INTERVIEWING
Shane G. Sturman, CFI, CPP
Roman Samborskyi / Shutterstock.com
David Thompson, CFI
Thompson is the president and partner of Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates, providing investigative interview and interrogation training to a global audience. He has served as a subject-matter expert in developing curriculum and providing consultation to investigators, attorneys, and the academic community. He can be reached at dthompson@w-z.com. Sturman is the CEO and senior partner of Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates and has led this international training organization for over a decade. Sturman has provided training for WZ for a variety of clients over the last twenty years. He is also a member of ASIS International’s Retail Loss Prevention Council. He can be reached at 800-222-7789 or at ssturman@w-z.com. © 2021 Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates, Inc.
I Did It, But… I
As in any interview, strategy and preparation are paramount in ensuring for a productive conversation without any presumptions being made. Although any investigation may have its potential for excuses, there are few types of cases that seem to consistently encounter the same issues.
n a recent LPM column, we discussed the importance of understanding what success looks like in an investigative interview. Although obtaining a confession from a guilty subject may be one of the possible successful conclusions of an interview, it goes far beyond hearing somebody say, “I did it.” Discussing the elements of the act, substantiating details of the confession, and showing intent are all part of a reliable confession. As in any interview, strategy and preparation are paramount in ensuring for a productive conversation without any presumptions being made. Although any investigation may have its potential for excuses, there are few types of cases that seem to consistently encounter the same issues. Policy violations and employee relations issues are among the most common sources of these explanations from the subject. Each of these conversations must be strategized to allow the interviewer to logically flow through the conversation without creating resistance from the subject. In a dialogue format, the interviewer will create a structured approach allowing the subject to freely share
November–December 2021
information. First, starting with the initiation of rapport, the interviewer should introduce their general role at the organization. After this, a series of structured questions, falling into a logical flow of topics should direct the subject to the primary issue. These topics and the sequence of questioning will differentiate with each case as it relates to the subject’s level of knowledge, their potential explanations, and the available evidence.
“I wasn’t trained.” One of the most common obstacles when identifying intent in a loss prevention interview is determining whether the employee intentionally defrauded the
discount away to friends who are not entitled to such a benefit, but it is yet to be determined whether this was done with intent to defraud. One of the difficulties with this interview is the subject may acknowledge to the use of their discount, but simultaneously may claim that they were unaware this was inappropriate behavior. At this point, the interviewer is now in a difficult position of either believing the subject (who has an incentive to lie) or having to prove to the subject that they were in fact aware of their actions. Logically, we would think to just ask the subject if they are aware of the discount policy before making any accusations. The problem
One of the most common obstacles when identifying intent in a loss prevention interview is determining whether the employee intentionally defrauded the company or, rather, they weren’t trained appropriately. company or, rather, they weren’t trained appropriately. The most common violation may be related to the abuse of an employee discount or a loyalty rewards program. Evidence may suggest that the employee is giving their
| 22 |
LossPreventionMedia.com
with this approach is that the guilty party, aware of their wrongdoing, has an incentive to lie to the interviewer if confronted with this question at the beginning of the conversation. Instead, using a concept such as
