Determining Credibility in Investigations
Determining credibility of witnesses can be one of the most challenging parts of any investigation. Who is more believable? Who is telling the truth? What if we all have our own version of the truth?
As investigators, do we always get it right? Absolutely not.
But it’s important to listen and do your best to obtain data, facts and details.
One method that is helpful in determining credibility is the Hillen Factors, which came out of a 1987 decision. So, let’s review these seven (7) factors.
The witness’s opportunity and capacity to observe the event or acts. What is the witness’s personal knowledge of time, place and proximity. Were they actually there or just passing by or maybe had secondhand knowledge?
The witness’s character. Did the witness have a history of prior misconduct or a lack of telling the truth?
Any prior inconsistent statements by the witness? If so, this behavior can cast doubt on the witness’s version.
Was the witness biased in some way? Friendships or relationships between the witness and either the complainant or respondent can sometimes create a bias that the investigator needs to look for.
Contradiction of the witness’s statement or inconsistency with other evidence. In other words, does the witness’s version of what happened match video, timecards, etc.? Was the witness actually working that day (timecard) or was the witness working in that department that day (video)?
Inherent improbability of the witness’s version - was the witness’s recollection of what occurred make sense or did it sound not possible or outlandish?
The witness’s demeanor during the interview. What is their body language and tone telling you? Look at their posture, listen to their tone, are they evading your questions or becoming defensive?
#investigation #credibility #interview
