| Main Menu | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Search |
|---|
| Popular |
|---|
| News Feeds |
|---|
 
|
| Template Chooser |
|---|
|
| Witness Interviewing |
|
|
|
| Written by Jim Flowers | |
| Wednesday, 30 November 2005 | |
|
The key element in investigating reported activity is the witness interview. Time and geographical proximity are very important considerations for the independent researcher who doesn’t have the resources to physically chase every report received. There is much that can be learned by using proper interviewing techniques. By doing so, we can eliminate as much erroneous information as possible. As it stands right now, there is no standard for witness interviews, and possibly there never will be. Different people will have different ideas for how interviews should be conducted. This article is not to be taken as the definitive word on the subject, but hopefully it will serve as a guide and be useful to someone. There are several points to remember when preparing to interview a potential witness to an alleged encounter. It applies to both phone and in-person interviews.
Before the InterviewEnter every investigation as though the incident did not happen. Going into an investigation in this manner means the witness has to convince you, through their answers to your questions, that they saw something. If they refuse to give out their name or phone number for further contact and verification, the report should be considered invalid. Email exchanges are not a viable solution. The witness has too much time to reply and can verify the answers using the same tools you have access to. The core element of the submission is the narrative. If they’ve submitted the report via a web database, you have the bulk of their encounter already - the year, approximate date, location details, name, phone, email, IP address and most importantly what occurred (the narrative portion). A good portion of this can be verified before the first contact with the witness is ever made. Any details that can be checked out beforehand should be. There are many web tools readily available for this, many of which are free services. A few are pay-only, but the cost/gain factors of these will be up to each individual investigator as to their worth. Several of these resources will be listed at the end of this article. All details that cannot be verified prior to the interview should be called into question. Do not focus only on the major points of any given narrative. Many of the smaller, overlooked details in the description of events are the difference between fact and fiction. Bad typing or writing skills do not disqualify a report. Not everyone has a major in English or can describe events clearly. It is the investigator’s job to clarify the events to the best of their ability during the interview process. Most encounters take place over a matter of seconds and the witness may state details that they could not have known. There are several reasons for this that also do not disqualify a submission. Some people are simply bad witnesses and their minds cannot track events in the order that they occurred. They may also add details based upon their own preconceived notions about what they think would be accepted “research". There are several other reasons, but they are more easily dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Gut feelings, while not useful scientifically, can be very useful when interviewing a witness to this phenomena. This also applies to the preliminary investigation of the submitted report, during and after the interview. Most gut feelings are based on experience. Use that to your benefit. If you have doubts about a report there is usually a reason for it, even if at the time you have no method of voicing those concerns. Often times this is when you need to ask for help or to recheck the data you’ve gathered so far yourself. Before contact is ever made, you should have a list of questions ready. These questions can be listed on paper or in your computer for easy access during the interview itself. No investigation should start without at least 50 questions. Both the computer method and the paper method allow you to enter notes for further reference regarding each question you have and also to record the responses of the witness. One of the biggest mistakes novice investigators make is to ask questions that lead the witness to answers. Let the witness tell his or her story in their own words, even if it does not sound right to you. If you ask leading questions, before you know it the witness is telling you what they think you want to hear rather than what they actually saw. Listed below are a few suggested questions and items to cover.. Several will be repeated during the interview process or inserted at the appropriate time depending on the witness’s retelling of the incident:
Ask for help, if and when needed. Sometimes a second set of eyes on a report submission is very helpful. The other person may see something you miss, or have a question about an event you may not have noticed. With some reports, having several sets of eyes to help verify and double-check some of your preliminary measures can only help to further your own skills as an investigator/interviewer. The In-Person InterviewIf possible an in-person interview should always be the first choice. It allows the investigator to take note of voice inflections, body language, eye contact and other mannerisms. Use matter of fact questions as a gauge to the person’s comfort level when questioned. Asking simple questions about current events, work, or the weather can help you in this. Keep in mind, this is not a police investigation and the person has committed no crime. Your own voice should be as even in tone as possible, even if you do not believe the witness. If the person at any point becomes defensive over the questions asked, even the simplest of ones, you should end the interview and consider the report invalid. Always start with having the person restating their report and compare it to what they submitted and what you have been able to verify. Have the witness retell the event with no prompts from the investigator. If they pause during the retelling use it as an opportunity to ask questions on what they’ve already said before having them continue. Make sure the story matches the events as told in the initial report. Make note of any discrepancies for later questioning. Listen for pauses, stuttering, and any background noises. Not true indicators of an untruth, but most encounters should flow freely from the witness, no ‘reaching’ for answers. Most encounters with anything out of the ordinary stand out in a person’s mind. Leave open spaces in your notes for questions that may come up during the interview to ask during or after the main narrative by the witness. When possible have the witness accompany you to the location stated in the report. This serves several purposes, the foremost, being able to see if the area in question matches the witness description as submitted. It also allows you to see for yourself the immediate and surrounding area of the submission and determine egress and access areas, as well as other variables that may come up regarding the location. You can check height estimates as reported against landmarks in the area. If the report is recent, look for prints, hair or other corroborating evidence. If the witness is unwilling or unable to go with you to the location make an effort to go yourself, always within the legal limits, for the same reasons as stated above. Videotape or voice record the interview if the witness will allow it. This helps to maintain your accuracy when publishing or posting your report. It also allows you to readily review the questions and answers as they are asked. This also provides an easy way to store your reports and interviews for yourself or others for review at a later date. If there are multiple witnesses find out if they are willing to be interviewed as well. Multiple witnesses should be interviewed separately and together with the original submitter to check for corroboration and any inconsistencies of the events as described. Keep in mind not every witness to the same event views it in the same way. Again be sure you do not ask leading questions during the interview, do not supply an answer if the witnesses is struggling with a question or has contradicted themselves. In the event of a contradiction make the appropriate notation and ask for further clarification then move on. Inquire if further follow-up is possible with the witness, if warranted, in the future. When the interview is over, thank the witness for their time whether you believed they were truthful or not. The Phone InterviewPhone interviews are more difficult than the in-person interview because you cannot see the person’s reaction to your questions firsthand. Your questions should be the same as in the personal interview. Again, start with having the witness reiterate their report. Always ask the witness if they are willing to meet you in person for an interview before proceeding. If the witness agrees to meet with you, schedule a time to meet and end the phone call. You can still listen for voice inflections and pauses when the witness is speaking. Most of your time should be spent listening to the witness rather than talking. Make notes of pauses and inconsistencies. As with grammatical issues in the written report, some people are simply not adept at speaking to another person. They may also feel a sense of nervousness or apprehension. Use the same general tone of conversation and "small talk" as you would in the in-person interview. If possible, and allowed by the witness, record the conversation for the same reasons as listed above. If you can get an exact location, go there and see the area for yourself. A great many details about the report can be checked in this manner. In GeneralYou should always remain skeptical to some extent regarding all reports, as you yourself did not witness the event. This is also true even after the investigation is complete. Always thank the witness for their time whether you believed them or not. In the event that further evidence comes to light during the interview, there are several other researchers and institutions that may be willing to examine it for you. Based on their own experience and abilities, some researchers even have contact with professionals in various fields that they can contact for assistance. "Tree bows" and "Tee-pee" formations are not considered viable evidence. Breaks and bends are not either. Record them and photograph them as interesting for inclusion if you choose, but realize that they do not qualify as proof of anything. There are too many extraneous sources such as wind, human intervention and other factors that fall into the realm of possible explanations. There is no requirement to ever publish a report. Any time you do not feel a report qualifies as bigfoot-related, or may be false, you can hold onto it for yourself and leave it at that. Quality over quantity should be the rule of thumb. If there are ever questions about a report you have investigated, you should answer them to the best of your ability. If you do not know an answer to a question simply state, "I do not know". There is never anything wrong with not knowing an answer. You are not the witness. If there is a question that you feel should be addressed, you can contact the witness if possible for clarification. If we, as investigators and enthusiasts, are to find real answers to the mysteries involved in the bigfoot phenomenon, we need to practice good investigative techniques to be able to determine what is and isn’t viable evidence. While this article may not contain all the answers, we at SRI hope that this will help us all to be better investigators. Web ResourcesMap ServicesSoundsTrack IdentificationsWeather and Celestial Information
Phone and Internet Tracking |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Report a Sighting