Just Shut Up and Listen !!!

As I think I have mentioned before, I work as an investigator and, as such, it is my job to gather information.  The kind of information I gather can be a bit technical and rather specific, but regardless, at the root of any investigation is the search for the truth.  What someone does with the information is a different matter, and they may not want to know the truth (like there were never really any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq), but that really does not matter, it is what it is.

Recently, I listened to a person that is A) allegedly an investigator and B) is an extremely well-educated (please note, I do not use the term smarter) man conduct an interview.  I was appalled at the conduct of the interview, and I am quite sure that the individual conducting it would never, under any circumstances acknowledge the error or improper conduct.  The conduct of the interview consisted of a series of leading questions put to a less-than-well-educated individual.  The questioning clearly was designed to lead to a predetermined conclusion that the interviewer had already reached.  The questions were like, "It was hot out at the time, right?"  "You saw the guy that did this, didn't you?"  "He had a gun in his left hand?"  Although these questions have nothing to do with the case to which I refer, it gets the point across.  Since the interview situation was not a courtroom, there was no one to object to the leading nature of the questions, however, it could be one day, and that is where the problem may lie.

The transcript of the interview will clearly indicate to anyone reading it that the interviewer had already made up their mind what the answers should be and was doing everything they could to get to that conclusion.  It was not so much an interview as it was one person figuratively taking hold of another's nose and pulling them down the path the interviewer desired to go down.  The first clue is when you get answers like, "If you say so."  "Ya, I guess." or just plain "Yes" and "No" answers without the need to explain, because all the information is already contained in the question.  This was a p*ss poor way to conduct an interview.

The thing that made this all that much worse is that the person conducting the interview is an individual with one of those titles that goes with advanced degrees.  Members of an older generation that have a presumptive respect for people that hold such positions tend to acquiesce to these people, regardless of whether they are right or not.  Imagine arguing with your doctor as to whether you have Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy or Carcinoma of the Prostate.  Sure, you may get a second opinion, but it is to confirm what your doctor says.  You do not automatically assume he is wrong.  So you have to be careful to make sure that people are not acquiescing to your position or authority when conducting an interview.

This brings up another issue.  How many people actually know what Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy and Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia are, much less the difference between the two?  Hell, even the Doctors use "BPH" and "PIN" to describe these conditions !!  (FYI - Both are cause for swelling of a man's protate gland.  The first is not a problem, the second is a precursor of Prostate Cancer and will kill you.).   An interview has to be done in the language of the person being interviewed, not the language of the person doing the interview.  A doctor (at least a smart one) will not ask, Do you have "dysuria"?  He will ask you if it hurts when you urinate, or when you pee, depending on the patient.  A police officer will not ask a woman if she has been the victim of an "aggravated sexual battery", he will ask (in the gentlest way possible, hopefully) "Ma'am, have you been sexually assaulted?"  In come cases, to make sure they are being understood, police may have to ask, "Ma'am, were you raped?"  When trynig to get information, subtle legal distinctions need to be put aside in the search for the facts and that means the language has to be at the common denominator, but I digress.

In the case I am referring to now, the individual asked a woman a bunch of questions that not only lead her to a conclusion, but he asked them in a manner that she clearly did not understand.  The answers she gave had nothing to do with what happened and everything to do with agreeing with the better-educated man probably for fear of feeling ignorant or stupid.  This is not a basis on which a search for the truth should be based.

People with [low] self-esteem issues often manage to make up for these issues by getting into positions in which they have authority, and they get this authority by becoming well-educated.  They may have few "people-skills"  nor understand the world around them to a great extent, preferring to impose themselves on the world around them and impress everyone with what they know.  If you are truly a seeker of the truth, this can get in the way, to say the least.  All you really need to do is ask the simple question, like Why? and then just shut up and listen to the "Because."