USA – PENNSYLVANIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Robert Ufberg, Matthew Boyd and John Ellis, Ufberg & Associates, LLP
speaking, which can provide additional information not revealed initially. Such a technique not only dem - onstrates patience and attentiveness, but also helps the investigator gather a more complete account, aligning with best practices for objective and thor - ough interviews. As the interview progresses, the investigator must carefully assess whether the witness is fully answer - ing the questions posed. If a response seems only partially responsive, the investigator should reflect: has the question truly been answered? If not, ask an appropriate follow-up question. This approach encourages the witness to provide a more detailed account, ensuring the conversation moves beyond surface-level answers and yields the comprehensive information necessary for a thorough investigation. The investigator should pay attention to the use of adjectives and adverbs. For example, statements such as “I’m very concerned”, “We need to move quickly” or “Her conduct is way out of line” may signal that the witness has more to share. In these instances, the investigator should ask a relevant follow-up question, such as “What makes you feel that way?” Alternative - ly, the use of adjectives and adverbs may also indicate that someone is trying to steer the investigator to a desired conclusion. A witness who cannot answer a follow-up question with a reason for their strong feel - ings may lose credibility (more on that below). Once the interview has progressed and the witness has had an opportunity to answer all questions, the investigator should take a moment to carefully review the witness’s responses, ensuring that each answer is both accurate and complete. If clarification is needed or information seems incomplete, the investigator should invite the witness to provide any additional details that might be relevant, encouraging openness and thoroughness in the account shared. Credibility determinations A solid, experienced investigator thinks quickly, exploring every opportunity presented by a witness or interviewee and their responses. Doubts about the truthfulness of a witness’s response, especially to an important question, can be dealt with by, in essence, repeating the same question or line of questions, but
in the context of different wording or sequencing, to see if the witness’s responses are consistent. A sea - soned investigator generally avoids confrontational or accusatory questions – contrary to your favourite legal TV show, these most often cause people to withdraw, become evasive or experience big memory lapses. A good investigator also pays close attention to a wit - ness’s demeanour and body language – clues that often provide the investigator’s best, most reliable leads. An investigation will often come down to credibility determinations – if two witnesses give mutually incon - sistent accounts of an event, who do we believe and why? When making these determinations, consider the substance of each witness’s answers. Is the wit - ness’s account consistent with other witness reports, any available surveillance footage and/or the outcome being investigated? Did the witness give straightfor - ward answers when asked a question, or was the wit - ness evasive? Does the witness have an interest in the outcome of the investigation? All of these points are relevant to determining credibility, but the list is not exclusive. Investigators may identify other testa - mentary or behavioural cues that impact a witness’s credibility. As the conversation comes to a close, the investigator should deliver a closing statement that underscores the seriousness of the investigation and the organisa - tion’s commitment to resolving the matter appropri - ately. The witness is reminded of the confidentiality of the process, with an explanation that while discretion will be maintained, certain information may need to be shared on a need-to-know basis to ensure a fair and effective inquiry. Finally, the investigator reiterates the company’s strict prohibition against retaliation, reas - suring the witness that any concerns about repris - als for participating in the investigation will be taken seriously and addressed according to organisational policies. This concluding approach not only reinforc - es trust in the process, but also helps safeguard the integrity of the investigation, for all involved. Issuing the report At the conclusion of the investigation, the investigator should produce a written report. The length and struc - ture of that report will vary, depending on the nature
472 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook