Fire and Arson Investigation

Topic 13

INTERVIEW AND INTERROGATION

INTERVIEWING WITNESSES

After the investigator has gathered all available facts and evidence at the fire scene,
he should consider interviewing the various witnesses with the object of developing
information which will direct the investigation toward the proper solution of the case. In the
investigative field there is a distinction made between interviewing and interrogating. The
interview is, in effect, the method by which the investigator obtains information that reveals
the facts of the case. To accomplish this, one must use the "information seeking" interview,
usually on an informal basis, to question suspects and witnesses. The criminal interrogation
is different from the interview in that the interrogation is concerned with the legal aspects
of questioning the suspects.

There are numerous types of witnesses who might confront one during an
investigation. Some are reluctant, belligerent, and even hostile. At this point one may have to
apply whatever ability he has in the "sizing up" of the witness. It is possible to eliminate a
difficult problem by the application of a little "investigator's know how." This approach could
be of major importance as it may be necessary to decide if a witness can be considered
friendly or hostile, creditable or otherwise. Much good information may come from an
unreliable source so one must give deep consideration to the possibility of placing such a
witness in a vulnerable position in the courtroom. The investigator, by extending himself a
bit further, might find another witness who could furnish the same information and is
reliable.

When the investigator is confronted with a very talkative witness, he should be on

guard not to let the interview get out of control, or he might well be the one who is ultimately
interviewed. One should be cordial and yet firm in his attitude in order to give the impression
that the matter at hand is important and his cooperation is desired. Oftentimes it is necessary
for the investigator to be a good salesman to sell himself and his objectives to the witness. It
is important that the investigator be prompt for any appointment he makes. Unnecessary
delay can be very annoying and may develop undesired irritation between the parties
concerned. A friendly witness is a great asset to the investigation; therefore, the investigator
should exercise caution so as not to antagonize the person who, if given the opportunity, will
supply one with what might be valuable information. Pertinent facts can be developed by
direct questions that will stimulate the witness' memory. This is necessary if one is to obtain
the complete story. Once the investigator has the witness answering his questions quickly
and willingly, he is well along the way to a successful interview. By casually determining the
place of employment, marital status, age, and the address of the witness the investigator
probably has the person talking freely to the extent that it is then possible to get to the crux
of the interview.

There have been occasions in which the investigator has accepted the witnesses'
statement as being final only to find later that the information was misleading either by
intent or by a faulty memory. One should take the precaution to verify the important facts of
the interview so that the investigation can continue on a solid basis. There will be instances
in which the investigator is confronted with a witness who has every intention to be helpful
but can only supply opinions and rumors that have no apparent foundation. At this point the
investigator must be alert to separate rumors from fact and at the same time maintain an
open mind to the extent that a rumor or opinion might furnish one with an important lead.

The investigator may find it necessary, but inconvenient, to re-interview a witness.

One should make every effort to secure all available information during the initial meeting
as time and circumstances might later result in a change of attitude on the part of the witness.
However, do not hesitate to consider a re-interview in the event there are conflicting
statements made during the first meeting.

A good way to conclude an interview is to present the very general question, "Is there
anything else you think the investigator should know about this case?" This could eliminate
an embarrassing situation for the investigator in that the person who had supposedly been
thoroughly interviewed offers new and vital information. When asked why this data was not
offered during the first interview, one might find the interview was concluded prematurely
thereby not suggesting to the person one last thought provoking question and the
opportunity to present further information.

A question the investigator believes to be routine might divulge information of

extreme importance. It is best not to underestimate the knowledge of the witness or assume
that his answer will shed no further light on the subject at hand. Some questions asked might
be so routine as to give the impression of naiveness on the part of the investigator. However,
this can work to his advantage in that the witness might feel proud in revealing a pertinent
fact.

On occasion the investigator will find himself conducting the proverbial "fishing
expedition" when interviewing the witness. He tries not to indicate to the person how
meager his knowledge is, and at the same time he is not sure as to what he is attempting to
discover from the witness. He is, in effect, "fishing" for a lead. The "fishing expedition," like
any other interview, must be planned to be effective. Once the investigator has brought out
a certain point, he then can broaden his interview to obtain additional facts. It is after such
an interview that the investigator will likely have considerable rumors and opinions. He then
has the problem of determining if he has developed new leads. One often goes fishing for a
whale only to catch a minnow, and so it is with the investigator's fishing expedition.

INTERROGATION

The primary concern with reference to the interrogation is the choosing of the time
and place. This cannot be overemphasized. If at all possible, the investigator should be the
person to make this decision. It is a definite disadvantage to the investigator to interrogate
the subject in surroundings familiar to him. It might give the added confidence he needs to
successfully evade the investigator's questions.

The investigator should enter into the interrogation knowing that he had complete
knowledge of the facts so far developed. However, seldom does the investigator have all the
facts. He must guard against the subject realizing this. It is difficult for the unprepared
investigator to detect conflicting statements made by the suspect during the interrogation.
2 | Page
 Generally, in arson cases it is the first crime of any sort in which the perpetrator is
involved. This condition can be an advantage to the investigator in that the person will talk
freely in an effort to create the impression he would not be implicated in a crime such as
arson.

The investigator should remove all side arms before beginning the interrogation. This
lapse of memory may void the confession in the eyes of the court as it might constitute
coercion or duress. The investigator's intentions, however fair, might be questioned and the
case weakened. Seldom does the investigator have occasion to use handcuffs in arson
investigations, but if the situation does require restraining measures, it is advisable to
remove them during the interrogation. If the suspect is thought to be dangerous, it is
advisable to conduct a thorough search of his person at the time he is taken into custody.

The investigator must exercise patience and perseverance. There are occasions in
which a few more minutes of interrogation might have resulted in a confession. When one
feels exhausted and that it is useless to continue, that is the time to make up one's mind to
give it one more try.

Taking notes is an important phase of the interrogation but be somewhat cautious of

producing the notebook until one feels the suspect will not object. The notes will be of great
importance to the investigator at the time he reduces the statement to writing. They will also
be useful in determining discrepancies as the suspect repeats his story.

STATEMENTS

Even though one's efforts are not successful in obtaining a confession or admission it
is advisable to prepare a written statement as to the facts related by the suspect. This is one
of those instances which reflects the difference between the mediocre and the good
investigation. The investigator should keep in mind that although the statement might not
be one of implication, it could be of value in a negative sense. It is also sometimes wise for
the investigator to take a statement from an individual even though the information set out
is known to be false. By having the person swear to and sign such a statement, it might be
used as a wedge to obtain the true facts once the suspect is advised that it is a criminal
offense, possibly a perjury charge, to swear to a false statement.

It is suggested that the investigator preface the statement with personal data that
only the person making the statement would ordinarily know. This might include education,
age, place of birth, name of husband or wife, telephone number, relatives, employment, and
social security number. This type of information would be an indication of the willingness of
the person making the statement. It would also be useful to the prosecutor when the time
arrives to locate the witnesses.

Some investigators prefer to have the statement made before a court reporter or
assigned stenographer. However, in some instances neither will be available which leaves
the responsibility of taking the statement to the investigator. Although theory tells us that it
is advisable for the subject to write the statement, many investigators feel that it is best that
they take the responsibility of preparing the statement. By this method the investigator can
feel that the facts are suitably explained and correctly stated. Some investigators feel that it
3 | Page
is best to begin the statement with words that indicate the statement was made freely and
voluntarily and end the text with the words no force or duress was used in obtaining the
statement and that it has been read by the subject.

If the investigator finds that he must write the statement as dictated by the subject,
he must be cautious not to inject language not characteristic with that of the subject. The
suspect's education might be limited to the extent that he would not understand fully the
contents of the statement. This could impair the admissibility of the statement as evidence
in the courtroom in that the subject could claim the statement was not his words but those
of the investigator.

Some investigators think it is advisable to intentionally make an error on each page

of the statement and have the subject or witness initial the correction. This could be further
indication to the court that in order to initial the correction the statement was read by the
witness. One should obtain the individual's signature as quickly as possible without any
fanfare. The more time allotted the person to decide the pros and cons of affixing his
signature the greater the risk he might refuse.

In some cases, the subject will admit to several offenses other than arson. It is
advisable to take separate statements with reference to each incident. If there is more than
one fire involved, one should also take separate statements regarding each occasion. The
general statement which includes all offenses might be challenged in the court and not
admitted as evidence because of this technicality.

COLLABORATING A CONFESSION

There is a tendency on the part of some investigators to consider the investigation

complete after obtaining a confession. One must not forget that he still has the task of
corroborating the information set out in the confession. This confession alone, although
vitally important, is not sufficient for a guilty verdict unless it is shown the contents are
factual and substantiated by evidence. The investigator should also consider that an oral
statement made before investigators can be as important as one in writing. In either case the
investigator will probably have to testify to the facts relating to the circumstances under
which the statement was made. He should be particularly accurate when giving such
testimony since he may not know how previous witnesses have testified on this subject. An
error at this point might void his testimony.

ARREST OR CUSTODY

In the event the investigator obtains a confession which will be the basis for issuing a
warrant and placing the individual under arrest, he must consider the problem of
incarceration until such time the hearing can be conducted. It is at this point one could
possibly weaken the case by allowing the person his freedom on a promise to appear at the
required time. Such a situation, when brought out by a defense counsel, might be used to
show or indicate to the court the little importance or seriousness the investigators placed on
the crime. It is best to avoid such circumstances.
Reference:

Thomas J. Feeheley (1956). Suggestions for Improving Arson Investigations

4 | Page