regarding the missing wife of Baden-Clay.
On occasion, I put out calls for assistance in transcribing videos, or even transcripts, into a "copy and paste" mode that I can use on the blog.
Due to full time work, as well as my volunteer work for families of missing persons, my time is limited.
The above was requested for analysis.
If you'd like to volunteer for transcription for the blog, please contact me via Facebook.
The transcription should be in
Contain no commentary or emphasis. This creates confusion and slows down the work.
No color coding, underlining, or anything added.
No editorializing nor body language added.
No voice inflection.
Stuttering: stuttering, from a non-stutterer, is very important. See teaching on "The anxiety scale of the Stuttering Pronoun, "I" in the blog.
What we look at is the words the brain chooses to use.
The link above when copy and pasted comes out like this:
If you'd like to be on a list of volunteers, please let me know.
If you read the transcript, know that the interview is conducted while she is missing.
Note how many people enter and leave the room. This is foolish.
Note the leading questions.
Note the lack of open ended questions.
What would you have asked?
1. "Mr. Baden-Clay, tell us about your wife..."
This would allow him to pick and choose his own words. I then take his words and ask about them. I want to know when they met, how they met, and anything and everything he wishes to tell me. Remember: if he caused her disappearance, what he did will be on his mind, and the words he chooses will all be words that he uses to avoid
2 "Tell us about your marriage..."
The transcripts reveal he had an affair, and that they were in counseling. An affair can have a deeper psychological impact upon the victim than a death or divorce. The victim, if the marriage was good, is left with an inability to trust, and often with PTSD like symptoms such as hyper-vigilance, which can wear down the adulterer with constant worry, questions, tears, etc.
Most people consider in missing person cases in which the marriage was poor that the husband may have gotten "rid of her" in order to re-marry without the cost of a divorce. This is certainly something we have seen, but since he mentioned affair, the impact of it should have been explored in depth.
The Interviewer asks about medical conditions, other than depression. Note how he asks it, suggesting heart problems. This is to be avoided.
Objection: What if the police record shows a heart condition?
Analytical Interviewing goes in a specific order. It is not difficult to follow but it takes concentration and patience, presupposing efficiency in Statement Analysis in FOUR PARTS
1. Open Ended Questions
"What happened?" "What happened, next?" "Tell us about your wife..."
2. Questions based upon the words used in open ended questions. As these questions are answered, any introduction of new language is pounced upon in the same manner. REMEMBER:
THE GUILTY PARTY HAS THE GUILT IN HIS LANGUAGE. It is the Interviewer's job to find it.
3. Questions based upon Statement Analysis of the Written Statement
4. Finally, questions based upon evidence, including the police report.
Here is an explanation about it.
Let's say a man is suspected in killing his wife, who is missing. He should be told, upon arrival by police:
"We are here to help find your wife. Please sit down and write out everything you can remember from the time you woke up until now."
DO NOT TAKE "NO" FOR AN ANSWER.
If the subject is reluctant, he is to be reminded that his help is so appreciated by police. If he continues to stall, he is to be reminded how important it is that he write as much detail as possible, because, after all, "we know you want to find her..." and so on.
There is always a risk of lawyering up, which then increases suspicion. But in the "honeymoon" phase the most information can be gleaned.
There is one question that can be used on a reluctant spouse that might get him writing:
"Do you have suspicion of anyone? " (along the lines of suggesting someone else's guilt). If this does not work, the Interviewer should then try to subtly blame the victim (outside the earshot of her family)...
"Would she take off on you?" as if he is too great to leave, appealing to both his ego, and the guilty conscience attempt to blame the victim, giving him an mental "out" for his inner stress.
If he refuses to write, get him talking and take the fastest notes imaginable, even if it means capturing any unique words only (with pronouns), as he might refuse a recording device.
Some will hit the record button on the iPhone in the pocket, but this is not legal and his rights should be protected.
Once talking, Mr. Sapir of LSI teaches that there are "magic words" to keep someone talking. He says that this is remarkable in its success rate, especially when we, as Americans, are reluctant to be impolite:
I have used this over and over, in interviews where there was a lull or hesitancy, and socially, even as I am gathering information...just because.
"I'm listening" appeals to our ego. It tells us that someone finds us interesting, or cares enough about us, and it would be "rude" to not oblige him.
Mr. Sapir is rare genius in his observations and scientific profiling of language.
Back to the interview:
note the "cut myself shaving" would be something I would not only note, but ignore.
I would ignore it only to ask later, otherwise, suspicion will arise. I consider it part of Part 2, using his language, but I would put it down as "evidence" (it is) and hold on to Part 4.
"You mentioned you cut yourself shaving. What kind of razor do you use?
Now, as a "Straight Razor" man, a la Teddy Roosevelt, I've gone to work with my face pretty cut up, particularly when I switched from Safety Razor to the old fashioned Straight Razor. I am familiar, intimately, with razor nicks, and what they look like, how long they bleed, how they are treated, and how they heal.
"Cut myself shaving" which does not say "who" cut themselves shaving, or "when" someone cut themselves shaving. Unfortunately, the Interviewer introduced it with suspicion. Not wise.
I would have:
Rubbed my face and talked about my personal shaving, at this point, to watch his reaction, careful to use bland or plain language. Remember the type of razor he uses is easily verifiable. If it is one of those expensive "mach iii cartridges", cuts are rare and generally only in a very curvature part of the chin or neck. (See? shaving like your grandfather can pay dividends)
The Training for Analytical Interviewing is exciting and fun. I use a video camera and a bell.
Each time the Interviewer asks a question that introduces new words that should not be introduced (particularly nouns, unless it is unavoidable), I hit the "bell" sound, which, like the "gong", signals mistake.
I keep the Interviewer going, however, and it can be quite unnerving to hear that stupid bell going off repeatedly.
The video is reviewed and the mistakes are highlighted. This does several things:
Causes the easily discouraged to bail out of the training.
Pricks the pride of those with a few years under their belt.
it excites the eager to learn and says to them, "This is something new, exciting and is not like trainings I have taken in the past!" and spurs them on.
These are the types who believe that their brains will be more useful in getting information than their guns, uniforms, or any bullying tactics that are all too common.
I've watched street bullying in action with officers who will smugly walk away thinking they've gotten the information necessary, not knowing they've missed and missed badly. The shear volume of information not gained, but seen in just the few words given, reveals to the trained analyst:
The subject withheld information here, and here, and here, that should have been followed up upon, but was not.
The shaving question was asked with suspicion. It did trigger the hyper sensitive blue we use in analysis as the need to explain why, though since the Interviewer triggered it, it might reduce the sensitivity somewhat.
He reads his emails on the toilet, and was rushing. This need to explain is sensitive, but since he was rather challenged as the cuts "consistent with scratching", we might lose a bit of information here because the Interviewer influenced the answer.
DO NOT TEACH YOUR SUBJECT HOW TO ANSWER.
If you are wondering how badly the affair impacted her, note that he reveals that the affair was a year ago, and the counselor advised 15 minutes of her venting each night.
One Interviewer repeatedly interrupts the subject. This is a major mistake and is maddening to read.
NEVER INTERRUPT A SUBJECT.
Police are often taught to "gain control" of the interview.
This is another mistake.
DO NOT FEED WORDS.
"Scratches" is now introduced and has set a defensive posture for the subject.
DO NOT CONTROL THE INTERVIEW.
I grasp that when time controls are placed upon us, it changes the interview, but where a murder or domestic is suspected, forget time.
I once interviewed a man for 5 1/2 hours in which he 'regaled me' with stories of high school football glory. It was terrible.
My blood sugar level fell, and had no lunch.
Yet, what he revealed in this theft case, was the feeling of not getting what he thought he deserved in life.
he helped himself to a company safe.
If this was a 30 minute interview, he would have gotten away with it. (A lawyer actually taught a group of investigators to keep interviews to 30 minutes, 60 max, by asking direct questions, controlling the interview, and keeping the focus on the topic at hand. Seriously.)
The police had finished their investigation with interviews of all, fingering print taking and had completed the investigation with no conclusion to send to the DA. I took written statements from the 7 employees, and found the guilt within the statement (along with a few personal details about romance in the workplace).
The 5 1/2 hour interview ended with a signed confession.
I was exhausted, mentally and physically, but it was worth it. Staying true to the principle of Analytical Interview allows for a strong structure to exist and guide for the investigator.
No interview is perfect.
Every interview is a lesson.
"Sometimes you give a lesson, and sometimes you get a lesson." (Bobby Fischer)
Sometimes you just have to break a rule when an opportunity presents itself.
I will post some more transcripts to highlight Analytical Interviewing.