FOR2608 Prescribed Book (PDF) - University of South Africa

© 2015 University of South Africa All rights reserved Printed and published by the University of South Africa Muckleneuk, Pretoria FOR2608/1/2016 60162651 Shutterstock.com images used InDesign HSY_Style  Contents...

© 2015 University of South Africa All rights reserved Printed and published by the University of South Africa Muckleneuk, Pretoria FOR2608/1/2016 60162651 Shutterstock.com images used InDesign HSY_Style  Contents Page STUDY UNIT 1: Investigative interviewing 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 What does investigative interviewing comprise of? 2 1.3 Communication 5 1.4 Interviewing 8 1.5 The detection of deception 9 1.6 Interrogation 11 1.7 Basic statement analysis 13 1.8 Conclusion 16 STUDY UNIT 2: Statements, note taking and investigative reports 17 2.1 Introduction 17 2.2 Types of statements 17 2.3 The requirements of a good statement 18 2.4 Example of a statement 21 2.5 Warning statements 23 2.6 Confessions 24 2.7 Admissions 25 2.8 Pointing out 25 2.9 Note taking 25 2.10 Investigation reports 28 STUDY UNIT 3: Crime information 31 3.1 Introduction 31 3.2 Intelligence vs information 31 3.3 Information-gathering techniques 32 3.4 Background or intelligence profile 33 3.5 Informers 36 3.4 Conclusion 40 STUDY UNIT 4: Sources of information 41 4.1 Introduction 41 4.2 Sources of information 41 4.3 Conclusion 45 STUDY UNIT 5: Surveillance 46 5.1 Introduction 46 5.2 Surveillance as an investigation technique 47 5.3 What is surveillance? 47 5.4 Objectives and principles of a surveillance investigation/operation 48 5.5 Terminology 49 FOR2608/1/2016 iii 5.6 Types of surveillance 49 5.7 Recording and documenting of information 50 5.8 Preparation for a surveillance investigation/operation 51 5.9 The surveillance operator 53 5.10 Operational guidelines for the surveillance investigator/ operator 53 5.11 Surveillance equipment 54 5.12 The abc method of surveillance 55 5.13 Counter surveillance 62 5.14 Conclusion 62 REFERENCE LIST 63 ANNEXURE A 65 iv  Learning unit1 SSSsssS Study unit 1 Investigative interviewing LEARNING OBJECTIVES After studying this unit, you should be able to  understand the concepts “interviewing” and “interrogation”  explain the differences between these two concepts  apply interviewing and interrogation techniques in a basic investigation  spot possible deception in a witness or suspect  apply basic statement analysis 1.1 INTRODUCTION The goal of every investigator – whether private, corporate or state – is to search for the truth in the investigation that he/she is mandated or instructed to conduct. For the purpose of this module, a private investigator is an investigator who acts in a private capacity on behalf of someone else, whereas a corporate investigator is an investigator who acts in an official capacity on behalf of the company who employs the investigator. The most known investigator is the criminal investigator who is a member of the South African Police Service (SAPS). As a private/corporate investigator, the objective of your investigation may be to gather information which does not necessarily lead to a court case or the arrest of perpetrators. In fact, these investigators seldom arrest suspects. Private and corporate investigators do not have the legal powers of a police official; however, the benefit is that they are not so restricted by rules and regulations that govern members of SAPS. Nevertheless, it is important to ensure that every action you perform is legally and ethically sound. Being an investigator implies that you investigate people and interact with those who might have committed a crime or are responsible for some act or omission that has given rise to an official enquiry. Perpetrators usually possess the best information about the crime they have committed or have been involved in. However, victims and witnesses can also provide you with valuable information which may result in the successful solving of a crime, the prosecution of a perpetrator or obtaining the information you require to direct your investigation to a positive conclusion. The effective interviewing of witnesses (which may include the suspect) and the sub- sequent interrogation of an identified suspect remain two of the most important skills in the repertoire (collection) of every successful investigator. These are also two of the most misunderstood and incorrectly applied investigation skills in the modern law enforcement environment today. Although a search for the truth is the ultimate goal of any investigation, the way in which information and/or evidence is obtained may determine the admissibility thereof in any subsequent court case or other legal proceedings. This implies that information FOR2608/1 1  and evidence should be gathered in a lawful and ethical manner, as prescribed in section 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. An investigator who solves a case, submits the evidence gathered in that investigation to their client and presents it to a court of law, can consider themselves successful only if that evidence has been ruled admissible and credible. If information and evidence has been obtained in an illegal way it may be ruled as inadmissible and may lead to steps being taken against the person/investigator who obtained it illegally. 1.2 WHAT DOES INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEWING COMPRISE OF? Two very different, but related processes make up the investigation technique known as investigative interviewing. The first process of investigative interviewing is the actual interviewing or information gathering process. During this process, you – as the private/ corporate investigator – obtain or gather information from any person who may have knowledge regarding the investigation you are conducting. Such a person can include the perpetrator of a crime, a witness, a person who provides information or the victim of a crime. During an interview, you engage in a conversation with that person and attempt to gather all the relevant information that the person is able to give you. The second process is the interrogation of the suspect. A person is only interrogated once you – as the investigator – are convinced of one’s probable involvement and if you have sufficient evidence to link the person with the crime. You must treat the person being interrogated as a suspect and must adhere to legal requirements. The objective of an interrogation is to obtain a confession from the suspect, in other words, to get the suspect to admit to his/her involvement in the crime. It is important to note that a suspect who is also a potential witness should be interviewed to obtain all possible and relevant information. Where, at the start of the investigation, it is obvious that such a person is the suspect or has already been arrested for the crime, all legal requirements must be met, for instance the reading of that person’s rights. The suspects may choose not to communicate with you, as the investigator, but he/she may be willing to do so and may thus provide you with valuable information. It serves no purpose for you to accuse a suspect without first attempting to establish rapport with him/her, and during this process get the person to communicate with you as interrogator openly while supplying you with valuable information. TABLE 1: Differences and similarities between interviewing and interrogation Interviewing Interrogation Objective: Obtain information Obtain a confession or information that can as- sist in the investigation Structure: Highly structured Highly structured Note taking: Yes Yes 2  1.2.1 Objective of interviewing The main objective of an interview is to obtain information from the person being interviewed. Sometimes information may be incorrect or untrue. As an investigator, you must determine what is truthful and what is not. A number of lawful techniques and examination methods exist to assist you in this regard. 1.2.2 Objective of interrogation The main objective of an interrogation is to obtain a confession from the suspect, or alternatively, uncover information which could assist you in the investigation or provide a possible suspect with the opportunity to prove his/her innocence. 1.2.3 Structure There are a number of similarities between the interviewing and interrogation processes regarding structure, as mentioned in the table below. Preparation: The bet- Location: The location of the interview or interroga- ter prepared you are be- tion plays an important part in creating an atmosphere fore commencing an in- of cooperation. A friendly, professional, private and terview or interrogation, positive environment immediately inspires respect and the better your chances stimulates communication. When you, the investiga- of success. An important tor, interview a witness or interrogate a suspect at a step to start with is to location familiar to them, such as their home or office, find out the witness or it creates an atmosphere conducive to cooperation and suspect’s name. When truthfulness. This is especially relevant where privacy talking to a person and and the comfort associated with a familiar environ- using his/her name you ment are needed, for instance where the victim of a build rapport and es- crime is interviewed. Unfortunately, however, such an tablish an open channel environment may be open to distractions, influences of communication. and stimuli, which may impact on rapport building negatively. But an intimidating, official and barren environment may increase fear and/or induce a de- Process: The interview fence mechanism (resistance) in the witness or suspect, and interrogation process which would be counterproductive in establishing rap- contain a number of se- port. The advantage of such an environment, however, quential steps. The correct is that it takes a witness or suspect out of their comfort sequence of, especially, zone and breaks down the emotional support associ- the interrogation pro- ated with a friendly environment, which may be use- cess, is of utmost impor- ful when interrogating a suspect. It can be difficult tance as non-compliance to interrogate a suspect in his/her own environment may result in a negative because his/her supportive and defence mechanisms outcome. The interroga- will be firmly in place, making it difficult for you tion process will be dealt to breach them. Sometimes your options regarding with in more detail later location are limited and you then have to be creative on in this unit. in handling the situation. FIGURE 1: Similarities between interviewing and interrogation. FOR2608/1 3  Activity 1.1 Where should you, as a private/corporate investigator, conduct your interviews and interrogations? 1.2.4 Note taking When you, as an investigator, conduct an interview or interrogation, it is absolutely crucial to keep an accurate record of the information supplied by the witness/suspect. This is a challenging task as it is difficult to maintain rapport with the witness/suspect and, at the same time, take concise and accurate notes. There are numerous examples of court cases where incomplete or scrappy note taking has led to the acquittal of an accused. You may, however, make use of alternative recording techniques, for instance using a tape and/or video recorder to record the interview/interrogation. In such a case, it is advisable that you inform the witness that the interview/interrogation is being recorded. Taking notes should be done discreetly so as to not interrupt the witness or give the suspect time to fabricate his/her story. 1.2.5 Establishing rapport Before you commence with the actual interview and ask questions directly related to the matter being investigated, it is vital that you establish rapport with the interviewee. You can do this by initiating a conversation and asking an open-ended question about a “safe” topic. This may be about anything from the weather to sports, depending on how well you “know” the interviewee. (We will cover open-ended questions in a bit more detail later on.) Once you have established rapport, you can gradually encourage the interviewee, through the use of body language signals, to talk to you about the investigation. Examples of such body language signals include the following:  Face the interviewee – Sitting facing the person being interviewed or interrogated forces that person to pay attention to you. If one talks to a person when one stands behind him/her may look good in the movies, but it is not helpful to establish rapport.  Make eye contact – This is a very powerful technique which should always be used by the investigator. This makes it almost impossible for the witness/suspect to avoid looking at you, and if you succeed in making and maintaining eye contact, you can manage the interview/interrogation effectively. There is a lot of truth in the saying: The eyes are the windows to a person’s soul. However, you should always bear cul- tural and religious backgrounds in mind when you analyse the body language of witnesses or suspects. For example, some people may avoid making eye contact as a gesture of respect. At crime scenes or during searches, a witness or suspect’s eyes can reveal hidden evidence, because he/she may instinctively glance at the place where something is hidden to ensure that the object is not visible.  Address the witness/suspect by his/her name – This technique is used in conjunc- tion with making eye contact. It is very difficult for a witness/suspect to ignore you when you use his/her name.  Personal space – Maintain an acceptable distance between you and the witness/ suspect. This distance is usually between 60 cm and 1 metre. 4  Nobody likes their space to be invaded. Being too close may appear threatening, whereas being too far from the interviewee suspect causes you to lose that personal connection.  Positive head nodding – This body language technique is especially effective when you interview a bona fide witness (one who is not deceitful and talks to you in good faith). When you engage in this technique, you encourage a witness positively to communicate openly and effectively. Your conduct and demeanour differ to a large extent, depending on who is sitting in front of you. Once a witness starts talking, you – as the investigator – have to listen, take notes and not interrupt. Upon completion of the witness’s narrative, you must ask specific questions (we will discuss this aspect in more detail later on in this unit). But when you interrogate a suspect, your demeanour will be more accusatory and you may confront the suspect and follow a process whereby you present him/her with evidence. You follow a process whereby you present evidence and accuse him/her directly. 1.3 COMMUNICATION The ability to communicate is an essential skill for an investigator. You have to be able to communicate effectively when interacting with people. An interview or interrogation is a communication method which you have to conduct properly if you hope to achieve any measure of success. In the context of this module, communication is described as interpersonal, that is, two or more people communicate in a face-to-face situation. Effective interpersonal com- munication is a skill that you need to acquire and practice constantly. When communicating, a reality is created between “you and me” (interpersonal com- munication). What is important to the witness/suspect is the message that you, as the investigator, are communicating, and not necessarily your intentions. The witness/ suspect will usually respond positively if that message is conveyed correctly. FIGURE 2: Communication structure FOR2608/1 5  As the illustration above indicates, communication tends to develop along a specific path, and for you to reach your predetermined objective or intention. You have to un- derstand and follow the process as indicated. 1.3.1 Communication development path Clichéd conversation When you, as an investigator, engage in conversation with a witness/suspect, you initiate the conversation with clichéd or stereotyped conversation. You are now in the role of the interviewer. This type of conversation is non-threatening, opens up communica- tion and establishes a foundation for the more difficult, case specific information to be communicated. It sets the ball rolling and enables the witness/suspect to start talking. Inexperienced investigators should be careful not to commit themselves or make any promises in their eagerness to get a witness or suspect talking. An example of questions in a cliché conversation is as follows:  Can I get some water?  Is it warm enough in here?  Do you need to be somewhere soon? Reports, facts: This is the second level of communication and you, as the interviewer, initiate this stage once you have laid an acceptable foundation and the witness/suspect is talking to you freely. During this stage of communication, specific case information is communicated. Examples of these questions include:  Can you tell me what happened this morning?  Can you tell me what you saw this morning just before the accident happened?  Did you see any other people on the premises before you left? Ideas, judgements: At this level of communication, the witness/suspect will feel comfort- able enough to express his/her ideas and make judgements about the case and/or people involved in it. These ideas and judgements may not be accurate, but they do indicate a positive development in the witness’ or suspect’s conversation with you. It is very im- portant that you do not express your personal opinions or judgements. Ideas are usually verbal in nature and you must guard against verbalising what you are thinking, as this may jeopardise the rapport that has been created. An example of this is the following:  Why do you think Sam was shot?  Do you think that this could perhaps be an inside job? Feelings: On this level of communication, the witness/suspect will express their feel- ings and emotions. As the interviewer, you should not be sympathetic (get emotionally involved, share the person’s feelings), but rather be empathetic (show understanding and give acknowledgement). Emotions and attitudes are usually non-verbal in nature and may manifest in your body language, so be on your guard. This may occur if you know the victim of a crime and then have to interview the suspect who has allegedly com- mitted it. Examples include the following:  This could be non-verbal, for instance crying.  This can also be where a person tells you that they are scared to get involved and why they are scared. It is important to not get caught up in this as it will lead to 6  you crossing a professional boundary and getting involved in personal/intimate conversations. This is the stage during which a suspect will usually offer an admission or confession, although some suspects – especially hardened criminals – will not make a confession or admission, irrespective of the techniques used. Personal, intimate: As the interviewer and investigator, you should never venture onto this level of communication, as you will cross ethical and professional boundaries and lose your objectivity. As an investigator who conducts interviews, you must have the ability to be patient, to listen actively and to portray an understanding of ideas, emotions and attitudes. Miner (1998:25) made the following point: “One can obtain more accurate and complete information in interviews through simply listening.” When we communicate, our minds are sometimes so busy with other things that while we listen we do not actually hear what the other person is saying. So when you listen to people, make it a habit to actually hear what they are saying; you will be amazed by what they tell you – usually without their even realising it. To listen effectively, you must remove barriers that hinder effective communication. These barriers include the following:  Defensive listening – This is where you do not establish rapport with the witness/ suspect, do not make eye contact, have already decided what happened in your own mind, and are impatient or dismissive of the information provided.  External barriers – This is where the interview/interrogation is not conducted in private, where too many people are present (to ensure professionalism, objectivity and allegations of harassment being made against the interviewer it is advisable to have at least two people present during the interview, especially when a male is interviewing a female and vice versa), noise interference (e.g. the ringing of a cell- phone), the interview room is not suitable for the task (dark, barren, police cell/ room) or outside stimuli distract the witness/suspect (information notices on the walls, irrelevant documentation lying about, an open window, etc.). As an investigator, you are advised to know your strengths and growth areas (weak- nesses). For example, if you know that you are not a patient person by nature, you will have to concentrate on developing that part of your personality. 1.3.2 The OPV principle An important principle in investigative interviewing is to “obtain the pure version” of the incident being investigated from a witness/suspect. As the investigator, you should neither suggest anything nor project any of your own ideas onto the witness/suspect; this is especially relevant in the interviewing phase of an investigation. When a witness makes his/her initial statement to you verbally, you should not inter- rupt or in any way influence that statement. Remember that it is not you making the statement, but the witness, and any small and perhaps seemingly insignificant detail may be crucial to determine the truthfulness thereof at a later stage. When analysing such a statement, the pure unchanged and original version thereof – as made by the witness – will determine whether it can be analysed successfully. The FOR2608/1 7  majority of statements are largely truthful; it is actually not facts or feign of ignorance or forgetfulness. It is also important to note what people do not say. According to studies, the impact of a message (interpersonal communication) is 7% verbal (words only), 38% vocal (tone of voice, inflection and other sounds) and 55% non-verbal (body language) (Pease 2000:6). Humans are emotional beings and will almost always react emotionally to any threat or perceived threat. The emotional reac- tion of a witness/suspect, to the information they are providing, is an important clue for you, the investigator, as to the truthfulness of that information. For example, a person telling a story about something exciting that happened to him, will likely manifest emotions in his body language that can include smiling, widening his eyes and rubbing his hands together. Activity 1.2 Describe the ideal environment for you to conduct a witness and or suspect interview. Your answer should focus on the management of external barriers. 1.4 INTERVIEWING The interview process which we will discuss consists of nine steps. STEP 1 – Preparation: This is the initial step in the interviewing process. In this step, all available information regarding the case being investigated and the persons to be interviewed is obtained. This includes case facts, formal records, background information and relevant legislation. You must know the witness’s name, his/her basic particulars, and details of the case and the elements of the crime being investigated. STEP 2 – Introduction: The introduction sets the tone for the interview to follow. You must be professional and convey an air of self-confidence and skill. Self-confidence stems from knowing your subject matter, having the ability to apply that knowledge and actually doing so. There is only one way to develop self-confidence: Practice. STEP 3 – Rapport building: When establishing rapport, you have to create a basis of respect and a psychological situation that influences and encourages the witness to cooperate and be truthful. In this step you engage in clichéd conversation. Remove obstacles, face the interviewee, make eye contact, nod your head encouragingly and match facial expressions. STEP 4 – Questions: Start with open-ended questions. An example of such a question is: What happened? Follow up on this question with a period of active listening. Remember: you must not only listen – you must actually hear. Only after the full story has been told in narrative form (the witness tells you the whole story without interruption), should you ask specific questions. Base these questions on missing elements in the interviewee’s statement and include questions that you formulated beforehand. 8  STEP 5 – Verification: After a witness has answered all your questions, you have to review the information he/ she has provided to ensure that you have captured it correctly (note taking) and that there is a mutual understanding between you and the witness regarding the meaning of words and phrases he/she used. You can also use this opportunity to take more detailed notes. Step 6 – Catch-all question: You ask this type of question to ensure that everything has been covered. Asking this question provides the interviewee with an opportunity to run through his/her state- ment mentally. The catch-all questions may be asked in a positive manner, for example: “What have I forgotten to ask?” or in a decisive manner: “What have you not told me?” STEP 7 – Statement: When the abovementioned steps have been completed, you have to obtain a state- ment from the witness. The witness may also provide you with his/her own written statement. This is often done when you have reason to believe that the witness may be lying or could be involved in the incident being investigated. A statement written by the witness provides the best form of an OPV (pure version) and can be used for analysis purposes. STEP 8 – Departure: The departure is just as important as the introduction. It makes a positive impression on a witness and leaves the way open for further contact. Although it was only a theatri- cal device, the well-known television detective Colombo always left the suspect with a thought-provoking question/comment just before his departure, thus creating suspense with the suspect (and the television audience). Experienced investigators always conduct their interviews with the greatest of patience, causing the suspect to believe that “the hound is on the blood trail”. According to a RSG interview news bulletin dated 17 February 2009, a similar tactic led a 23-year-old mother from KwaZulu-Natal to hand herself over to the SAPS after throwing her infant baby from a bridge, as she could no longer tolerate the guilt she felt. STEP 9 – Critique: Once the interview has been concluded, you have to run through it mentally, step by step. This will help you to learn from your mistakes and also to put the interview into perspective. When conducting an interview, there are generally a few important questions to consider:  What is the message the interviewee wants to convey?  How does the interviewee know the information conveyed?  What did the interviewee leave out? 1.5 THE DETECTION OF DECEPTION Humans possess a number of basic social instincts, which are essentially selfish in nature, whereas society requires cooperative and considerate behaviour. Where socialisation fails, instinct often determines behaviour, which leaves detectable signs and signals (Gordon & Fleischer 2007: xi). FOR2608/1 9  As an investigator, it is important for you to be a good observer of non-verbal behaviour, because non-verbal behaviour (or body language) can be an indicator of deception. If rapport is developed during an interview, you can determine truthful behaviour when discussing routine, non-threatening matters. Changes from the norm can be readily spotted. An ancient observer wrote the following description of a liar on a piece of papyrus in 900 BC: “He does not answer questions or gives evasive answers; he speaks nonsense, rubs the great toe along the ground and shivers, he rubs the roots of his hair with his fingers” (Einspahr 1998:32). The process of detecting deception:  Build rapport.  Determine truthful behaviour (the norm).  Look for changes from the norm when  The discussion becomes relevant to the investigation  Critical questions are asked As the investigator, you should only make a judgement call whether an interviewee is being untruthful, when changes in a discussion become relevant or critical questions are asked about the case being investigated. Moreover, your judgement should be based on clusters of actions and not just on a single act. You should never make a judgement about the truthfulness of information provided by a witness if he/she is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, is a professional criminal or engages in anti-social behaviour. The same applies if the person being interviewed suffers from some mental or behavioural disorder. 1 Preparation 2 Introduction 3 Rapport building 4 Questions 5 Verification 6 Catch-all question 7 Statement 8 Departure 9 Critique FIGURE 3: The interview process 10  Activity 1.3 On the basis of the interview process discussed above, consider the steps you usually follow when interviewing a witness. Have you ever evaluated your efforts critically? Do you need to change some of the tactics you use? 1.6 INTERROGATION As stated previously, the objectives of an interrogation are to obtain a confession from the suspect to reveal information that could assist in the investigation or provide the possible suspect with an opportunity to prove his/her innocence. An interrogation is a highly structured process which contains a number of steps. Conducting an interroga- tion is a more delicate and difficult process than conducting an interview; you cannot simply listen and take notes, you have to lead the process actively. Why and when does a suspect confess? A suspect will not normally offer an unsolicited/ spontaneous confession. When suspects are informed of their rights, they have the right to refuse to answer any questions; this would appear to rule out any chance of getting a confession. Nevertheless, a surprising number of suspects do confess their crimes. So what makes them do so? A number of reasons exist, including the following:  Psychological reasons  A suspect wants to obtain first-hand information about the investigation and where it is heading  A combination of paranoia and curiosity  Someone is willing to listen and try to understand A suspect will confess when the internal anxiety caused by his/her deception outweighs his/her perception of the crime’s consequences. The interrogation process is, in some ways, similar to the interview process, but you, as the investigator, need additional skills to conduct a successful interrogation. The interrogation consists of the following steps: STEP 1 – Introduction: The introduction sets the tone for the interrogation. As the investigator, you must be professional and have an aura of self-confidence and skill. You have to introduce yourself and state your reason for being there. STEP 2 – Reading of rights This step in the process differs from when you interview a witness. It is a legal require- ment for a police official to warn a person that he/she is a suspect in an investigation. Even though you may think this step is not necessary for you, as a private or corporate investigator, it is nevertheless advisable to do so. From a legal perspective, a confession to a police official is not admissible as evidence, whereas a confession to a private person (you, as the investigator) is admissible as evidence. FOR2608/1 11  It is important that you conclude this crucial step as soon as possible before any con- frontation takes place or any rapport is built. It must be concluded before the suspect confesses, because if a confession must be interrupted to inform the suspect of his/her rights, it may cause the suspect to change his/her mind about confessing. The rights that you must inform the suspect of include:  the right to remain silent and to be informed of the consequences of not remaining silent,  the right not to be compelled to make any confession or admission that could be used as evidence against them, and  the right to choose and be represented by an attorney. STEP 3 – Rapport building: The same steps are followed as in the interviewing process. It is important to note that there are different techniques for continuing an interrogation. The circumstances of each case, your experience as an interrogator and the personality of the suspect are some of the factors that may influence the techniques used or the strategy applied. Some techniques are not effective in all cases and you, as the investigator, must decide on the strategy that you will be using. At this stage of the process, you present the case evidence to the suspect. Remember that you must already have completed the first three steps of the interrogation process before presenting evidence. The following suggestions are offered for when you present evidence:  You have to be convincing when presenting evidence – If you are hesitant, the suspect may interpret it as a sign that you are unsure of your facts. But, if you are confident, the suspect may interpret your confidence as proof that you have a strong case against him/her. A lack of confidence in an interrogator will almost never lead to a positive conclusion.  After presenting the evidence, you must observe the reaction of the suspect. If the suspect chooses to offer an explanation, that explanation must be recorded in detail and converted into a statement. If the suspect chooses not to make a state- ment to you, he/she has the legal right to do so. Remember that even if suspects do not make a statement, you still have the right to ask them questions and note their answers. These answers must be recorded and can be used as evidence later. There are a number of useful hints that you can consider when conducting an interrogation:  Never make any promise to the suspect that you cannot keep – As the investi- gator, you are not in a legal position to make any promises, for example telling the suspect that they would not be arrested if they confess.  Do not threaten the suspect – For example, do not threaten to oppose bail if the suspect does not confess.  Do not lose your temper – Losing your temper can cause evidence to be ruled as inadmissible as a result of undue influence on the suspect. It is important that you as the interrogator adhere to the legal and admissibility require- ments for interviews and interrogations. Non-compliance may lead to such evidence being ruled as inadmissible in subsequent legal proceedings. 12  Activity 1.4 1. What are the main differences between a forensic interview and interrogation? 2. As an investigator, what skills do you think you will need to do successful interviews and interrogations? 3. From the skills you identified in question 2, which of these do you think you already have and which do you still need to work on? 1.7 BASIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS Statement analysis is the examination of words – independent of case facts – to detect deception. It is an investigation tool that helps you, the investigator, to analyse statements made by a witness or suspect as to the truthfulness of that statement or part thereof. It is important to know that such an analysis does not have evidential value, but it can assist you in your search for the truth or provide direction in the investigation. Statement analysis should be conducted before a suspect is interrogated. The analysis should be conducted on a written statement, a transcription of an interview of a wit- ness/suspect or on a written/typed statement supplied by the witness/suspect. This is to ensure that you analyse a statement that is “pure” (the OPV principle), which has not been tainted by an investigator’s interpretations or objections, and that the words used in the statement are those of the witness or suspect. Truthful statements differ from untruthful statements in structure and content. Statement analysis is a two-step process. Firstly, you have to determine the norm (typical truthful statement). Once that has been accomplished, you have to look for any deviation from this norm (content and quality). When conducting basic statement analysis, you look at a number of components (part of a larger whole) that make up a statement as indicators of possible deception (or an indication of truthfulness). For the purpose of this unit, we will focus on four components. Parts of speech include pronouns, and verbs Personal pronouns include the terms “I, me, you, she, we, they and it”. Truthful wit- nesses usually use the pronoun “I”. This is an indication of communication in the first person, singular form. If this changes, for example when the pronoun “I” becomes “we”, a change in reality has taken place (“I” indicates personal involvement of only one person and “we” indicates personal involvement of more than one person). When “they” becomes “we”, a change in reality has also taken place (“they” indicates more than one person, but no personal involvement; “we” indicates personal involvement of more than one person). In the following example, pronouns are illustrated in bold type. There are two instances where the personal pronoun “I” is missing. The missing personal pronouns may be an indication of deception. FOR2608/1 13  I got up this morning, took a shower and got dressed. I then drove to the shop in the mall where I had breakfast. After I had breakfast I drove to the driving range where I hit some balls._ Spoke to a man who hangs around the club house. Spoke to him for a few more minutes. I finished and drove back home. Possessive pronouns include the terms “my, our, his, her and their” and reveal personal attachment. In the following example, the possessive pronouns are illustrated in bold type. In her statement, the witness referred to “my car”. When the car was stolen, how- ever, she removes the personal attachment. This is an indication of possible deception. I loved my car and looked after it. I parked my car outside in the parking area at around 21:00 and went inside to watch a movie at the theatre. When I returned to where I parked the car, I noticed that it was missing. I don’t know what happened to the car. Verbs are an important part of speech. Verbs express an action in the past, present or future. In truthful statements, the use of the past tense is the norm (event has already occurred). In the following example, the verbs are in bold type. In his statement, the witness describes an incident that took place at some time in the past. The norm is the past tense, but when he describes the incident, he changes to the present tense. This is an indication of possible deception. It happened on Friday night. I stopped at the gate and unlocked it. I stopped in front of my garage and got out of the car. A man runs from the shadows and sticks a gun into my face. Extraneous information refers to information that is irrelevant or unrelated to the topic under discussion. In a truthful statement, the norm is for a witness to recount events chronologically and concisely. Such a witness will provide you with the relevant information as required. When a witness provides you with information that is irrelevant to the case, information that justifies his/her behaviour, information that boosts his/her standing or profile as a witness or information that provides him/her with an alibi, that information may be regarded as extraneous and may be an indication of deception. In the following example, extraneous information is marked in bold type. In her state- ment, the witness describes an incident that took place at some time in the past. While making her statement, she introduces information that is not relevant to the incident. Remember that such information (extraneous) is usually truthful, but is introduced as a smoke screen. The information might have been relevant if it had been provided as a smoke screen. The information might have been relevant if it had been provided as an answer to a specific question that you, the investigator had posed. In this example, however it may be an indication of deception. 14  It happened on Friday night. I stopped at the gate and unlocked it. I stopped in front of my garage and got out of the car. I am a person who is very observant of my surroundings and careful when I drive into my premises. I was a police official for a number of years. A man runs from the shadows and sticks a gun into my face. Lack of conviction is a term used to describe a witness who uses certain phrases to avoid commitment. Examples of these phrases are “I don’t remember; I can’t recall; I believe; to the best of my knowledge; kind of”. There are situations where a bona fide witness is not sure about a fact; this is natural and acceptable in the context of a specific narrative (spoken or written account of an event). However, where a witness provides you with a narrative of an important event that has recently occurred, and he/she shows a lack of conviction, it may be an indication of deception. This is especially so if that same witness provides you with accurate but unimportant information about the same event. In the following example, words that indicate a lack of conviction are marked in bold type. In his statement, the witness describes an incident that took place at some point in the past. While making his statement, the witness uses words that indicate a lack of conviction. Note that the witness remembers unimportant information in detail, but is not sure about important information. This may be an indication of deception. It happened on Friday night; it was a warm evening with a spatter of rain. I stopped at the gate and unlocked it. I stopped in front of my garage and got out of the car. A man runs from the shadows and sticks what I believe to be a gun into my face. To the best of my knowledge, he was a tall, well-built man. Proportion of statements Statements tend to be evenly proportioned in three parts. These parts are the following: The first part – This is the part that covers the events prior to the incident. It places the incident (what the witness is testifying about) in context. The first part covers roughly one-third of the total statement. The second part – This part describes the incident (main occurrence). It also covers about one-third of the total statement. The third part – This covers the events after the incident. It mainly deals with actions and emotions associated with the incident and it also covers about a one-third of the total statement. The more balanced the statement, the greater the probability that the statement is true. Often a deceptive witness will be truthful in the first part of his/her statement, as information supplied in this part is not damaging to him/her. But he/she will usually be sparing in details about the incident itself and will probably have limited emotions in the third part of the statement. FOR2608/1 15  Activity 1.5 Analyse the statement below by applying the techniques discussed above. Follow the steps to assist you in the analysis: Pronouns – circle missing pronouns. Verbs – underline all changes in verb tense. Extraneous information – highlight information that does not answer the question of what happened. Lack of conviction – bracket words that indicate a lack of conviction. Balance of statement – divide the statement into before, during and after. Check if the parts are more or less balanced. Practical exercise It happened on Friday night. I was out visiting a friend who invited me to his house ear- lier that day. I returned home at approximately eleven o’clock. I stopped at the gate and unlocked it. I then parked in front of my garage and got out of the car. I am a person who is very observant of my surroundings and careful when I drive into my premises. I was a police official for a number of years. A man runs from the shadows and sticks what I believe to be a gun into my face. To the best of my knowledge, he was a tall, well-built man. He comes out of nowhere and grabbed my car keys. He tells me to lie down and drives off with my car. That is what happened. 1.8 CONCLUSION Investigative interviewing is a specialised skill in the crime investigation field. This unit has only scratched the surface of this topic. As with any skill, you have to obtain knowledge and apply it on a regular basis to become proficient in it. Even “old timers” – those investigators who have been around for a long time still get it wrong sometimes. Remember that, as an investigator, you are always searching for the truth. In the case of interviewing/interrogation, you have to obtain that truth from the person you are interviewing or interrogating. This implies that you are often applying your wits against an opponent, an adversary, whose success depends on their ability to outwit you, the investigator. At the same time, the environment in which you operate changes con- stantly – new crimes have to be investigated; legislation changes and people become more knowledgeable. Perseverance and up-to-date knowledge is the key to your success. 16  Learning unit2 Study unit 2 Statements, note taking and investigative reports LEARNING OBJECTIVES After studying this unit, you should be able to  take a statement and administer the required oath  take effective notes  compile an investigation report 2.1 INTRODUCTION Statements form a very important part of every investigation. Information supplied by a complainant or a witness during an interview is converted into a written (or typed) format and filed in a case docket. This written statement is usually taken down by you the investigator and signed by the person who made it. This is the next step for you the student and investigator in the investigation process. You have progressed from investigating the crime scene to interviewing the complainant and witnesses and interrogating the suspect. There is a saying that “the job is not completed until the paperwork is done”. Taking a statement is not merely “paperwork”, everything of relevance must be converted into writing, as statements in the case which docket forms the basis of every case. The successful conclusion and prosecution of a case depends largely on the quality of the contents of the statements filed in the case docket. A statement implies the setting out of facts to be used as information or evidence. The format and type of statement can differ. Usually an investigator will obtain an affidavit (sworn statement) from the complainant or witness. 2.2 TYPES OF STATEMENTS There are a number of statements: Under oath or affirmed – this is the most common way of taking statements in which a witness will swear under oath or affirm the contents thereof. Unsworn or unaffirmed statement – a warning statement (where a statement is taken from a suspect after warning the suspect of their rights) is a good example of such a statement. Dying declarations – when a dying person makes a statement, it is an exemption to the hearsay rule. In terms of section 212 and 213 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 511 of 977 – these statements are usually made by experts. FOR2608/1 17  Affidavits (sworn statements) and affirmed statements will be discussed thoroughly in this unit. You as the investigator will be required to take such statements from the complainant and witness as part of the practical exercise – theft scenario. Warning statements, admissions and confessions will also be dealt with briefly. 2.3 THE REQUIREMENTS OF A GOOD STATEMENT A statement is a logical continuance of an interview and the requirements applicable to an effective interview must be carried over to a statement. During an interview you as the investigator engage in a conversation with a witness and attempt to gather all relevant information which that person may have pertaining to the crime. It is important that the pure version principle (OPV) be retained in a statement. You as the investigator have to ensure that you do not influence any witness or alter any information provided by such a witness. A basic requirement of a statement is that it should tell an accurate story about some- thing to which a person is a witness to, so that the story is clearly understandable to the person that reads the statement. Statements can vary from being very short and basic to extremely long and complicated. Whatever the difficulty level, it must still tell a story accurately in a clearly understand- able way. A statement is a written communication of the witness’s version of the events. When a person reads the statement, they must understand what is said immediately even if they have no previous knowledge of the matter. Accuracy A statement must convey an accurate account of whatever is communicated. It must be a verbatim (exactly the same words as the originally used) or as close thereto as practi- cally possible recording of the witness’s account of what they have witnessed. You as the investigator and statement taker, must ensure that the exact words are conveyed and not interpretations thereof. All relevant information is important, whether it be factual, an opinion or an idea. Completeness The same principle regarding completeness applies as with the interviewing. Refer back to the questions W W W W W H as discussed in module FOR 1501 and FOR 1502, Forensic Methods and Techniques. You as the investigator must ensure that the witness has disclosed all relevant infor- mation and that it is contained in his/her statement. You do this by reading back the statement to the witness and asking them whether there is anything they want to add to their statement. Elements of the crime Every statement is taken for a specific reason. Where a statement is obtained from a complainant, you as the investigator have to ensure that all the elements of the crime being investigated are covered in that statement. This implies a good working knowledge on your part about the crime you are investigating. 18  Language and writing proficiency Because a statement is a form of communication, and forms the basis of a case in an investigation, language and writing proficiency of the person obtaining a statement is a pre-requirement. A high number of cases are lost in court as a result of discrepancies between what a witness said, what the investigator thought the witness said, and what the investigator eventually wrote in that statement. You as the investigator must write the statement in the “first person” as if the witness was writing or speaking in that person. You must also not “translate” what the witness said. You can, however, question the person who is making the statement to obtain detailed and accurate information. If the witness uses words that might be confusing, these words and their meaning to the witness must be explained in the statement or in an accompanying statement. This is usually the case when statements are obtained from children and they use un- familiar words to describe for example body parts. A statement must then be obtained from an adult, for example the mother of the child, to explain what the meanings of these words are in the context of what the child was taught. 2.3.1 Format of a statement A statement should be constructed logically, easy to read, divided into paragraphs and narrated in a chronological order. It is divided into three parts – introduction, contents and completion. It must be anchored in place, date and time. The introduction The introduction of a statement contains the following information:  Full names and surnames of the deponent.  Language of deponent.  Identity number and if not available passport number.  Occupation.  Residential address (physical street address including suburb and town) and telephone number  Work address and telephone number – if for example the witness is a scholar or student, it is advisable to take their home address; they might not be at the same address when they need to testify in court (which often is two to three years after the incident occurs), which means that because of the non-availability of the witness the case might be withdrawn or suspect acquitted.  Cellphone number – it is also advisable to obtain an e-mail address where possible. The contents You as the investigating officer must answer the question “what is the statement all about, what is the message the witness wants to convey?” The statement should then be anchored and in place, date and time – this refers to the location where the incident took place, the date on which it happened (date and day of the week) and the time. It should be constructed in such a way that it follows a chronological order of events and timeline. FOR2608/1 19  All relevant information should be recorded in the statement comprehensively, whether the witness deems it important or not. This is especially important if a witness testi- fies months or even years after the incident and has to rely on their statement to recall detailed information. The investigator must answer the question “What crime has been committed?”. The elements of the crime must be evident from the statement. If it is necessary to question the deponent care must be taken not to ask critical questions or to make any comments. Everything must be recorded to allow the public prosecutor to decide what informa- tion to use. The names, addresses and other particulars of witnesses must be obtained whenever possible. Only witnessed events must be included in a statement. In crimes against a person, such as assault, robbery, rape, and so forth; it is important to note the nature and extent of injuries, wounds, damage and personal experience, such as shock. Wounds sustained and/or emotional trauma suffered by a witness pro- vides an indication as to the seriousness of the incident. With property crimes such as theft, robbery and arson; the property must be described. Property refers to physical movable objects that belong to someone. Take note that a house is also not movable. The property must be described by noting its shape, colour monetary or other value, serial number size and other identifying marks as well as damages which one can use to identify the property. For example when a radio is stolen the witness must describe the stolen article in detail – “a black and red portable Sharp radio with cassette player, model F5, serial number J.0046850V.S, valued at R250 (two hundred and fifty rand)”. This may lead to the recov- ery of the stolen item and the successful prosecution of the perpetrator. The complainants or witnesses should also indicate whether they will be able to identify the stolen goods. Where stolen property was insured, details of the insurance company must be obtained. Insurance companies keep records of all claims and often investigate such incidents separately. In most crimes against a person the victim will be able to furnish the investigator with a description of the suspect. The victim can usually remember at least the gender, race, build and height of the perpetrator, if not also the clothing he/she was wearing and the language he/she spoke. The victim/witness should always be asked why he/she suspects a specific person. The reasons should be noted carefully and be relevant to the case. The Conclusion In conclusion the witness must always state specifically whether the perpetrator had, or might have had, the right to perform that specific act. He/she must also indicate clearly if further investigation and prosecution is required. Certificate by the deponent You as the investigator and a Commissioner of Oaths will conclude the statement with the following certification “I certify that the deponent has acknowledged that he/she knows and understands the contents of this statement. The statement was sworn to/ 20  affirmed before me and the deponent’s signature placed thereon in my presence at ……......................…...….. (Place) on ……….. (Date) at ………………. (Time). The Commissioner of Oaths then signs directly beneath the certification and provides the following detail:.......................................................................... (Signature).......................................................................... (Full names and Surname) COMMISSIONER OF OATHS.......................................................................... Reference number, area of appointment and date of appointment.......................................................................... (Office street address) The abovementioned example is that of a Commissioner of Oaths as appointed by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development in terms of the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act, 1963 (Act 16 of 1963). General Where a witness cannot sign his/her name, his/her right thumb print must be placed on the statement in place of a signature. Two witnesses should sign alongside the print. When an interpreter is used, the interpreter has to certify that he/she has acted as an interpreter in the languages spoken during the interpretation. He/she also has to initialise all the pages of the statement. The case reference number must be written on top of the first page when the statement is filed in the case docket. A statement serves as a permanent record of the information gathered during an inves- tigation and also acts as a memory aid in future legal proceedings. It is probably the most important part of an investigation docket and provides an answer to the question “What happened?” 2.4 EXAMPLE OF A STATEMENT As part of the practical side of this course, you as the student and investigator will be required to write statements based on a housebreaking and theft scenario. An example of an affidavit is provided in this module which will be helpful to you when writing your statements as required in the practical exercise. The example is based on a housebreaking and theft case: SOPHIATOWN CAS 2590/07/2015 A …….. Albert Van Niekerk states under oath in English: FOR2608/1 21  1. I am an adult male, 43 years old with identity number 1908026007081, residing at 8 Elmarie Road, Northcliff, Johannesburg with telephone number 011-073-0000. I am employed as National Fleet Manager at Westbakery, 7203 Main Road, Newlands, Johannesburg, telephone number 011-077-1111. My cellphone number is 0898532007. My e-mail address is [email protected]. 2. On Friday, 28 July 2015, at approximately 07:00, I left my residence at the abovemen- tioned address to go to work. I locked my door as well as the security door and left the windows all closed. Nobody was inside the premises when I left and everything was in good order. I live alone at the premises and do not have a house cleaner. 3. Later that day at approximately 18:00 I returned to my residence and found both the security door as well as the front door open. It was immediately obvious to me that the doors were forced open as they were damaged and could not be closed properly. 4. I entered my residence and found it in an upturned state. Cupboard doors were open and clothes strewn on the floor. Drawers were opened and the contents thereof emptied on the floor. 5. On closer inspection I found that a number of my possessions were missing: (1) A 73 cm Sony Television set with serial number AB21112008, value – R8000- 00. The box of the television is silver in colour with a distinctive scratch mark of approximately 4 cm long at the back. (2) A black Sharp portable radio/CD player, serial number JT28072003, value – R1500-00. It has a blue Jeep sticker on the CD drive lid. (3) A Seiko Titanium wristwatch, serial number unknown, value – R5000-00. The strap of the watch is made of brown crocodile leather. There is an inscription on the back of the watch “With love – Kimmy”. I will be able to identify the missing items if I should see them again. 6. I am not insured against theft. I have no idea who broke into my residence. I do not know whether anyone witnessed anything. I phoned the police as soon as I discovered the break-in and have not spoken to any neighbour or person since then. Nobody had the right to break into or enter my residence and steal or remove any of my possessions. I request the police to investigate the incident and prosecute the offender(s). I know and understand the contents of this statement. I have no objection to taking the prescribed oath. I consider the prescribed oath to be binding on my conscience. 22  Pretoria 28 July 2015 20:00.............................................................................................................................. (Signature) I certify that the deponent has acknowledged that he knows and understands the content of this statement. The deponent has no objection to taking the prescribed oath and considers the prescribed oath to be binding on his/her conscience. Th is statement was sworn to/affirmed to in my presence at Sophiatown on 28 July 2015 at 14:10...................................................................... GIDEON MPANZA COMMISSIONER OF OATHS 156 Main Road NEWLANDS CAPTAIN; SA POLICE SERVICE Activity 2.1 Are you a commissioner of Oaths? If not, can you take down an affidavit from a witness? What will you do to formalise information obtained from a witness? 2.5 WARNING STATEMENTS Such statements are statements obtained from individuals who are suspected to be in- volved in the committing of a crime. Usually this type of statements falls in the realm of the police, but it is important to know that you as private/corporate investigator can also obtain a similar statement from the suspect. The Constitution distinguishes between arrested, detained and accused persons. You will probably not deal with ar- rested, detained or accused persons as by that time the investigation would already be a police matter. You will, however, be dealing with persons suspected of being involved in a crime, and will be obtaining a statement from them. According to the Judges Rules a police officer (in this case also a private investigator) can question a suspect person to obtain evidence which may indicate that that person is innocent. This is to provide such a person with an opportunity to prove their innocence and prevent them from being arrested. A police officer (in this case also a private investigator) should not question a suspect for the sole purpose of obtaining evidence against them. Although the Constitution specifi- cally refers to the rights of suspects being questioned by the police, private or corporate investigators also have to adhere to certain requirements. Some of these requirements are:  The right to remain silent – there are instances where a suspect has to submit an answer to a private investigator who conducts an investigation on behalf of that suspect’s employer, for example where the private/corporate investigator investigates a theft and wants to know from the security guard on duty whether he was awake at the time of that alleged incident. The security guard cannot refuse to answer that question even if the answer may impact on him/her negatively. If the security guard refuses to answer that question, such a refusal may lead to an instant dismissal. FOR2608/1 23   Be informed that such a statement can be used as evidence against him/her. Remem- ber that you as a private investigator do have the right to question a suspect even after such a suspect has indicated that he/she does not want to make a statement. The South African Police Service has formulated a set of instructions regarding the questioning of arrested persons. Although these are not binding on a private/ corporate investigator, we suggest that they are followed closely to ensure that a case is not lost on technical grounds in court. For example such a suspect must not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, not be unduly pressured into making a statement, be questioned in an acceptable environment (room or other facility suited to that purpose, not in a cold fridge) and not be questioned for a continued period longer than two hours without a ten minute rest break.  Not be tortured or unduly influenced to make a statement – a statement so obtained will be ruled as inadmissible in any legal proceeding arising from the investigation. After a suspect has been warned, any statement made by him/her amounts to a confession, admission or denial. It is suggested that the suspect write down the statement him-/herself or that you as the investigator write or type it out and have the suspect sign it. A video and/or tape recording of the questioning can serve as confirmation of the statement’s contents. This may be especially important where you as the investigator conduct such a questioning on a one-to-one basis, which is usually the case in private investigations.  Warning statements are not statements made under oath, it is a statement obtained from a suspect. A suspect is duly warned before being questioned and a statement taken. That is why such a statement is referred to as a warning statement and not a witness statement. A warning statement can be used as evidence against a suspect; in fact it may be extremely important in legal proceedings later. 2.6 CONFESSIONS Often a warning statement obtained from a suspect contains self-incriminating infor- mation which may prove the guilt of that person. Such a statement must be obtained in a proper and legal manner to ensure its evidential value. It is important to note that a suspect may be dismissed (in a disciplinary hearing) or be convicted in court (in a criminal case) solely on a confession made to an investigator where that confession is confirmed in a material respect or the offence is proved to have been committed. Specific constitutional requirements are set for a confession to be admissible:  A suspect must be informed of her/his rights.  He/she must be informed of his/her right to legal presentation.  A suspect’s rights must not have been violated. A suspect’s rights must be respected and the confession legally obtained. When judg- ing the admissibility of a confession, the requirements set out for it to be admissible must be adhered to strictly. A confession is a statement wherein a suspect provides a statement which covers all the elements of the crime of which he/she is suspected. It is a clear admission of guilt. A confession made to a private person, justice of the peace or magistrate will be admis- sible as evidence if it meets previously discussed legal requirements. Such a confession is not admissible as evidence if made to a peace officer who is not a justice of the peace or magistrate, except where it is converted into writing and confirmed in front of a 24  magistrate or justice of the peace. A commissioned officer (police officer with the rank of Lieutenant or higher) may also take down a confession, except where he/she is the investigating officer in a specific case. You as a private/corporate investigator may take down a confession. 2.7 ADMISSIONS Admission follow the same route as a warning statement and confession. The same legal requirements must be met and they are obtained in the same way (from a private investigator’s perspective). An admission is usually prejudicial to the person who made it. An admission is usually also made by a suspect when he/she admits a fact in a dispute. Such an admission means that the fact is no longer in dispute. For example a suspect may admit that he/she was in possession of a suspected stolen item, but denies that he/ she knew that it was stolen. As a private investigator you will probably only deal with informal admissions, that is where an admission is made to you or someone else outside court. That admission still has to be proved in court if the investigation proceeds that far. An admission does not mean that the suspect is guilty of the crime being investigated; it means that he/she admitted to a specific fact in dispute, but may still proclaim innocence in the matter under investigation. 2.8 POINTING OUT A pointing out also follows the same route as warning statements, confessions and admissions. A pointing out is where a suspect physically points out a place or object to an investigator that is relevant to the investigation he/she is conducting. A pointing out can also be described as an admission through the conduct of a suspect. A pointing out can be admissible while a confession or admission made during that pointing out may be ruled as inadmissible. If something is discovered as a result of a pointing out by a suspect, evidence may be presented about it. It is again important to note that such a pointing out must adhere to certain legal requirements as discussed. This is usually the case where the pointing out forms part of a forced confession. Activity 2.2 Will a confession made to you as a private/corporate investigator be allowed as evidence? 2.9 NOTE TAKING You as an investigator must be able to provide an accurate account of every aspect regarding an investigation you were involved in. For example, you must be able to re- construct a crime scene accurately, provide an accurate account of a target’s movement during a surveillance investigation and remember exactly what a suspect said to you during an interrogation. No person is able to remember everything that is said during a forensic interview. This is especially so when an investigator is called upon later, during the trial to testify about FOR2608/1 25  what an accused either said or did not say. Such notes are referred to as contemporane- ous notes and can be used during the trial to either refresh the investigator’s memory, or rebut a particular defence. There are certain conditions when making use of notes during a trial. One such a condition is that the notes, when used in court, be made available to the defence. In many instances cryptic notes are made on pieces of paper, on the backs of cigarette boxes or other surfaces. Remember that these are vital pieces of evidence and should be seized by the investigator because, during stringent cross-examination, it is bound to emerge that the witness relied on some form of note. If the surface, for instance a wall, a floor surface like sand, on which the note was made, cannot be seized (too large or impractical due to fragility) it should be photographed. (See section 232 of the CPA.) 2.9.1 Methods of taking notes There are a number of ways in which notes can be taken. The most common and often used will be discussed. Voice Recorder Digital voice recorders have replaced tape recorders. A conversation is captured and stored in an electronic format on a hard disk drive and downloaded as an electronic file on a computer. Such a recording can be transcribed and offer an excellent verbatim record of the verbal information captured on it. Such files should not be tampered with and access to it restricted or not allowed at all. Audio-visual This refers to a video recording. It is an effective way to disprove any allegation of impro- priety, assault, harassment or other form of intimidation on the part of the investigator. It can be shown to court and, if properly identified by the person who made it, should have no problem being accepted as evidence. Written notes Notes are usually made in the presence of the interviewee and can be made in a number of different ways. Some individuals may find this intimidating and not feel comfort- able, thus the decision depends on the situation and how well the investigator is able to handle it. Taking notes of everything a person says is almost impossible. A more acceptable and easier way is to make cryptic notes of what the person says. It is important to stress that the actual words used by an interviewee should be written down when something of importance is said. Never put your own interpretation to a word. If you don’t know what a word means, ask the interviewee to explain what they mean and also to spell it for you if necessary. Remember that a good investigator is a good listener and that a good listener is a good investigator. Taking notes and interviewing go hand in hand. An investigator will ask a witness to repeat their story a number of times so that a sequential line of events can be estab- lished. This refers to a chronological record of events that took place, starting at the 26  beginning right up to the end. Use the story the witness has given and divide it into a series of events/incidents. This means that there may be a number of incidents that make up the whole story. These incidents are events that took place either in succession, simultaneously or over a period. In serious cases these events will be crucial to determine the 5WH (WHO; WHAT; WHERE; WHEN; WHY and HOW). WHO – Who are the persons involved in this matter? Are they known? Can they be identified? WHAT – What exactly happened? What can be determined from the events? WHERE – Where was the witness when the events took place? WHY – Why was the witness able to see the events? HOW – How did the events take place? (Van Rooyen 2004:27) The advantage of this method is that each event is established as a separate occurrence and can be explored fully later during the interview. When each individual event is concentrated on later, the witness may remember something which can be added. This saves the investigator from making changes to a statement if this method is not followed. Another advantage of this method is that, where there are several witnesses, each one may be able to elaborate or add something to a particular event which could be of great importance to the case. It must be remembered that no two witnesses will agree perfectly on exactly what happened. An investigator will have to examine each event separately to see where there is agreement and where further investigation needs to be done. It is suggested that the page on which notes are to be made be divided into two by drawing a line from top to bottom about three quarters down the page. The wider section on the left hand is where the interview notes are made. The narrower section on the right hand is where the investigator makes notes for further explanation later on. In this way the witness is not constantly being interrupted and can relate the story in a relaxed way. Once the case has been divided into a chronological series of events, it is relatively sim- ple to draw a schematic presentation of what happened in blocks and then insert the names of the various witnesses that are able to testify to that particular event under each block. No matter how hard you try, you will never succeed in investigating a case in a chronological order, so this method is a practical way of overcoming this problem. You now have the names of all the witnesses and the reference numbers of their statements handy at first glance. This saves you from having to page through the whole file when you look for a particular statement. Bear in mind that this will assist the prosecutor who will be responsible for reading the case to make a decision. No docket is arranged in a chronological order of events. A person who is not acquainted with the way in which a particular docket has been arranged, may want to take it apart and re-arrange it so that it makes sense to him/her. If this has happened to your docket, the schematic presentation will make it very easy to put it back together again, and saves you a great deal of aggravation. FOR2608/1 27  Activity 2.3 Police officers are issued with official pocket books which greatly assist them to record whatever they are observing or listening to. How will you record information? 2.10 INVESTIGATION REPORTS An investigation report serves as a record of a specific investigation that you conducted. Such a report forms the official record of an investigation and in the private sector usu- ally serves as a scorecard/timesheet to determine remuneration for services rendered. Legal action, both criminal and civil, can stem from such a report. Such a report is a structured and objective document that addresses the issues covered in an investigation. There are different types of reports in the private/corporate inves- tigation environment, for example:  A progress report regarding an on-going investigation.  A report regarding an investigation into an alleged irregularity.  A report regarding an investigation into a reported incident.  A report containing findings of an investigation and recommendations as to future action. An investigation report is usually compiled by the investigator who conducted an inves- tigation on a specific matter. The report has to conform to specific requirements such as:  Accuracy – All available and applicable information pertaining to the case being investigated must be contained in the report. There must be a distinction between facts, opinion, perceptions and hearsay evidence. Facts refer to undisputable infor- mation, opinions to information based on personal judgement, perceptions to an awareness or understanding of something, and hearsay to information that cannot be substantiated. The reader must know what factual evidence has been gathered which can be proved and what is suspected or believed but cannot be proved. Remember that certain facts can be proved beyond reasonable doubt and others on a balance of probability. Is that evidence possible, probable or factual? The author of a report must ensure that he/she understands the meaning of words and/or phrases and he/she conveys that meaning to the person(s) for whom the report is intended. The context in which words and/or phrases are used must be consid- ered carefully. It is extremely important to understand the context in investigation reports. Investigators must be careful not to base findings and theories on assumptions. Assumption means the acceptance of information as truthful without proof. Often a chain of theories, deductions and findings can be built on a wrong assumption, especially where such an assumption forms the starting point of an investigation.  Objectivity – An investigator should always be objective and not be influenced by personal opinions or feelings. If he/she becomes emotionally involved or take sides in an investigation, that investigation can be seriously flawed. The idea is not to find evidence to prove a theory, but to investigate a case in totality and provide an unbiased finding and answer the question “what happened?”. 28  The report the investigator compiles should reflect this approach. Such a report should be written in the third person; and personal pronouns such as “I” and “we” avoided. Humour, emotional expressions and subjective descriptions should be avoided.  Completeness – the report writer should ensure that all information relevant to the investigation be contained in the report. The WWWWH principle also applies when compiling an investigation report (see discussion of these principles elsewhere in this module).  Conciseness – the challenge for the report writer is to compile all the acquired information into an easily readable document. In the private sector time is of the essence and even the most intricate and difficult investigation must be reported and explained in a concise manner (give a lot of information clearly in a few words, Oxford: 2390). An investigation report usually has an executive summary. There are no black and white rules when writing a report, as requirements differ between different companies and institutions. What is important though is that the writer documents the investigation in a clear and understandable way to ensure that it is understood correctly by the recipient. 2.10.1 Example – format of an investigation report PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL Ref: JPG 16/09/2014 18 September 2014 The Manager The Loss Adjuster Company P O Box 1402 JOHANNESBURG 2000 Attention: Mr Okker Olivier INVESTIGATION: THE LOSS ADJUSTER COMPANY: THEFT OF COMPUT- ERS: 18 SEPTEMBER 2015 1. Introduction 1.1 JSC was mandated to conduct an investigation into the theft of five notebook com- puters from the offices of …………. 1.2 ……. 2. Investigation background 2.1 L.A.C. received an anonymous call ………………….. 2.2 The security guard at the duty………….. 2.3 …………… 2.4 L.A.C. management interviewed two employees ……… 3. Investigation Conducted 3.1 Mr Okker Olivier, the General Manager, was interviewed and an affidavit ob- tained from him. 3.2 The affidavit is attached to this report as Annexure “A”. 3.3 He is the complainant acting on behalf of the L.A.C. 3.4 He provided the following information: 3.4.1 ….. 3.4.2 …… FOR2608/1 29  4. Findings 4.1 The evidence gathered during the investigation clearly indicates that ………. 4.2 ………….. 5 Comments 5.1 Both Mr X and Y resigned from the company’s employment shortly after being interviewed about the theft. 5.2 ……………… 6. Recommendations 6.1 As a result of the investigation conducted, the following recommendations are submitted: 6.1.1 Stronger security………….. 6.1.2 …… Yours sincerely Jandre Van Rooyen Activity 2.4 Compile a progress report based on the statement provided as an example in this module. 30  Learning unit3 Study unit 3 Crime information LEARNING OBJECTIVES After studying this unit, you should be able to  understand the concepts “information” and “intelligence”  convert information into a usable intelligence product  compile a background or intelligence profile  know how an informer is identified, recruited and managed 3.1 INTRODUCTION Traditionally the role of the police investigator has been to investigate reported crimes. In that sense, the police investigator usually applied reactive techniques to solve reported crimes and apprehend criminals who committed them. Typically the police investigator would receive a complaint, then interview and obtain an affidavit from the complainant, visit the crime scene, collect physical evidence, interview witnesses, obtain their statements and finally, trace and arrest the suspect. Traditionally (as popularly portrayed in films and on television), the private and corporate (“private eye/private detective”) was the person who obtained evidence relating to unfaithful spouses, gathered information on individuals clandestinely and was called in when the police were unable to solve a case. That role has changed drastically over the past few years, to such an extent that private and corporate investigators are now often more effective than their counterparts in the police service – owing to several factors, such as the limited resources and the heavy workload of police investigators. The g