White paper
In an investigation interview, a leading question, an overly broad paraphrase or evidence introduced too early can turn an account into apparent confirmation. The challenge is to distinguish what the interviewee observed, learnt, inferred or discovered during the interview, so that the case record does not give their words a meaning or scope they did not have.
Paper podcasts
Free access. No registration.
The interview plan should start from what each interviewee may know directly or indirectly, rather than from a conclusion to be confirmed. It should distinguish the investigation’s questions from the facts, words, documents and sequences of events the person can actually describe.
Keep the initial account, the evidence presented and any subsequent clarifications separate. This chronology helps prevent language or recollections that emerge after exposure to shared information from being treated as spontaneous corroboration.
The interview record should preserve the origin of information, corrections, qualifications and unresolved disagreements. It should distinguish quotations, paraphrases, interpretations and limited acknowledgements so that a partial statement is not turned into general agreement.
This white paper examines the preparation, framing, questioning, presentation of evidence, handling of discrepancies and reporting of a sensitive interview. It explains how to distinguish direct observation, reported information, interpretation and details provided after consulting a document. It also addresses emotions, changes in an account, language issues, corrections, signatures and the limits of confidentiality. Finally, it considers how to assess the interview’s actual contribution and use digital assistance without delegating analysis of the case.
Internal investigators, compliance and anti-corruption professionals, in-house legal teams, lawyers conducting investigations, human resources professionals, ethics and whistleblowing programme leads, and professionals responsible for examining reports or disciplinary matters.
