|
|
  |
You’re Asking for It: A Guide to Interviewing Witnesses to
Paranormal Events “It seems difficult to place any limit on the untrustworthiness of human testimony, especially in cases where the emotions are involved, or where there is occasion for edification.” – A quote from Frank Podmore in his book Telepathic Hallucinations.
Many of us have never performed an interview before. Sure, we may have been to interviews for a job or something like that, but generally speaking, we have not been sitting on the other side of the table asking the questions. What many people who attempt to perform an interview fail to realize is that how the questions are asked is almost as important as what is being asked and the order that they are being asked in.
For some time now the field of parapsychology has suffered from a severe lack of respect. This lack of respect that I had mentioned in the last sentence has translated from the scientific community to the general public. Already mistrustful of our legitimacy, many people are suspicious, if not in outright denial of any possibility that anything could possibly exist beyond their five senses. The three major factors that contribute to this perception is (1) the overall failure of conventional science to bring forth any evidence on the subject of paranormal anomalies, (2) over-hyped television “reality” crocumentaries and (3) uninformed skeptics who usually have a chronic or pathological disbelief in the paranormal who tend to deride a field of science which they know little or nothing about.
For the serious parapsychologist there is a method to our madness and, in order to combat the skeptical nature of certain individuals about our practices of interview and investigation, I did what I normally do when I am treading in unfamiliar territory – I asked those who know the investigative interview process better than any one: Law Enforcement. In 2005, when I began this project, I sent e-mails to numerous federal and local law enforcement departments around the U.S. Of the e-mails that were sent out replies were received from the FBI, the U.S. Department of Justice and 7 major metropolitan law enforcement agencies. I gathered the information; crosschecked it and then assimilated it here.
First Impressions Are the Ones That Last
To understand the witness interview
process we should begin, well, at the beginning. Because first
impressions are the ones that are the strongest in the minds of most
people it is the topic that we should address first. Although it may
sound rather strange and unrelated to parapsychology, hygiene and
dress play an important role in our work as parapsychologists. The
proverbial first impression is of great importance, especially when
performing an interview. This is not to say that formal dress must
to be worn during an investigation, however wearing clean, neat
clothes which are suited for the occasion should be considered a
priority. This discretionary judgment call on your preferred attire
at the witness interview can be the make-or-break point of that
first impression. Etiquette for the Interview
I have found that discussing anything paranormal, in some circles during our modern era, is still very much taboo. It seems that once an individual has found the courage to speak about what they have witnessed – braving potential social labels such as “crazy” or “strange” - we find that they are already in an unfamiliar or awkward situation. In order to prevent ourselves from adding to the cascade of emotions that a person may feel when they believe that a disembodied spirit that has taken up residence in their home we must be well educated on the subject of paranormal investigation and act in a professional, scientific and socially proper manner. As both investigators and interviewers etiquette will play a major role in these matters.
When an individual confides in you and explains that they believe that they have experienced a paranormal event they are subconsciously saying “I have a degree of trust in you; that you will listen to what I say and keep the information private.” Additionally, to always be respectful and listen to others is a strong hallmark of a good investigator. It is imperative that we build confidence in the people that we are working with because of the nature of the work that we do. Most persons, as brought out earlier, are hesitant to speak about paranormal events in the first place out of fear that they will be thought of as crazy or that others will laugh at them, not to mention the perceived possibility of others gossiping about what they think, believe, or have experienced. As you can well imagine, confidence, in some cases, is hard to build.
Many times the subject matter which we are working with is met with apprehension and, on occasion, outright disdain. Due to this unfortunate fact there may be times when it is difficult to extract information from a witness. The witness may be willing to talk about certain subjects that they have experienced, but not others. This is where we find that communication and interpersonal skills in this area are critical for our success in interviewing. Three small but incredibly important factors can make or break an interview as far as listening and communication go.
Witness Information: An Intangible Resource
Information is defined as “an informing or being informed, something told or facts learned; news or knowledge.” During interviews it is information which we attempt to attain from individuals about an investigation site, themselves, their experiences or what they may have witnessed. Essentially we are seeking their point of view, knowledge and understanding of a certain situation, event, or succession of events. Information however is, only as reputable as the source that it is obtained from. Because of this, finding accurate information is sometimes an arduous and occasionally frustrating process of hitting walls, having to back up and look for a new path. This is where our skill as an interviewer comes in. As investigators we know that understanding the point of view of a witness is of key importance. Because the human point of view is an opinion, it is subjective. This means that although several individuals may witness the same event they will have a slightly different take on it. We must remember that these events happened to that person and that they are relating the events from their point of view.
In order to get the most accurate information possible we should interview a potential witness as soon as possible after the event has occurred, while it is still fresh in their mind. The longer we wait to interview a witness the greater the potential for embellishments, accidental or otherwise, to be added in. Although embellishments may be added to a story, in most cases it is not intentional, but as time goes on embellishing a story is a natural human behavior and, as investigators know all too well, it is a fact of life. The greater the time gaps in between an incident and the relay of information or transcription of the incident the more detail that can be added to it by the mind.
Are You Ready for Your Interview?
Investigators frequently increase their interview success rates by eliminating or minimizing identifiable causes of communication breakdown within the interview process. A couple of tips to help minimize this breakdown are: to prepare for the interview, build a relationship with the witness, and allow enough time for the interview. These three items mentioned here are the three key components which are critical to setting up a successful interview.
Preparation was listed in the previous paragraph as the first tip to minimize the breakdown of the communication process. Although most people are willing to give the information you seek it is good practice to prepare a few questions just incase you need to know something that they may not have included in the dialogue. Additionally, to facilitate a relaxed interview atmosphere the environment where the interview is going to take place should be private, free from distractions and comfortable for both the investigator and the witness. A private environment which is free from distraction also offers the investigator the opportunity to observe both the verbal and non-verbal responses of the witness to the questions. In an environment such as this the investigator will know that the reactions of the witness are purely of their own origin and not spurred on by any external stimulus. The opportunity to perform an interview properly is usually a one time event and the investigator should not risk compromising the integrity of the interview in an unacceptable environment.
Building a relationship with the witness involves more than getting to know his or her name, where they live and what they have experienced. “Small talk” is important, find some common ground and talk about a subject of mutual interest. Look for clues such as logos on hats or shirts and other environmental suggestions that will give you clues as to what the witness likes. Because you have made an effort to get to know the witness and taken an interest in them personally this will help them to open up to you when you do get into the interview.
Not allowing enough time for an interview is also a mistake that many investigators have made. Too often an investigator will get into a rush and skim through an interview missing many important points that the witness is relaying to them. It is imperative to the success of the interview that we take our time and work slowly and efficiently during the interview process. Most important of all, we want to pay attention - especially to some of the fine points. If we skip through an interview we usually tend to miss some points that seem unrelated on the surface, however if we dig just a bit deeper we see that there is more to the information than just topical fluff. Conversely, we don’t want to turn an interview into an interrogation by taking several hours to complete a few simple questions.
The 12 Keys to Success in Performing Interviews
There are a few simple techniques that you can build into your interview process that will successfully yield better, more accurate results. These twelve “keys” to successful interviewing which we will be discussed in the next few paragraphs are:
Develop a Plan of Action. The investigator should review any information previously obtained from other sources or from the witness prior to the interview. Any corroborations or aberrations in the story should be cross referenced once the interview is complete. Prepare questions in a general way so as not to influence the person’s thinking or to create close-ended questions. During the planning stage we want to have a balance between structured questions and our skills to ad lib questions about the answers or comments given by the person we are interviewing.
Conduct the Interview Privately. At times trying to conduct an interview in private can be difficult. The main reason for this is that you want to have the ability to minimize distractions so that the interviewee will not lose their thoughts on the matter in which they are being interviewed for. If distracted, the person being interviewed may lose their thought on a subject and thusly we may lose a great deal of information that we are attempting to obtain. Also, for reasons of credibility as well as safety there should be two investigators present when conducting a private interview.
Put the Witness at Ease. Most people don’t like to be interviewed so emotions and stress can play a role when you are interviewing someone. Because of the subject matter that we deal with most people are apprehensive to talk to us. Since we know that we may have to deal with stress, emotions and apprehension it is usually a good idea to start the interview off with some casual conversation so that they don’t get the idea that we are there to “grill” them. By taking the first opportunity to diffuse any apprehension, negative feelings, etc. we are building trust with the witness and allowing them to be more relaxed and ready to talk.
Let the Person Being Interviewed Do the Talking. One of the biggest mistakes that an interviewer can make is talking too much. The gathering of information about a potential investigation site depends on us letting the interviewee do the talking. Remember, it is their point of view and experiences that we are seeking. We do not want to put words in their mouth or cut them off form expressing themselves or how they feel about a place or event because we are too busy talking and not properly performing the interview. We are supposed to control the interview, not dominate it.
Perfect Questioning Techniques. What we ask is as important as how we ask it. Knowing how to ask the right questions at the right time is a critical part of interviewing procedure. We should also strive to make the question easy to understand so that the person we are interviewing can make a direct, but not close-ended answer. This is also a key point here because we want the person being interviewed to be able to concentrate on the questions rather than trying to decipher what they mean.
Select your Questions Carefully. If you must use close-ended questions (which require a yes / no answer) do so sparingly as they do not allow the person you are interviewing to express their view of events that have transpired. Open ended questions allow the witness to talk about their experiences and elaborate on them. The interviewer should allow the person that they are interviewing to express their views in their own words. This gives the interviewer to better assess the reliability of the information that is being relayed to them. It is best for the investigator to refrain from asking hypothetical questions or creating “what if” type scenarios as this can distort the memory of the witness. Questions that are hypothetical or of the “what if’ type tend to gauge the witness’s ability to guess at the answer they think the investigator wants to hear. As investigators we also want to avoid “leading” the witness or asking “loaded” questions.
Be a good listener. A good listener is a good interviewer. If you are a good listener you will take away much more than if you were to passively listen to the answers that your witness is giving. As an investigator you must get yourself into the habit of focusing on what is being said as well as how it is being said. You should not look ahead to the next question or two nor should you begin to analyze an answer before the witness is finished speaking. Also, don’t put yourself in the position to try to anticipate what the witnesses answer will be. Predetermined expectation can create psychological confusion while listening, asking questions and taking notes. To expound on the subject a bit more it can be said that there are three levels of listening. The first is pretending to listen, the second is to listen enough to respond, and the third is listening to understand. As both interviewers and investigators we want to cultivate good listening skills so that even if we are dealing with a subject that has little or no interest for us we can still have the ability to listen to understand.
Don’t Challenge the Answers That the Witness Gives. As an interviewer and an investigator you must keep your emotions under control no matter how outlandish or preposterous an answer may be when it’s given. Even if an answer is totally improbable take notes and carry on, do not attempt to refute what the witness is saying. There will be time to document any discrepancies, issues, or other problems later when the all of the information has been compiled and is being cross-referenced. Good judgment and discretion will allow you to cut the fiction from the truth as you are working on the data and information collected in your post interview phase.
Stay in Control. When you are interviewing a witness you must stay in control as some people will try to dodge or digress from various subjects that they are not comfortable with. Preparation is a strong ally when attempting to maintain control of an interview. Be sure that the interview does not stray off course into an unrelated tangent.
Take Brief Notes. If possible you can record the interview, but it is also good to take notes about what was said so that you have a tangible reminder as to what was said during the interview. You can write some questions down before the interview begins and record the response of the witness in brief sentences as they answer but be aware that excessive note taking can cause the witness to slow down their responses.
Conclude the Interview Properly. By simply closing your notebook or standing up you are signaling to the witness that the interview has been completed. At times this type of gesture is necessary as some witnesses tend to be extraneously long winded relating details that have little or no relevance to the interview, the events, or to what you are investigating in general. Thank the witness for their time and information. Formally conclude the interview with a handshake. Write a Summary Immediately Following the Interview. This helps you recall the events while they are still fresh in your mind. There are four tenants of writing a summary that can be followed. These are:
From Their Point of View: The Human Experience
The human experience, as a factor, weighs in heavily when performing an interview. Although we have focused on the scientific side of the interview process by covering subjects such as verifying claims, analyzing data, and understanding psychology we must not forget the whole of the purpose that we seek: to understand the experience of the people who witness these phenomenon. The human experience of a paranormal event is one of the most important factors that is available to us because it gives the investigator a first hand account of the events that have taken place. Recalling an earlier portion of the text I said that if several people witnessed the same event at the same time in the same place and were to relate the details of the event back to you that you would receive different stories from each of the individual witnesses. As we have noted, this difference in point of view stems from the difference of perceptive views. Surely, there would be some key details that remained constant, but the perception and interpretation of the events would vary simply because everyone sees things a little differently. Because of this, small variations in the recounting of events are acceptable.
.
|