fbpx

Posts

Lately, we’ve done quite a few investigation interviews by telephone relating to personal injury claims, sexual abuse allegations and sourcing inquiries for board members and executive-level hires.

Many people will tell you that face-to-face is the only way to conduct investigation interviews. They say you can’t establish rapport, detect deception, observe body language or control the environment over the phone.

That’s true, but face-to-face interviews can also be impractical, costly or just downright unattainable (global pandemic, anyone?).

I’ve been doing interviews over the telephone for nearly 20 years.

Here are some tips for getting the most out of your interviews.

1Don’t Give Them an Out

After introducing myself and briefly telling the interviewee what I was trying to do in my early days of interviewing, I would always ask, “Is this a good time to talk?”

The response would often be some form of, “Actually, I’m swamped right now. Can we do this later?”

Then “later” would come, and they wouldn’t pick up the phone.

You see what I did here; I gave them an out. I let them get off the phone free of charge.

People are busy. If you give them a way to get out of something, especially a call with a stranger asking them uncomfortable questions, they will probably take it.

I generally just jump right into my line of questioning without giving them an out. If the person being interviewed needs to reschedule, by all means, I am happy to do that. But I am not going to be the one giving them an out.

2“Can You Help?”

Consider these two scenarios:

“I am a private investigator working for a high-powered law firm that has collected hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for its clients, and we are seeking to interview you relating to a tragic accident that occurred under your watch. Do you have a few minutes?”

Or

“Hi Jeff, my name is Brian Willingham, and I was wondering if you could help me out. I’m doing some research for a local firm about a horrible accident that occurred a few years ago. I’ve been reaching out to a number of your colleagues to understand better what happened.”

I’ve exaggerated here, but there are a few keys to the second method.

People. Love. To. Help.

So adding in “wondering if you can help me out” immediately takes people off their guard.

The second key is letting them know that you are also talking to others. If the person on the other end thinks that you are the sole person they are going after, they will probably clam up. 

3 Persistence

We’ve recently worked with a few law firms relating to some sensitive issues. In each case, the law firm was conducting telephone investigative interviews simultaneously. In one of those cases, we had conducted 15 interviews, while the law firm had completed only a few.

Nobody was picking up the phone for the law firm, and nobody was calling back.

What’s the trick, the firm asked?

First, in today’s world, 94.6% of phone calls from an unrecognizable number are probably some sort of spam (I just made up that number; don’t quote me on that). Most people just don’t pick up their phone anymore (you CAN quote me on that).

So there are a few things I try to do. First, I will call a few times in one single day. I’m not sure about the psychology behind it, but people get curious/worried/interested/agitated and pick up the phone after the second or third time.

Also, I don’t leave messages until I have to. And when I do leave messages, I don’t bury the person with details — just something quick and straightforward that might pique their curiosity so they call back.

4Ease Into It

I often receive a line of questioning from law firms about the relevant questions. It makes perfect sense. They know the case inside and out and want to ensure we get the pertinent details.

Usually, the first question on the list often goes straight for the jugular.

Like, “What kinds of policies and procedures were in place to prevent this fatal accident?”

It’s like walking into a bar and asking the first person you see if they want to go home with you.

The thing about telephone investigative interviews is that the person on the other end doesn’t have any responsibility to take the time to talk to you. So you have to ease into it. Get them talking first, build rapport and let them tell you stories about their dead aunt’s cat.

Let. Them. Talk.

THEN, you just might be able to go for the jugular.

5 It’s a Numbers Game

If you had 100 people to call, I think you’d be lucky to get 50 of them on the phone, depending on the type of case. And of that 50, at least a dozen or so would tell you to fly a kite.

Many of them will not have much of anything relevant to say.

All in all, you may get a couple of great interviews out of it.

I’d rather have a bunch of lukewarm leads than a couple of great leads.

Take this scenario:

Option 1: Two possible “leads” who were in the proper position, at the right time, in the right place.

Option 2: Fifteen potential leads who were in the right place, at the right time, but were not in the perfect position.

If you gave me these two options for telephone investigative interviews, I would take Option 2 every time.

Why? Because it’s a numbers game. People aren’t going to pick up their phone, won’t cooperate, will be hesitant to provide details or will simply not be very helpful.

And the reality is that you just don’t know who will be helpful.

I’ve had cases where the most unlikely people have been the most helpful.

In Closing…

Telephone investigative interviewing takes a lot of patience, persistence, listening, empathy and some thick skin, but hopefully, these tips can help make you a better interviewer.  

Enjoyed What You Read?

Join 2,000+ others to get insider tips and tricks delivered to your inbox from what has been voted the best blog in the investigative industry!

In high stakes litigation, an expert witness background investigation may uncover information that could potentially discredit the expert witness and ultimately lead to a favorable outcome.

Pretrial discovery provided you with the opposing expert’s CV and details about his compensation for testimony. You may have Googled the expert witness or pulled up a few of his articles on Google Scholar. But what does this really tell you about your adversary’s expert? What do you truly know about your own expert, for that matter?

It’s easy for anyone to do some basic searches and get a “snapshot” of the expert that will be on the stand. It’s even easier to rely on the information provided by the expert. But what are you missing? Unless you find a glaring discrepancy or a front page scandal, basic research won’t provide you with the ammunition to discredit or disqualify your adversary’s expert.

In a comprehensive expert witness background investigation, an experienced investigator can dig deeper into the background of an opposing expert witness to help you on cross examination. In high stakes litigation, you should assume that your opponent is doing the same thing – what will they find? Investigating your own expert may prevent potential problems at trial and you will be better able to anticipate the other side’s attack.

Below are some areas that could be uncovered in a expert witness background investigation that could potentially discredit the witness:

The CV

Verifying the veracity of the information in the expert witness’s CV is a good, basic starting point. It is critical to know that the information contained in the CV is complete and accurate.  In addition to verifying “directory information” of former affiliations, organizations and educational institutions, investigators can also speak with former colleagues or associates, learning additional details about the expert.

Affiliations and Conflicts of Interest

In the past, attorneys have tried to obtain information about experts’ affiliations and monetary arrangements through discovery. As judges begin to limit the scope of discovery motions this tool may not always yield useful information. Having an investigator dig into an expert’s affiliations (e.g., organizations, educational institutions, employers, business partners etc.) may reveal conflicts of interests or other information useful for discrediting the witness.

Prior Statements

Pulling testimony in cases is time consuming, and frequently requires personnel to go to the court in question, but it can be a goldmine of information. Contradictory testimony in prior cases is, of course, a fantastic way to discredit a witness. Attorneys should also consider using other statements by the expert made in the media, scholarly articles, and other sources.

Past Acts

In the past there have been notable examples of discredited experts throughout the United States and the world. Prior criminal records and a history of work issues have come to light both in the United Kingdom and in the San Francisco forensic crime lab. In Florida, psychologist George Rekers’ testimony in numerous parental rights cases, was called into question.

Enjoyed What You Read?

Join 2,000+ others to get insider tips and tricks delivered to your inbox from what has been voted the best blog in the investigative industry!