Question

A small group of dockworkers in California, working for Topside Industries, an international shipping company, was being investigated concerning its involvement in a theft. The theft itself was a rather simple operation. The dock hands unloading foreign-made products acted in collusion with their supervisors in order to steal certain items, which they marked on official invoices as “missing” or “damaged” due to shipping. They later sold the items on the black market and split the money between the conspirators. The fraud was discovered when Longstreet Enterprises’ Asian subsidiary contacted Meade about an unusual number of microwaves that were lost during shipment from Korea to Long Beach.

Young Mr. Sherman, the newest member of Meade’s security team, decided to simultaneously interview Mr. Lee and Mr. Jackson, two dockworkers, concerning their involvement in the fraud.

Never having actually met Sherman, Lee and Jackson were simply instructed to wait in the “interrogation” room in the security shop. Lee and Jackson arrived promptly at 8 a.m., dressed in their work clothes, and were seated. Via the intercom, they were told not to leave until Sherman gave them explicit permission to do so. Sherman did not enter the room until 9:30 a.m. He was escorted into the room by a burly security guard carrying a nightstick.

Lee, annoyed at Sherman’s tardiness, blurted out, “Hey, man, we have to get back to work. I’m not getting paid for time off the dock!”

Sherman made no reply. He only paced the room for what seemed an eternity to Jackson. Finally, Sherman moved deliberately and directly over to a chair on Lee and Jackson’s side of the table. Sherman pulled his chair within inches of the two men being interrogated and straddled the chair so that the back of the chair supported his arms.

“Lee, do you know what they did with pirates in pre-colonial Virginia?” asked Sherman. Lee shrugged a little bit and was struggling for an answer when Sherman interrupted. “They were executed in the gallows, and then their bodies were hung in iron cages on the shores of the bay as an example to would-be thieves and pirates. Not a pretty picture, is it, Lee?” Lee was at a visible loss for words.

Pulling two pens and two pieces of paper from his coat pocket and slamming them onto the table, Sherman raised his voice and said, “Now let’s cut through the crap. You dockies are guilty as hell. We’ve got a paper trail a mile long to prove it along with surveillance tapes and written confessions from Hill and Grant. Do yourselves a favor and write out your confessions. If you don’t, I might just have to leave you here with Bruno. And if you physically assault him and he beats you silly, well then, it’ll be your word against his, comprende? Oh, yeah, you’ll still be under investigation for grand theft.”

Questions:

1. What were at least four mistakes that Sherman made in interviewing Lee and Jackson and, based on the text, explain how he should have changed the interview?
2. Explain who you would have interviewed first, and why – then prepare a list of questions you believe to be most important to find answers for.

Answer 1

There are certain mistakes made by Mr. S while interviewing the two suspects Mr. L and Mr. J. Among which the three mistakes are as follows.

1.

Professionalism in the interview often involves a state of mind and commitment to excellence. The interviewer should always be on time, professionally attired and fair in all dealings with respondents. Mr. S was not on time he didn't reached the interrogation room until 9.30 am which is not a good sign of professionalism in an interviewer.

2.

It is important for an interviewer to put others at ease. It is vital that the interviewers not appear to be a threat. If respondents perceive that they are the target of an inquiry, they are less likely to cooperate. Also closing the interview on a positive note is must. Therefore, when Mr. S said the respondents that they would be physically assaulted by 'El* and forced them to confess, it was not a good end, and was a major mistake of Mr. S that he committed during the interview.

3.

One basic rule of interviewing is that to question only one person at a time. The testimony of one respondent will invariably influence the testimony of another. This is one of the hard and fast rules when interviewing. Mt. S did another big mistake by interviewing both Mr. L and Mr. J at the same time in same place.

4.

The purpose of the interview must be established. When a person makes an official contact with respondents, a reason must be given. The reason or purpose of the interview should be general and not specific. The specific purpose could be stated later. The general purpose for the interview should be one that is logical for respondents to accept and easy for the interview to explain. Usually more general is better. But here Mr. S neither established a purpose nor a contact to respondents, rather did he directly start interviewing the respondents which another major mistake was done.

There are certain characteristics of good interview. Interviews should be of sufficient length and depth to uncover relevant facts. A good interview focuses on pertinent information and quickly steer talk away from irrelevant information. Interview should end on a positive note. Mr. S would have first have set the purpose of the interview, then started his interview with a personal contact, been a little informal. Then Mr. S would have prepared a question topology, the elements of conversation and questions to ask. He should have gathered as much as financial information about both the suspects from all the possible sources. After collecting all the relevant information he would have conducted friendly and neutral interview with the suspects presenting the financial statements of the suspects. May be later both would have confessed their fraud. But by directly using admission seeking interview and that too by being bias was a sign of overconfidence of Mr S. which proved to be a bad interview process.

Mr S stated that they have got a trail to prove it along with surveillance tapes and written confession from their colleagues. He used a very harsh language while interviewing the respondents, which again was a critical threat to them and at the last of his interview Mr S also threatened the respondents about physical assault which was really un professional. It is not ever acceptable to make a threat that involves physical violence.

It is usually best to conduct interviews at the interviewee's office or work place so that interviewees can access necessary papers, books, and other evidence. In addition, such locations are generally more convenient and comfortable for interviewees. The interview room must be one where distraction from colleagues, telephone and other possible distractions are minimal.

Mr. S took the respondents interview in the interrogation room in security shop, assuming it is at the same location where the respondents work. So it was feasible and easy for Mr. S to collect and crosscheck the respondent confession. Interrogation room is generally used for criminals where different ways are used to get confession from the respondent. Mr S. also tried all possible ways to get the confession from the respondents but his way being too hostile gave him adverse results.