Author (Read 959 times)

sgtskzell · « **on:** February 18, 2011, 01:36:15 PM »

Hello Everyone,

I am currently working through Assessment 6 - 'Conduct Interviews and Take Statements', and I am a little stuck on Assessment Activity 5 'Name some methods of gathering additional information prior to an interview?'

I spent a good hour today re-reading through the material in the Cert 3 resource manual, as well as Chapter 5 Investigating Made Simple, and still can't find any answers to this..

I'm not sure if i am reading and interpreting the question properly, but I just can't get my head around this one, haha.

It's probably best you don't give me the entire answer, but it would be great if you guys could give me a push in the right direction!

Thanks in advance!

eliaschebl · « **Reply #1 on:** February 18, 2011, 01:52:27 PM »

Hi there,

I'm nearly finished with the course so I did this question not long ago.

Put simply just think about what resources you will use prior to conducting the interview. What information you will gather and where you will get it from.

That's how i approached it and got it right

Good luck with the rest of the course

Cheers

Elias

Homer · « **Reply #2 on:** February 18, 2011, 01:54:47 PM »

That's a toughie. I have been doing interviews for 14 years and have no idea what type of extra info would be required. Might depend on what kind of interview ? Usually the client provides all relevant documentation in advance. Obviously, you would have a checklist (written or in the brain) as a game plan. Interested to see what else people come up with. Sometimes I do some Google searches on the interviewee, but don't use that info at interview, as it would seem insulting to raise it that you have researched someone. Edit: Elias posted while I was preparing my reply, so didn't see it before submission.

sgtskzell · « **Reply #3 on:** February 19, 2011, 06:24:54 PM »

Thank you Elias and Homer for your replies, with your help I managed to answer the question.

Hopefully what I said was satisfactory. Suppose I will get an answer in a few days when Adrian responds to my assessment.

I am simply amazed at how friendly and willing to help everyone is on this forum, quite different to many others I have been on.

I truly appreciate everyone that posts around here!

Have a good weekend everyone!

Dizz · « **Reply #4 on:** March 24, 2011, 10:01:21 AM »

Hi Sgtskzell, I'm only new to this as well but if i could share my thoughts! I can assume if its an interview than its with for lack of a better word a 'suspect' as opposed to a witness or victim.

So "Gathering additional information prior to the interview"

The whole reason for interviewing is to negate any defenses and exculpations and prove the elements of the offence to the required standard,

So before the interview, i would be sitting down with all the evidence that you have,(statements, video, CCTV etc) and thinking how is the baddy going to talk his way out of this! (what defenses is he going to bring up!) and what extra information do i need to prove what i'm trying to prove (the whole reason for the interview in the first place)

Its only when you have this information can you go about gathering additional evidence to support your case and at the same time negate his defenses.

I don't know if this actually answered the Q but i hope it helped in some way.

Very hard question to answer. not sure what they really want!

I m sure you have already put in your answer, but better late than never hey.

Dizz.

Homer · « **Reply #5 on:** March 24, 2011, 10:54:42 AM »

Dizz, I can hear Big George coming to suggest that you are not supposed to get info to prove whatever you are trying to prove. Best to have a more open mindset and let the story unfold without being an interrogation.

BigGeorge · « **Reply #6 on:** March 24, 2011, 11:34:30 AM »

Homer

good on'ya mate, you are so right!

What Dizz is talking about is a little unrealistic as it "may" apply to criminal investigation done by police, but even then, the copper would want to keep his ambitions to himself really as some smart defence lawyer will make mince meat out of him in court.

This concept of "baddy" as you say Dizz, is not appropriate in these enlightened times, even in police practice.

Perhaps most important in the context of sgtskzell's post is that most private investigators never do criminal investigations. Primarily and indeed almost exclusively, they deal in civil matters on behalf of clients and they interview witnesses (the term includes plaintiffs, claimants, insureds, applicants etc).

BigGeorge

Dizz · « **Reply #7 on:** March 24, 2011, 12:40:56 PM »

Sorry posted twice now won't let me delete.

Dizz · « **Reply #8 on:** March 24, 2011, 12:40:56 PM »

Thank you Homer and BG (i hope you don't mind if i call you BG?) Remember i am only a student so be gentle! It seems i have been watching too much law and order!

Isn't the concepts of conducting criminal and civil investigations basically the same? i mean apart from the judicial system and the standards of proof, etc. Aren't we as private investigators there to investigate the claim, negate defenses, and provide evidence of a tied or negatived nature.

Can i please clarify something, if i was conducting an interview with an insured person, for example a single vehicle traffic crash that his insurance company believes is a possible fraudulent claim, and during the insured persons original phone conversation with his insurance company. The driver claims to have swerved to miss a young child and collided with a tree, as a result damaging the front of his vehicle and the tree. Wouldn't it be my responsibility to investigate with neighborers and photograph the tree for damage Etc to negate his defense!

So to get back to the original question "Name some methods of gathering additional information prior to an interview?'
Wouldn't some methods be, interviewing neighbors at the alleged crash site, obtaining video or photographic evidence to confirm or deny that a accident occurred at that time and place, do some face book stalking to see what the driver was up to that night ETC.

I was of the belief that we wanted to catch them out (lying) because then their credibility is shot and insurance may not pay out, win for us!

Or am i totally on the wrong track?

As to calling people Baddys, isn't this is a informal forum of information sharing, and some people are just bad! I read in the paper the other day about a guy who broke in to a 80yr olds place and repeatedly raped and bashed her! now he's a Baddy wouldn't you say?

Thanks, goes to show how much i have to learn, always helpful and interesting.

Dizz.

BigGeorge · « **Reply #9 on:** March 24, 2011, 01:00:56 PM »

Dizz

I don't mean to admonish you, sorry. You are perfectly entitled to state your view, any view on any subject. For sure. Your mistake, for want of a better word, is to have the wrong mindset about investigating.

With criminal or civil (or, torts) investigations it is all about the same thing: revealing the facts.

Yes, you can call them "baddy" and I call them worse sometimes, but only in my mind, because as an investigator I am (or rather, was) conscious of the importance as being impartial and acting with balance, without prejudice, knowing that if I am recognised as being a mongrel, it will taint the evidence I am gathering. This would not be in my client's best interest.

An insurance company does not ask you to investigate "a fraud", but asks you to "investigate". If your investigation reveals criminal evidence, then you pursue it in a balanced and impartial way.

An insurance company's objective is NOT proving that a claim is false, but revealing all the legal evidence so it can be determined whether the claim is or is not false, or more typically, whether the insurer is liable or not (mostly you investigate liability, not fraud).

The insurer is better served by knowing all of the facts, for or against the claimant, than have an outcome where the investigator chased hard for anything that will drive a nail in the claimant's coffin. Having been in court many, many times, I've learnt that outcomes where the investigator was pushing hard for a "win" more often fell over, than investigations where the investigator remembered that he is a gatherer of facts. Nothing else.

You do not have a sword; you do not need a sword. All you need to do is walk along and gather. With good people skills, people will want to cooperate with you. I found this the case with nice and normal people and with those that seemed to be bad.

Excuse my poetic licence.

BG (call me anything!)

Dizz · « **Reply #10 on:** March 24, 2011, 10:34:13 PM »

Thank you BG, for taking your time with me. certainly a different field than what i m used to. I might put you on a retainer some day.

I agree about the court thing, magistrates can be funny some times and it is our responsibility to bring balanced and fair evidence before them, which they appreciate. Which leads me to the point of "putting nails in coffins"

Is it a practice in this industry to do pre-trial settlements, between the two parties, the claimant and the insurer (if my lingo is correct). Wouldn't the strongest possible case (lots of nails in the coffin) likely have the best out come for the insurer, and hopefully avert a trial- based on overwhelming evidence.

secondly I'm getting paid by the insurer, are they really expecting me to be impartial? I mean i have seen some surveillance reports for a work cover injury, and it was terribly objective. It would be easy to leave the not so useful footage out!

Thanks BG, get some rest it's been a big day.

Dizz.

Homer · « **Reply #11 on:** March 25, 2011, 08:01:10 AM »

Dizz - BG missed some of your query - in you car crash example, you wouldn't necessarily attend the scene, take photos and speak to neighbours first then put whatever evidence you have to the person. Getting some general photos and showing the person and getting them to identify on the photos the relevant areas might be useful, though. Typically, it might be best to get their account first, then go to the scene, take specific photos, look for the things they mentioned and speak to neighbours etc to check the story.