recorded interviews or typed statements?

[jackie]

Hi Everyone,

I'm interested to know how many factual investigators out there are using digital tape recorders to record their interviews, and then using a program to print them out, or are the majority still doing typed statements on the spot?

I'm not talking about ROI's, but statements.

I know it is ideal to use a digital voice recorder when interviewing police, as they don't sign the statement anyway, but what about other clients?

Have you found your employers/ clients are happy for you to use voice recorders, or are they still insisting on typed statements on the spot?

I guess it's a matter of cost and convenience. It's more convenient to get a claimant/ witness to sign the statement there and then. Probably cheaper too as you don't need to go back and get it signed, or fork out the money for the transcriber (if you don't have a program.)

However I know my interviews would be a lot shorter with the aid of a voice recorder (saving time and money there too.)

But then how can the claimant/ witness read their statement and give you the go ahead?

Is anyone noticing a trend moving towards the more frequent use of digital voice recorders? I know I would like to use them more often, but most of my employers clients aren't up for it.

What programs are factual investigators using and what is the turn around time on printing the statemnets out?

Any thoughts?

Jackie.

[Homer]

Hi Jackie. I do factuals. For past 11 years have done interview then gone home to type up statement and send through by email or post. Never done a statement on the spot and never recorded an interview. Can't see the point. I just make notes as I chat and rely on them. Out of hundreds of statements I reckon about 1% end up having slight amendments of a minor nature.

Barristers I have spoken to prefer my style as it allows witness time to consider the statement at their leisure without pressure of having investigator seeking a signature on the spot. Most people are keen to get you out of their place without sitting there for hours typing away etc. Saves on carrying around printers, laptops etc. I just get them to return statement in mail or by fax - never once had a query about it from any insurance company or lawyer. I don't get the signature witnessed either. Also, more pleasant typing up statement at office/home.

Many witnesses have compared my way to other investigators, saying what a pain it is having sonmeone sitting there looking at the laptop instead of maintaining eye contact and without the pressure of the daunting tape recorder. I know alot of the big agencies don't work my way - so be it.  

Also, nothing worse than driving home with a signed statement then you remember something - too late to fix up.

Some conditions are also totally unsuited for getting statement on the spot.  Hope this helps.

[DRM]

I agree with Homer, unfortunately I have to type up probably a good 40% of the statements I do on the spot. This is dictated by the client and creates extra complications with ensuring you have enough printer ink, carrying all the equipment, setting up  etc, etc. Not to mention the loss of "eye contact" although this is definitely lessened by your technique and by not typing the required interview until after you have run through your requirements and gained all the information, and asked extra questions, before you begin to formally record the statement on the laptop.
I use a digital recorder for almost everything else and it is a must have item, in my opinion anyway. It is so much more user friendly than the older cassette tape recorder, which I am also required to use occasionally.
I am a fairly adept typist but it is a very painful experience for all involved if those who cannot type quickly and precisely are floundering away at the laptop.  
Time wise, my interviews using the digital recorder only are easily 50% shorter.