doctorat. Lorsque je lui ai demandé pourquoi il voulait faire un doctorat, il m’a répondu qu’il voulait devenir professeur et, étant moi-même professeur, j’ai dit que vous deviez être fou, c’est un travail terrible. Dans les coulisses, les étudiants ne voient pas à quel point c’est un travail épouvantable. Dave m’a répondu que c’était d’accord.

Et bien sûr, Dave, qui travaillait toujours à l’agence gouvernementale de lutte contre la criminalité, avait accès à des centaines et des centaines d’entretiens. Il a donc été le premier à décider d’analyser les entretiens pour deux choses cruciales. D’une part, la qualité de l’exécution de chacune des compétences enseignées. D’autre part, la quantité d’informations fournies par les suspects qui étaient incriminantes, ce que nous appelons des informations pertinentes pour l’enquête.

Dans le cadre de son doctorat, Dave a réalisé une série d’études sur ces entretiens réels. Il a constaté que plus les entretiens ressemblaient à un entretien PEACE de bonne qualité, plus les suspects donnaient des informations, y compris dans une démocratie, le petit pourcentage de suspects qui sont véritablement innocents. Et il est essentiel non seulement d’obtenir des informations de la part des coupables, mais aussi d’obtenir des informations de la part des innocents qui démontrent qu’ils sont effectivement innocents. Dave a donc réalisé une série d’études et d’autres personnes ont commencé à adopter les méthodes PEACE. Certaines régions d’Australie, par exemple, ont suivi quelques années plus tard. Non, avant le doctorat de Dave, la Norvège avait déjà adopté la méthode PEACE. Mais je pense que Dave a été le premier à établir un lien entre la quantité de compétences et la quantité d’informations. Et un certain nombre d’autres personnes, si elles ont accès à des entretiens enregistrés, l’ont fait dans d’autres pays. Certains l’ont fait avec moi. Les interviews de Dave, en raison de l’agence pour laquelle il travaillait, ne concernaient donc pas des meurtriers et des violeurs, ce qui est compréhensible. Je me suis donc demandé dans quelle mesure les conclusions de Dave et d’autres s’appliqueraient à des entretiens plus difficiles avec des personnes soupçonnées de crimes sexuels ou de meurtres, car si elles disent la vérité, elles savent qu’elles iront en prison pour un long moment. C’est une question de bon sens. Pourquoi un meurtrier ou un agresseur d’enfants vous dirait-il volontairement la vérité en sachant pertinemment que, ce faisant, non seulement il ira en prison, mais que, s’il s’agit d’un agresseur d’enfants, ses amis et sa famille le renieront probablement. Et au Royaume-Uni, si vous allez en prison pour avoir abusé d’un enfant, les autres prisonniers essaient d’abuser de vous. C’est donc une situation à très haut risque. Après trois ans d’efforts avec une doctorante nommée Samantha, nous avons pu accéder à des entretiens enregistrés avec des meurtriers et des violeurs présumés.

En fait, Samantha a constaté la même chose, cette chose étrange que l’on appelle le rapport, à savoir établir une conversation avec la personne au début sur la base de ses intérêts, puis passer habilement à la discussion sur le crime présumé et maintenir le rapport avec elle, comme je l’ai dit plus tôt, lorsqu’elle vous dit de mauvaises choses, ce qui est vraiment difficile à faire. Dans ces situations à enjeux élevés, Samantha a constaté la même chose que Dave, à savoir que plus l’entretien correspondait à la méthode PEACE, plus les personnes fournissaient d’informations. Il y a eu une série d’études et je terminerai par une très récente. Il s’agit d’un doctorat de la personne qui m’accompagne aujourd’hui, le Dr Bianca Baker. Bianca a toujours été très intéressée parce qu’elle a des compétences en psychothérapie sur le rôle de démontrer que vous comprenez le point de vue d’une autre personne. C’est ce qu’on appelle l’empathie cognitive. Ce que Bianca a fait, c’est que nous avons eu accès à des entretiens réels avec des meurtriers et des violeurs, un échantillon différent. Elle a évalué les entretiens en fonction d’un certain nombre d’éléments, en particulier la capacité de l’intervieweur à démontrer qu’il comprenait la situation dans laquelle il se trouvait. Il ne s’agit donc pas de sympathie émotionnelle. Il ne s’agit pas de s’énerver ou d’être agressif.

Il s’agit de faire preuve de compréhension. Et ce que Bianca a retrouvé, c’est ce niveau hautement qualifié de l’entretien PEACE, que nous appelons le niveau trois de l’investissement spécialisé. Ce sont les seuls à être formés à l’empathie cognitive parce qu’ils sont les seuls à faire des entrevues dans les cas difficiles. Elle a retrouvé ce que Samantha a trouvé, ce que d’autres personnes ont trouvé, ce qu’elles ont trouvé, ce que d’autres personnes dans d’autres pays ont trouvé.

Il est difficile de désapprendre aux gens qui pensent que pour obtenir des informations d’une personne coupable, il faut la menacer, la contraindre, la torturer, c’est le point de vue du sens commun. Il est très, très difficile de faire comprendre aux gens le contraire. Mais cela semble être efficace et il y a de plus en plus de pays, et bien sûr ici en Norvège depuis 20 ans, vous avez eu la sagesse de former les gens d’une manière qui, selon la science, est bien meilleure.

Ivar Fahsing :

Pour autant que je sache, cela a changé la donne en Norvège. Il a été un peu plus facile d’introduire la Norvège qu’ailleurs parce que nous avions déjà un baccalauréat pour la police, de sorte que le pont entre la science et la police existait déjà d’une certaine manière. Ce n’était pas nouveau d’être scientifique, mais nous manquions de domaines très pertinents. Je pense donc que cette formation est arrivée au bon moment, mais nous avions besoin de quelque chose qui était, vous savez, une grande partie de la théorie qui était un peu plus large, une grande partie de la technologie qui était, et qui n’était pas directement dans les rues. Mais je pense que c’était le cas, du moins ici en Norvège. Pourrais-je vous demander, Ray, encore une fois, en pensant à toutes les années où vous avez été impliqué dans ce domaine et dans tant de pays et de cultures différents. Avez-vous une idée de la question de savoir si ce modèle ou cette approche fonctionne partout ?

Ray Bull :

Oui, j’ai été surpris d’avoir la chance d’aller dans plusieurs pays qui, dans ma vie antérieure, n’étaient pas les miens. Je n’aurais jamais pensé avoir un jour la chance d’aller dans des pays où il y a eu beaucoup de torture et de coercition de la part de personnes qui n’ont pas reçu les connaissances qui ont été données aux gens ici en Norvège.

Je ne commence donc pas par parler de la méthode PEACE dans certaines cultures. Je commence à parler d’autres situations significatives dans n’importe quelle culture où obtenir des informations d’une personne, l’amener à faire ce que vous souhaiteriez qu’elle fasse, relève essentiellement des mêmes compétences que les détectives de la méthode PEACE. Cette réponse peut sembler longue. J’ai donc essayé de faire en sorte que mon introduction ait un sens pour le public extérieur aux enquêtes criminelles et de lui faire comprendre pourquoi ce dont je vais parler au cours des deux prochains jours ne s’applique pas seulement à l’interrogatoire des suspects, des témoins ou des victimes, car certains témoins et victimes ne veulent pas tout vous dire non plus, mais que ce n’est pas la seule partie de la vie où les compétences de type PEACE sont importantes, ces compétences sont importantes dans beaucoup d’autres aspects de la vie également. En fonction de la culture, je commence donc par là.

Ivar Fahsing :

Je n’ai pas voyagé autant que vous, mais j’ai eu la chance de dispenser ce type de formation dans de nombreuses cultures différentes en Afrique, en Asie et en Amérique du Sud. Cela semble, vous savez, c’est, c’est saisissable et c’est naturel pour n’importe quelle culture, du moins ce que j’ai vu.

Ray Bull :

Oui, comme nous l’avons dit, c’est naturel et c’est un autre aspect de la vie des enquêteurs, ce qui nous aide à leur expliquer que cette compétence naturelle est également pertinente pour l’entretien avec les suspects. C’est le défi que vous et moi devons relever pour qu’ils comprennent qu’écouter, ne pas interrompre, sourire, s’assurer que lorsque vous posez une question, elle est en rapport avec ce que le suspect a dit, toutes ces choses qui sont importantes en dehors de la police le sont aussi dans la police.

Mais tout le monde n’est pas doué pour cela. C’est là le problème.

Ivar Fahsing :

Il faut de la formation et c’est une compétence. En parlant de compétences et de mise en œuvre, vous savez, nous sommes en 2024.

Ray Bull :

Oui, cela a commencé il y a 40 ans, lorsque le gouvernement a annoncé que, dans deux ans, la police devrait enregistrer. Oui, c’est il y a 40 ans que s’est produite la première étape la plus importante, qui s’est produite dans mon pays.

Ivar Fahsing :

Si vous deviez donner des conseils à quelqu’un d’un pays qui s’est engagé dans PEACE, que pourrait-il faire pour susciter de l’intérêt ou pour commencer à le faire ?

Ray Bull :

Eh bien, la façon dont je procède habituellement est de dire. Prenons l’exemple de la saisie d’un suspect ou d’une victime d’un crime. Si vous ne le faites pas bien, d’une part, vous ne recueillez pas suffisamment d’informations pour permettre l’incarcération d’un véritable criminel. Et donc, si vous ne le faites pas bien, le vrai criminel est toujours en liberté.

Et dans de nombreuses sociétés, d’une manière ou d’une autre, la santé et le bien-être des victimes ont un coût pour la société et parfois pour le gouvernement. L’une des façons dont j’aborde le sujet, en particulier avec les personnes âgées, est donc de dire que je peux faire économiser de l’argent à votre gouvernement. Et ils me regardent d’un air très perplexe. Il s’agit d’un professeur de psychologie qui va parler d’entretiens. Pourquoi commence-t-il par parler d’économies, parce que je sais que l’une des résistances à cette formation dans de nombreux pays est qu’elle ne peut pas être bon marché. Vous ne pouvez pas l’obtenir en quelques heures, alors avoir des formateurs et des policiers qui ne font pas leur travail, mais qui sont formés, ça coûte de l’argent, vous savez, comme le dit quelqu’un, les meilleures choses de la vie ne sont pas bon marché. Ils s’inquiètent donc des coûts initiaux. Mais je leur fais remarquer que plus ils parviennent à obtenir des informations des suspects, des témoins et des victimes, plus ils résolvent de crimes, plus le bon criminel est en prison, plus la personne qui a subi le crime se sent mieux parce qu’elle a été traitée et que la personne qui l’a maltraitée est maintenant en prison ; ils se sentent donc bien dans leur peau et ne demandent pas tant aux services de santé. C’est une façon de commencer en disant que je suis ici pour vous faire économiser de l’argent. Ils écoutent toujours.

Ivar Fahsing :

Professeur Ray Bull, merci beaucoup.

Ray Bull :

Nous vous remercions.

Ivar Fahsing :

Nous pourrions continuer pendant des jours. Je pense que c’était une très bonne fin. Je vous remercie.

Ray Bull :

Merci donc, Ivar.