Getting the Story: Informational and Admission-Seeking Interviews

November 2007

IN THIS ISSUE

— Small Talk, Big Results: Differing Interview Approaches
— Reaping the Whirlwind: How to Handle Hostile Subjects
— In the next issue

GREETINGS!

Welcome to the November 2007 edition of our newsletter. In this issue, we’ll discuss in greater detail the techniques used to either elicit information or, in cases where wrongdoing is suspected, gain an admission of culpability from an interviewee.

SMALL TALK, BIG RESULTS: DIFFERING INTERVIEW APPROACHES

While gathering information from public sources is an important tool in any investigative effort, most often witnesses hold key information to what really happened that will affect your client’s investment, or point you toward the perpetrators of a fraud that could cost your company millions. In the past, we’ve discussed the importance of a good interview. Now we’ll discuss the differing approaches to interviewing.

There are a variety of approaches, but there are two fundamental items an interviewer seeks, either information or an admission. Although it can be useful in rare instances to seek information through a more aggressive stance — think of serial police dramas like “Law & Order” — most often informational interviews are conducted in a professional but less intense manner. Typically in admission seeking interviews, after evidence has been gathered and fact patterns have been established, a more aggressive approach may be warranted, but this is hardly ever a necessity.

REAPING THE WHIRLWIND: HOW TO HANDLE HOSTILE SUBJECTS

Many types of subjects, such as disgruntled former employees, may happily “spill the beans” on former colleagues or supervisors, especially if they left under duress and their former colleagues are suspected of some wrongdoing. Given the politics of these situations, it is essential to delicately press for more impartial evidence, such as correspondence and other records, to help refute or confirm a witness account that may be colored by their own agenda.

Some witnesses, of course, look to hide their own involvement, whether real or imagined, in the subject being investigated. While some simply will not talk, particularly if they have no obligation to do so, others can be convinced to speak after a great deal of time is taken to refute their defenses and rationale for not speaking. Always break down a witness’ defenses in a calm, courteous and professional manner. Remain persistent and polite, but always focused on the goal of gaining information. Active listening is always important, but seldom more so than in a hostile interview where little information may be offered and a small bit may be used as a thread to determining what the interviewee has to say. remember, only courts can grant immunity or total confidentiality, so never make absolute promises to gain cooperation.

IN THE NEXT ISSUE

In our next issue, we’ll examine the different types of information available in analyzing various filings made by publicly traded companies, including various types of correspondence between these companies and the agencies which regulate them.