Whilst presenting the evidence, interviewers should maintain a calm and neutral tone of voice, followed by an invitation to the suspect to provide an explanation. Gloating or bravado should be avoided because it is likely to disrupt further communication regardless of the suspect’s guilt or innocence. When evidence is presented, the interviewer must be prepared to disclose how and when it was obtained, allowing the suspect and his/her lawyer to make a fair assessment as to the reliability of the interviewer’s sources and possible biases and prejudices. After posing the question, the interviewer should give the interviewee time to answer. If the suspect is innocent – and this was not revealed during Steps 2 and 3 – the suspect must be given time to concentrate in order to explain and clarify. The same applies if the suspect is guilty. S/he is now considering available options. Should s/he now provide an honest account, or can s/he come up with an alternative explanation that has yet to be considered? A professional, well-planned and conducted strategic investigative interview will reduce the guilty suspect’s opportunity to advance such a defence strategy. Example of a good presentation (disclosure) of evidence: Officer: “Our crime scene detectives have found your fingerprint at the crime scene. Please explain how your fingerprints may have ended up inside the apartment?” STEP FIVE: Closure of the interview Evaluations of police interviews show that officers tend to rush the closing of the interview, yet the closure is important and needs to be methodically conducted. THE AIM OF CLOSURE IS TO: • ensure there is a mutual understanding of the interviewee’s account by reviewing and summarising it • verify that all aspects have been sufficiently covered by checking that interviewees have given all the information they are able and willing to provide • secure the integrity and dignity of the interview, the legitimacy of any subsequent criminal proceedings, and keep channels open for future communication As the interview comes to an end, the interviewing officer should explain what will happen next by giving the interviewee appropriate information about the next stages of the process: for example, inform suspects of potential pre-trial detention, tell witnesses whether or not they should expect to attend court, etc. Finally, the interviewee should be asked if they have any questions for the interviewing officer at this stage. This has little or no real effect if the communication has been coercive. However, if the interview has been conducted as outlined above, this question may add to the interviewee’s perception of having been treated fairly. CTI Training Tools 1/2017: Investigative Interviewing for Criminal Cases 10/12