POLICE INVESTIGATIONS 101

Guidance from Shakespeare’s KING HENRY THE FIFTH

Gilles Renaud | Ontario Court of Justice[1]

INTRODUCTION

In this article, I document the various elements of guidance and instruction from Shakespeare’s play King Henry the Fifth that lead to excellence in investigative work.[2] Most of my comments will be under the general title of “Investigation 101”, inspired by the title of most first-year survey courses in any number of fields of study, often the most valuable of all the classes in my experience.

Investigators succeed by asking sound and searching questions and my topic might lead to the query: why read a play from centuries ago to become a better police officer today? In response, I quote from the late Dean John Wigmore, a leading law professor and writer on evidence: "The lawyer must know human nature. He [or she] must deal understandingly with its types and motives. These he cannot all find close around... For this learning he [or she] must go to fiction which is the gallery of life's portraits.”[3] If this proposition is sound, and surely it is, then detectives are in the same situation as lawyers, for they also must understand humanity, flawed and at times violent and or scheming, and why not turn to fiction?[4]

Thus, my goal is to assist investigators to excel in their difficult but so vital work in bringing offenders to justice and in helping to exonerate those thought to have offended, whether suspects or already accused. My objective is achieved, in part, by analyzing this excellent play and my review is organized along broad thematic lines under three main headings: interviewing skills, judgment displayed in investigations and policing and professionalism.

DISCUSSION

POLICE INVESTIGATIONS 101 – INTERVIEWING SKILLS

Clarification of any statement that is difficult to understand

“FLUELLEN. Anchient Pistol, I do partly understand your meaning.” This phrase, couched in King Henry V, Act 3, sc. vi, l. 49, demonstrates the wisdom of making obvious that you, as investigator, are not able to grasp all that the witness meant to communicate. Note the words as well that follow to ensure that any misunderstanding about the meaning of the other speaker’s intent nor impair a prosecution. “Fluellen … if you take the matter otherwise than is meant …” Refer to King Henry V, Act 3, sc. ii, l. 119.

Confessing without hesitation, an example of

“SCROOP.
Our purposes God justly hath discover’d,
And I repent my fault more than my death,
Which I beseech your Highness to forgive,
Although my body pay the price of it.

This passage, consigned at Act 2, sc. ii, l. 150 of King Henry V, illustrates a full confession immediately after the words of the accusation are announced out loud. The two other conspirators did the same immediately thereafter.

“Contamination” of witnesses – leave their memories free of influence

In this context, note “CHORUS. Vouchsafe to those that have not read the story, That I may prompt them…” See the opening line of Act 5.

Cross-examination – ensure accurate record of interviews of witnesses and admissions by accused lest artful suggestions upset prosecution’s

Consider the words spoken by the CHORUS prior to Act 2 of King Henry V, starting at l. 21:

… A nest of hollow bosoms, which he fills
With treacherous crowns; and three corrupted men,
One, Richard Earl of Cambridge, and the second,
Henry Lord Scroop of Masham, and the third,
Sir Thomas Grey, knight of Northumberland,
Have, for the gilt of France,—O guilt indeed!—
Confirm’d conspiracy with fearful France;
And by their hands this grace of kings must die,
If hell and treason hold their promises…

The fact that gilt (defined as crowns) and guilt are so close in sound might make it difficult for an investigator who does not record the interaction to satisfy the Court later of what was said. Think of a witness or an accused who said “we were going for war” in the sense of a rumble, Jets vs Sharks style, but who counsel successfully suggests that the words were “going forward…”[5]

Demeanour evidence - the complex issues surrounding

Demeanour evidence is a complex and controversial area of the law and taxes the skill of interviewers as an unfounded confidence in the account being provided based on apparently favourable non-verbal “cues” may be fatal to the case and, of course, an unwarranted rejection of correct information due to a misperceived negative view of the speaker’s non-verbal communication may lead to no prosecution or the wrong person being charged. The passages that follow give, I hope, some insight on this subject.[6]

In King Henry V, Act 2, sc. ii, l. 1-5, we encounter three traitors who conduct themselves apparently as loyal servants to the Crown, and yet they conspired to have him murdered: “Westmoreland How smooth and even they do bear themselves …” This statement tends to undermine the importance of demeanour evidence. That being said, a few lines further, starting at number 73, we read a telling passage suggesting that pallour is demonstrative of inside turmoil:

King … Why, how now, gentlemen! What see you in those papers that you lose So much complexion? Look ye, how they change! Their cheeks are paper. Why, what read you there That hath so cowarded and chased your blood Out of appearance?”

Note this passage as well: “NYM. For my part, I care not. I say little; but when time shall serve, there shall be smiles …” See King Henry V, Act 2, sc. i, l. 4-6. A little later, at sc. ii, l. 117, Shakespeare added: “King Henry V. … From glist’ring semblances of piety.” Noteworthy as well is the expression “show of fear” in the passage that follows: “Dauphin … And let us do it with no show of fear …”

Act 3, scene i, l. 8, records this description: “KING. … Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage; Then lend the eye a terrible aspect…” A few lines later, at number 30, we read: “… That hath not noble lustre in your eyes…” In other words, the occasion brings about the modification or appearance of the eyes.

Turning to another theme, that of the definition of the elements forming demeanour evidence, how does one interpret the words “… thy most mervailous face …” found in King Henry V, Act 2, sc. i, l. 48? A more traditional element of demeanour is seen in King Henry V, Act 3, scene ii, l. 34: “Boy … Bardolph, he is white-livered and red-faced …” Noteworthy as well is this passage: “DAUPHIN. It is the prince of palfreys; his neigh is like the bidding of a monarch, and his countenance enforces homage.” See Act 3, sc. vii, l. 27.

Act 4, PROLOGUE, l. 25 includes this expression: “CHORUS … The morning’s danger, and their gesture sad …” A few lines later at 35-36, Shakespeare wrote: “Upon his royal face there is no note How dread an army hath enrounded him …” Indeed, a few lines later we note that he presents with a “cheerful semblance”.

A fit comment to be included within this theme is taken from King Henry V, Act 3, sc. vi, l. 100: “Fluellen. … if your majesty know the man: his face is all bubukles, and whelks, and knobs, and flames o' fire…”

The question of the look of a potential witness is found in King Henry V, Act 5, sc. ii, l. 247-248: “… avouch the thoughts of your heart with the looks of an empress.” This expression, by King Henry, discloses the belief that those who possess wealth or social status act and look differently from the rest of us. Note also Act 5, sc. ii, l. 60-61: “Duke of Burgundy. … as soldiers will That nothing do but meditate on blood … To swearing and stern looks, diffus’d attire …” In such a case, the look of the witness accords well with the observations made.

Consider this issue as well under the heading of demeanour: did the speaker intone the words in an ironic fashion? Investigators should always record the words of the persons they interview lest the non-verbal communication be lost. For example, after King Henry has been rebuffed by the French ambassador and war was apparently inevitable, Exeter states “This was a merry message.” Did he mean the message from the French, the message from his King, or both, and was he being ironic? It seems clear that only an audio-visual record will provide excellent evidence. Consider the case of Sir Winston Churchill who informed the Speaker of the House that Hansard, the official record of the speeches of the Members of Parliament, was incorrect and pointed to two words he had spoken a few days earlier “I apologize”. When the Speaker stated: “I could have sworn you said those two words!”, Sir Winston responded “No, I stated instead “I” with a loud emphatic pronunciation followed by the word “apologize” with the greatest degree of emphatic indignation to clearly mark that I did not apologize.

In closing, I have set out below a few key passages from the case law to further the investigator’s understanding of this controversial subject, taken from R v Batchelor, [2022] OJ No 560 (Sup. Ct.), a well-reasoned judgment of Roger J.

50 Caution is required in considering favourable or unfavourable demeanour evidence. As indicated in R. v. M.M., 2016 ONSC 5027, at para. 59, and R. v. D.M., 2016 ONSC 7224, at para. 23, whether demeanour is related to in-court or out-of-court behaviour, it can be easily misinterpreted. As noted in R. v. Levert (2001), 159 C.C.C. (3d) 71 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 27, demeanour evidence has been known to play a role in wrongful convictions. Indeed, demeanour evidence alone can be a notoriously unreliable predictor of the accuracy of the evidence given by a witness as "the law does not clothe the trial judge with divine insight into the hearts and minds of the witnesses" and demeanour should not be sufficient where there are significant inconsistencies and conflicting evidence: R. v. Norman (1993), 16 O.R. (3d) 295 (C.A.), at p. 314, citing Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 (B.C. C.A), at p. 357.

51 More valuable means of assessing witnesses are to consider the consistency of what they have said on a material matter (internal and external contradictions) and improbabilities (exaggerations or illogical propositions). However, inconsistencies vary in their nature and importance; some are minor or concern peripheral subjects, others are more important or involve a material issue or something material.

52 Demeanour evidence is however not completely irrelevant; for example, the way that a witness testifies, such as unanswered questions, hesitations, challenging counsel, or run-on and unresponsive answers, may in certain circumstances be prudently considered by judges in their assessment of witnesses in conjunction with their assessment of all the evidence: see e.g., Hull, at paras. 8-9; R. v. Boyce, 2005 CarswellOnt 4970 (C.A.), at para. 3. Regardless, trial judges should not unduly rely on demeanour to make credibility findings, and any reliance on demeanour must be approached cautiously because looks can be deceiving. Importantly, a witness' demeanour cannot become the exclusive determinant of his or her credibility or of the reliability of his or her evidence: see R. v. Hemsworth, 2016 ONCA 85, 334 C.C.C. (3d) 534, at paras. 44-45. Indeed, it is often difficult to accurately understand why a witness, whom the judge has never met before, exhibits certain behaviours: see R. v. N.S., 2012 SCC 72, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 726, at paras. 99, 101. Demeanour is therefore often of limited value because it can be affected by many factors, including the background of the witness, stereotypical attitudes, and the artificiality of, and pressure associated with, a courtroom or virtual courtroom. A perceived positive demeanour can equally be difficult to assess.[7]

Ensure that the witness can “speak freely”

“King Henry. … Either our history shall with full mouth Speak freely of our acts …” is the passage found at Act 1, sc. ii, l. 231. That is the goal sought by investigators.

Ensure that you understand fully what the witness stated

Pistol stated at Act 5, sc. i, l. 81: “… To England will I steal, and there I’ll steal …” He means to say, I believe, that he will return to England by stealth in the sense of stealing a place on board to then return to his profession of thievery. Refer as well to the rubric “Translation, quality of – be frank as to your second (or third) language skills” under the heading of “Police and professionalism”.

Gently to hear what witnesses wish to state

The PROLOGUE in King Henry V (Act 1) includes these words, at l. 33: “… Who prologue-like your humble patience pray, Gently to hear, kindly to judge, our play.”

Invite witness to state observations in a “plain speaking” manner

King Henry V, Act 1, sc. ii, l. 243 offers investigators advice as to the benefits of plain speech: “King … Therefore with frank and with uncurbed plainness Tell us the Dauphin's mind.” The language is too archaic and flowery to be resorted to in present day investigations, but it is no more than the origins of Joe Friday’s “Just the facts ma’am!”

Misunderstanding the meaning of others in the presence of a language barrier involving French to English

King Henry V, Act 4, sc. iv, l. 4 includes this informative illustration of an honest misunderstanding that makes plain how a careful investigation is often necessary to clear away potential faulty conclusions.

“PISTOL.
… [facing an enemy] What is thy name? Discuss.

FRENCH SOLDIER. O Seigneur Dieu!

PISTOL … O Signieur Dew …” [As if repeats a name]

A few lines later, we read a further example of conflict of meaning, based on inadequate understanding given the two languages spoken as one understands “ton bras”, meaning “your arm” as referencing the metal brass.

FRENCH SOLDIER.
Est-il impossible d’échapper la force de ton bras?

PISTOL.
Brass, cur!
Thou damned and luxurious mountain goat,
Offer’st me brass?

I recall one trial in which the complainant was asked by the defence counsel, “que portait mon client?” [what clothes did my client wear?] in preparing his identification evidence defence but the translator asked: “what was my client carrying?” an acceptable translation of a portmanteau word in the sense of a word having more than one meaning. The response, “un gros couteau!” [a large knife] was not to the lawyer’s liking, as you can well imagine.

Paying close attention to the speech patterns and tone of voice to detect irony, sarcasm, etc.

Consider how these words, found on a transcript of an interview given to a prosecutor, might differ greatly from what is stated by a witness if a record exists of the exchange:

FLUELLEN. Kill the poys and the luggage! ’Tis

expressly against the law of arms. ’Tis as arrant a

piece of knavery, mark you now, as can be

offer’t; in your conscience, now, is it not?

GOWER. ’Tis certain there’s not a boy left alive;

and the cowardly rascals that ran from the battle

ha’ done this slaughter. Besides, they have

burned and carried away all that was in the

King’s tent; wherefore the King, most worthily

hath caus’d every soldier to cut his prisoner’s

throat. O, ’tis a gallant king!

Refer to Act 4, sc. vii, l. 1-10.

Question the witness by “connecting” with them on a level that resonates

“CANTERBURY. Hear him but reason in divinity And, all-admiring, with an inward wish You would desire the King were made a prelate …” is the advice given to the Bishop of Ely by the Archbishop, found in Act 1, sc. i, l. 37, knowing that young Henry is inclined to respect the Church and all things religious. If the witness goes to the police station with a Maple Leaf jersey and ball cap, you might do well to talk hockey and do poorly to begin by saying: “Were you even alive the last time they won the Cup?”

Speaking because of receiving a cue?

“MONTJOY … Now we speak upon our cue, and our voice is imperial. England shall repent his folly, see his weakness, and admire our sufferance…” If this passage, found at Act 3, sc. vi, l. 119, serves to indicate that we only speak once invited to do so, then there is little to fault with the fact of a cue; if, on the other hand, the cue is taken to be a form of stage direction for a prepared delivery, then the investigator must be quite careful.

POLICE INVESTIGATIONS 101 – JUDGMENT TO BE EXERCISED

Achieve result from a variety of approaches

King Henry V, Act 1, sc. ii, l. 205 demonstrates the wisdom of this perspective, when the Archbishop of Canterbury states: “… That many things, having full reference To one consent, may work contrariously: As many arrows, loosed several ways, Come to one mark; as many ways meet in one town; As many fresh streams meet in one salt sea; As many lines close in the dial's centre; So may a thousand actions, once afoot. End in one purpose, and be all well borne Without defeat.”

The same type of comment based on the image set out below, is found later in the same scene, at line 307: “King Henry V … all things thought upon That may with reasonable swiftness add More feathers to our wings…”

Anyone may become ferocious and violent though they are normally mild mannered

“PROLOGUE. Chorus. … And monarchs to behold the swelling scene!
Then should the warlike Harry, like himself, Assume the port of Mars, and at his heels, Leash’d in like hounds, should famine, sword, and fire
Crouch for employment…” These words, from the Prologue of King Henry V., (Act 1) at l. 4, express Shakespeare’s belief that most individuals, upon sufficient provocation, will adopt a bellicose stance and act violently. This trait cannot be forgotten by the investigator. but one must keep in mind the suspect’s typical Caspar Milquetoast personality if such be the case.

Appearances may be deceiving

Firstly, consider the example found in King Henry V, Act 2, sc. iii, l. 128-132:

KING … Why, so didst thou: seem they grave and

learned?

… Why, so didst thou: seem they religious?

Why, so didst thou: or are they spare in diet,

Free from gross passion or of mirth or anger,

Constant in spirit, not swerving with the blood,

Garnish'd and deck'd in modest complement,

Not working with the eye without the ear,

And but in purged judgment trusting neither? …”

King Henry V, Act 2, sc. iv, l. 39 adds guidance in the context of a confident King of France together with the Dauphin, prodding the Constable to point out that their adversary is not the callow youth they envisage, and in so doing states: “…. Covering discretion with a coat of folly; As gardeners do with ordure hide those roots That shall first spring and be most delicate.” Stated otherwise, do not be deceived. In the same vein, when mention is made of the bellicose nature of the troops awaiting battle, the Dauphin adds: “… for coward dogs Most spend their mouths when what they seem to threaten Runs far before them…” Refer to line 69.

Later, at Act 3, sc. vi, l. 110, Shakespeare penned:

MONTJOY.
You know me by my habit. [Emphasis added]

KING HENRY.
Well then I know thee. What shall I know of thee?

MONTJOY.
My master’s mind.

KING HENRY.
Unfold it.

As we have seen, having noted the habit, the King went on to ask for information.

Be mindful that apparently highly thought of individuals may be in error, for innocent or not so innocent reasons

“PROLOGUE. Chorus. … A kingdom for a stage, princes to act …” is a phrase found in the early lines of the play King Henry V (Act 1) and it serves to remind us that apparently trustworthy persons such as Princes might be capable of acting, including when they wish to conceal information they possess. Ind brief, investigators cannot undertake their important work without being aware that the rich and powerful, as with all segments of society, may be implicate in the wrongdoing being investigated.

Be wary of liars and those who speak in half truths

Refer to King Henry V, Act 5, sc. ii, l. 115: “Katharine O bon Dieu! les langues des hommes sont pleines de tromperies.” I dare say that women as well are capable of such mendacious acts. Earlier, in Act 1, sc. ii, l. 72 73, we see that there are degrees of truth in the minds of some... "Canterbury ... To find his title with some shows of truth -- Though in pure truth it was corrupt and naught ..."

Be wary of rushing to a decision

King Henry V, Act 2, sc. iv, l. 145, records this comment by the King of France when he is advised to surrender his throne: “… A night is but small breath and little pause To answer matters of this consequence.” In other words, it is the minimal pause that so important a matter requires, and investigators might wish to consider the wisdom of this passage should a crucial decision need to be made late in the day. The French language equivalent is “la nuit porte conseil” and guides investigators to avoid rashness, as does this next quote from King Henry the Fifth, Act 3, sc. vi, l. 115-116: “Mountjoy. … advantage is a better soldier than rashness …” Along the same lines, note the words found in Act 4, l. 17: “CHORUS … The confident and over-lusty French …” As we know, the battle was not in their favour, that day.

Be wary of smooth-tongued devils

Act 5, sc. ii, l. 157 is apt: “King Henry. … for these fellows of infinite tongue, that can rhyme themselves into ladies’ favours, they do always reason themselves out again. …”

Be wary of those who have neither pride nor vanity

Act 5, sc. i, l. 19 of King Henry V reads: “CHORUS … He forbids it,
Being free from vainness and self-glorious pride…” If you meet such a witness, beware…

Be wary of vivid speechmaking

The Prologue to King Henry V, Act 1, l. 26, includes language that illustrates a pervasive fear, that a witness’ ability to command the language with verve to the extent that it becomes accepted without scrutiny. Hence, “Chorus … Think, when we talk of horses, that you see them Printing their proud hoofs I’ th’ receiving earth …” Of course, there are elements of verve that should be scrutinized to ascertain the meaning of the speaker. An example follows: “Ely. … The strawberry grows underneath the nettle And wholesome berries thrive and ripen best Neighbour'd by fruit of baser quality…” Refer to King Henry V, Act 1, sc. i, l. 60-64.

Be wary of witnesses attempting to divert you from your goal

The Prologue to Act 2 includes these words: “CHORUS. Shake in their fear, and with pale policy Seek to divert the English purposes…” If we interpret “pale policy” to mean “intrigue dictated by fear as suggested by Professor J.H. Walter in The Arden Shakespeare, Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1954, at page 29, the passage suggests that the French attempt to prevent King Henry V from going forward with his preparations for war, as will those potential witnesses who would intrigue to hinder or harm the work of investigators.

Be wary of witnesses who invent, who imagine information, whether to assist or hinder the prosecution

The first two lines of the Prologue to King Henry V (Act 1) contain this valuable bit of information for all investigators: “CHORUS. O for a Muse of fire, that would ascend The brightest heaven of invention…” Recall that a Muse is defined, in part, as one that inspires a creative artist and invention is resorted by Shakespeare on occasion to refer to fabrication or the result of imagination. Another useful reference is found in the opening scenes of the movie Casablanca in which the mousy looking pickpocket warns the persons he is stealing from: “Trust no one!”. In effect, investigators must be careful lest they be too credulous of anyone having incriminating information and not to automatically reject any apparently defence oriented information. The Court and the administration of justice depend upon objective, professional assessments of all information, irrespective of origin or potential to assist or harm the case as it is being formulated.

Be wary of witnesses who sound too impressive, whose outward pleasing appearance might cover many sins

An investigator must be careful to avoid assigning too much weight to the account of a witness based on the appearance of the witness versus the contents of what is expressed. Statements that are like excellent music, as hinted at in King Henry V, Act 1, sc. i, l. 41-50, might nevertheless be totally without merit:

Canterbury … Hear him debate of commonwealth affairs,

You would say it hath been all in all his study:

List his discourse of war, and you shall hear

A fearful battle render'd you in music

… when he speaks,

The air, a charter'd libertine, is still,

And the mute wonder lurketh in men's ears,

To steal his sweet and honey'd sentences…

Be wary of witnesses who were under the influence of some form of intoxicant as it affects judgment

Note the example consigned in King Henry V, Act 2, sc. ii, l. 39, “KING HENRY. … Uncle of Exeter, Enlarge the man committed yesterday, That rail'd against our person: we consider it was excess of wine that set him on; And on his more advice we pardon him.” In effect, the victim is advising the prosecution not to be too harsh, but the same facts might lead to the result that a person who was in that state would act in a manner that is unreliable if asked to testify about his or her actions.

Be wary of vivid speechmaking

Bias and ill regard

BOURBON.
Normans, but bastard Normans, Norman bastards!
Mort de ma vie, if they march along
Unfought withal, but I will sell my dukedom,
To buy a slobbery and a dirty farm
In that nook-shotten isle of Albion.

This citation, consigned at l. 9-14 of Act 3, sc. v, serves to illustrate the obvious animosity during armed conflict. Evidence of bias, however, is always relevant to an investigator. On the opposite side of the coin, so to speak, I quote from Act 3, sc. vii, l. 97: “ORLEANS. He never did harm, that I heard of.” Of course, this lack of deprecatory observation might change if further investigation is conducted. The final relevant comment is this: “Orleans Ill will never said well.” See l. 110 of the same scene.

Charming investigators

“CHORUS … And bring you back, charming the narrow seas To give you gentle pass …” This passage, from King Henry V, PROLOGUE to Act 2, l. 37-38, describes how investigators ought to act towards those they question.

Circumstantial evidence may be misleading

“Hostess … we cannot lodge and board a dozen … gentlewomen that live honestly by the prick of their needles, but it will be thought we keep a bawdyhouse…” This example, found in King Henry V, Act 2, sc. i, l. 33-34, offers police officers a sound example of a possible misjudgment of this sort.

Common sense-based beliefs of witnesses may interfere with your ability to reach correct conclusions

“BARDOLPH. Hear me, hear me what I say. He that strikes the first stroke I’ll run him up to the hilts, as I am a soldier.” Refer to King Henry V, Act 2, sc. i, l. 63-64. In effect, the danger is that a witness, believing that a person who strikes the first blow commits an assault, might incorporate into their account of the event beliefs of law as opposed to observations of fact, imperiling the fairness of the investigation.

Content is all that matters, not form

The discussion consigned in King Henry V, Act 1, sc. i, l. 63 demonstrates the wisdom of this statement, expressed in these words: “ELY. … And so the prince obscured his contemplation Under the veil of wildness; which, no doubt, Grew like the summer grass, fastest by night, Unseen, yet crescive in his faculty.”

Difficulties, if not impossibility, of reproducing a dynamic scene with a cacophony of sounds

Think of the challenge of testifying about the opening scene at the Bar from “A Night at the Roxbury”. It is the same challenge that an investigator faces in making sense of the scene described in the Prologue to Act 3, when the CHORUS in King Henry V, Act 3, intones at l. 8: “… Upon the hempen tackle ship-boys climbing; Hear the shrill whistle which doth order give To sounds confus’d; behold the threaden sails…” In fact, it may be well-nigh impossible to do more than present an approximation to the Court.

Discover the faults of those suspected of crimes

In King Henry V, in the PROLOGUE, Act 1, at l. 23-24, the Chorus informs us that it was necessary to “Piece out our imperfections with your thoughts.” In other words, as do investigators, it was necessary to study the thoughts and actions of others.

Do not advance a positive conclusion at the outset of response, to then take away major elements as respond in full

Consider the example that follows, referencing a positive response that becomes far more nuanced as the words flow in King Henry V, Act 1, sc. i, l, 84-88:

ELY.
How did this offer seem received, my lord?

CANTERBURY.
With good acceptance of his Majesty;
Save that there was not time enough to hear,
As I perceived his Grace would fain have done,

Do not too easily sweep aside obstacles that might have rendered it impossible for the suspect to have committed the offence

In this context, in King Henry V, Act 1, sc. i, l. 60, after Canterbury sets out the difficulties that King Henry would have faced in seeking success, Ely responds with possibly too much desire to reach the conclusion he longs for as opposed to the results the evidence led analysis permits:

The strawberry grows underneath the nettle,
And wholesome berries thrive and ripen best
Neighboured by fruit of baser quality;
And so the Prince obscured his contemplation
Under the veil of wildness, which, no doubt,
Grew like the summer grass, fastest by night,
Unseen, yet crescive in his faculty.

Does suspect enjoy sufficient resources of every kind and confederates to have succeeded in crime?

“Canterbury … Which is a wonder how his Grace should glean it,
Since his addiction was to courses vain, His companies unlettered, rude, and shallow, His hours filled up with riots, banquets, sports, And never noted in him any study…” is the passage of relevance in King Henry V, Act 1, sc. i, l. 53. In few words, did he have the time, the means, and the ability to commit offence?

Human nature – A resolve of the mind and spirit to persevere

I did not write “to succeed” but rather “to persevere” in the title section as I am mindful that there are cases that have not never been solved. Indeed, I have often presided in Morrisburg, and one officer was killed on duty decades ago and the murderer may never face justice, unfortunately. That said, I encourage investigators to follow the mind set espoused by Harry in Act 4, sc. iii, l. 72 of KING HENRY V: “All things are ready, if our minds be so.”

Human nature - Bias, in accordance with self-interest

King Henry V, Act 1, sc. i, l. 6-9, sets out how self-interest, and not justice, may lead a witness to adopt a perverted view of contested matters. Hence, the Bard displays the Archbishop of Canterbury seeking to interpret a proposed Bill in accordance with the needs of the Church and not in conformity with the words of the proposed enactment. Indeed, he and the Bishop of Ely exchange this pregnant phrase: “Ely This would drink deep. Canterbury 'Twould drink the cup and all.” See l. 10. Investigators must be alert to the biases that might lead one to view certain contested matters from a certain perspective.

Human nature – Blinded by loyalty

Ensure that as an investigator you not overlook what is plainly before you. The worst example is the veteran officer who cannot perceive that an equally veteran police officer with whom he or she has collaborated for decades is not being frank with the court. An example of this potential mishap to ensuring justice is seen in King Henry V, Act 2, sc. ii, l. 103: “KING HENRY V … 'tis so strange, That, though the truth of it stands off as gross As black and white, my eye will scarcely see it…”

Human nature - Bragging

It is rare that police officers truly advance their goals by bragging about their qualities in the Courtroom. Nevertheless, fiction provides an apt example in King Henry V, Act 1, sc. ii, l. 263: “King … Tell him he hath made a match with such a wrangler …”

Human nature - Cat’s away, mice will play

King Henry V, Act 1, sc. ii, l. 172, reminds us of human nature in this vein. “Westmoreland … Playing the mouse in absence of the cat…”

Human nature – Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hide scenarios

“King Henry V … In peace, there’s nothing so becomes a man As modest stillness and humility …” is what we read in King Henry the Fifth, Act 3, sc. i, l. 3. A few lines later, Shakespeare reminds us that in war, the nation requires a far more hot-blooded citizen not afraid to spill blood. Investigators must be aware of the fundamental fact that humans are capable of multi-dimensional features of behaviour, in accordance with surrounding circumstances.

Human nature – Fairness impresses those who judge others including investigators

I note the comments to this effect consigned in King Henry V, Act 3, sc. vi, l. 103: “King Henry V … we give express charge, that in our marches through the country, there be nothing compelled from the villages, nothing taken but paid for, none of the French upbraided or abused in disdainful language; for when lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest winner.” In an investigation, any favourable information consigned on behalf of the suspect may result in the investigators being seen as fair.

Human nature – Foolish behaviour need not be repeated

In effect, as we were taught by our parents in our youth, if your friend jumps off a cliff, ought you as well? I note the comments to this effect consigned in King Henry V, Act 4, sc. i, l. 77: “FLUELLEN … If the enemy is an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb, is it meet, think you, that we should also, look you, be an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb? in your own conscience, now?”

Human nature – Good reputation and witnesses

King Henry V, Act 1, sc. ii, l. 272-27, provides advice that may be apposite in a case in which the good reputation of a witness is advanced to meet an imputation of wrongdoing that is said to have occurred afar: “King Henry V… as 'tis ever common That men are merriest when they are from home…” This type of comment may be apposite in a case in which the good reputation of a witness is advanced to meet an imputation of wrongdoing that is said to have occurred afar. Of course, some will suggest that persons engage in improper conduct often when away from the restraints of home and family.

Human nature – “Honour’s thought” is all that animates the police

In the Prologue to Act 2 of King Henry V, the CHORUS proclaims at l. 4: “… and honour’s thought Reigns solely in the breast of every [police man and police woman].” So it should be!

Human nature – Humans, after all, investigators, prosecutors and judges are

Harry, the King, states to a soldier who knows not his identity “… all his senses have but human conditions …” See Act 4, sc. i, l. 104. There will be times when you have put together a seemingly perfect prosecution and yet there is no finding of guilt.

Human nature – Investigators who mock the lawyers of the defendant ensure that they will work twice as hard

A number of famous cases include the decisions of the Courts as to the merits of Charter applications for stays or the elimination of evidence or reduced sentences when police officers laugh at the lawyers that defendants have employed or wish to consult. The judges in those cases do not remark upon the commonsense response of the lawyers who were mocked to double down in their efforts to assist their clients. In this context, I note this relevant passage: “… Exeter … That caves and wombly vaultages of France Shall chide your trespass and return your mock In second accent of his ordinance.” See King Henry V, Act 2, sc. iv, l. 124.

Human nature – Justice, any real consensus that it is ever achieved?

I try to remain conscious of the positive implications of Shakespeare’s poor opinion of judges as set out in King Henry V, at Act 1, sc. ii, notably at line 203 touching upon “sad-ey’d justice, with his surly hum” in the sense that I must not act in this fashion. Later, at Act 1, sc. I, l. 191, we read: “Canterbury … Where some, like magistrates, correct at home …” in the sense that the investigators provides the vital proof that justifies punishing those who commit crimes. For purposes of guiding police officers, the salient point is that many witnesses and, no doubt, police officers believe that the administration of criminal justice is warped or distorted by the intervention of highly paid lawyers whose tricks are meant to thwart real justice.

Human nature – Let us not overlook the good points of a suspect as we tally the bad ones

King Henry V, Act 2, sc. ii, l. 40 includes these remarks “BOY. … but his few bad words are matched with as few good deeds …”

Human nature - Maturation, because of a remarkable event

King Henry V, Act 1, sc. i, l. 23-33 includes the following language, which makes plain how an otherwise unruly youth may well mature rather quickly because of a challenge such as the death of a relative:

Canterbury The courses of his youth promised it not. The breath no sooner left his father's body, But that his wildness, mortified in him, Seem'd to die too; yea, at that very moment Consideration, like an angel, came And whipp'd the offending Adam out of him … Never was such a sudden scholar made; Never came reformation in a flood, With such a heady currance, scouring faults…”

For present purposes, our object is to demonstrate that the investigator might be wise to conclude that developments have led to the real possibility that the young culprit is entitled to a form of diversion or caution, as recommended by the investigator, although nothing justified such a positive recommendation prior to the tragic event leading to a rapid coming of age. Of course, the caution about the unlikelihood of “… reformation in a flood” must be heeded.

Human nature - Oaths are straw

King Henry V, Act 2, sc. iii, l. 52: “Pistol … Trust none; For oaths are straws …” Noteworthy as well is the descriptive phrase found in Act 3, sc. vi, l. 78: “GOWER… and this they con perfectly in the phrase of war, which they trick up with new-tuned oaths…”

Human nature – Resolve of the complainant to undergo the trial

King Henry V, Act 1, sc. i, l. 223 reminds investigators that they may only recommend charges in a resolute fashion once the witness-complainant has demonstrated a sound resolution to undergo the ordeal of trial. In this vein, we refer to the King’s statement: “… Now are we well resolv’d …”

Human nature – The “why and wherefore in all things”

Act 5, sc. i, l. 2 of King Henry V includes this phrase: “Fluellen … There is occasion and causes why and wherefore in all things …”

Human nature - Truth: pure versus shows of

King Henry V, Act 1, sc. ii, l. 72, demonstrates that there are degrees of truth in the minds of some… “Canterbury … To find his title with some shows of truth – Though in pure truth it was corrupt and naught …” It may be that the thought expressed sought to explain that it is possible to obscure the whole truth by merely presenting part, and avoiding more problematic elements of what took place, for example drug use. It may be that Shakespeare sought to demonstrate the magician’s trick of “showing” things that are not fully present – in effect, by focusing on the presentation and not the substance. Irrespective of the meaning, these are all concerns for the investigator.

Identification evidence over many years or decades – appearances change

“King Henry. … A good leg will fall; a straight back will stoop; a black beard will turn white; a curl’d pate will grow bald; a fair face will wither, a full eye will wax hollow…” See Act 5, sc. ii, l. 159. I encountered this reality as a prosecutor with the Canadian War Crimes Unit when trying to conduct photo lineups for persons now in the late 70’s and well beyond about the looks of Nazis and other criminals in the Second World War.

Love is blind

Refer to King Henry V, Act 5, scene ii, l. 295: “King Yet they do wink and yield, as love is blind and enforces.” The wise investigator recalls this fact when evaluating the merits and reliability of any precise witness statement involving persons in a relationship.

Memories, of older potential witnesses

Consider the passage found at sc. iii, l. 49 of Act 4, the famous Saint Crispin’s Day “band of brothers” speech on memory: “Old men forget…”

Officer safety – Sean Connery’s advice in “The Untouchables”

The great actor told Kevin Costner that the intelligent officer did his or her duty to the utmost, to the return safely home … That great advice is emulated by the Bard in King Henry V, Act 4, sc. iii, l. 109: “Let me speak proudly: tell the Constable We are but warriors for the working-day.” Thus, after the end of the shift, terrible as it might have been, the officer requires time to recover and to enjoy the warmth and love of home, family and friends.

Officer safety – The second attack might follow the first

“King Henry V … Break out into a second course of mischief, Killing in relapse of mortality…” is a phrase we find at Act 4, sc. iii, l. 1067. Though Shakespeare did not intend to warn police officers of the danger of a terrorist attack being organized along those lines, the fact remains that a smaller bombing or other violent act might be a ploy meant to draw in the first responders to then launch a second, massive one…

Prosecution must be able to receive a clear answer to the question: “Is the suspect quite likely guilty, and why?

The question of reasonable grounds for the arrest is not the question to be answered when the decision is made to prosecute an accusation. That question is more powerful and embraces the public interest, and is often framed in terms of “Is there a likely prospect of conviction?” that is different from “Is this person guilty?” In this context, note “KING HENRY. May I with right and conscience make this claim?” See Act 1, sc. ii, l. 96.

Trial preparation: Announce the fruits of your investigation, as the Prologues do in a play

The Chorus in King Henry V before Acts 1 and 2 explain the action about to unfold and this type of device serves as a signal opening address of counsel and the careful advocate ought to imitate such techniques in framing brief, focused and informative accounts of what is to take place. In the same vein, the reports of your investigation to the prosecution ought to likewise announce and describe the information about to be listed, and in serious cases, ought to contain an Introduction, Discussion themes and a Conclusion.

Trial preparation – Clarity: make your conclusions “clear as summer sun”

King Henry V, Act 1, sc. ii, l. 86, includes this observation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, following a quite lengthy discourse: “… So that, as clear as is the summer's sun…” At times, when we write reports, for example as to the likelihood that the suspect was a party to the offence but mere presence at the scene, we believe that we are crystal clear as to our meaning, but it may not be so apparent to readers. A good technique is to invite a colleague to read the document.

Trial preparation – Exaggerate the obstacles the investigation has identified?

“Dauphin … In cases of defence ’tis best to weigh The enemy more mighty than he seems…” This good advice is found at l. 42 of King Henry V, Act 2, sc. iv.

Trial preparation – investigators focus on legal, not philosophical, fault

“KING HENRY. So, if a son that is by his father sent about

merchandise do sinfully miscarry upon the sea,

the imputation of his wickedness, by your rule,

should be imposed upon his father that sent

him; or if a servant, under his master’s

command transporting a sum of money, be

assailed by robbers and die in many irreconcil’d

iniquities, you may call the business of the master

the author of the servant’s damnation.

But this is not so. The King is not bound to

answer the particular endings of his soldiers, the

father of his son, nor the master of his servant;

for they purpose not their death, when they

purpose their services…

Refer to Act 4, sc. i, l. 146.

Trial preparation - Warn witness to tell truth, warts, and all

King Henry V, Act 1, sc. ii, l. 9, records how King Henry the Fifth warned the Archbishop of Canterbury to respond to his questions with the unvarnished truth, being fearful that lives may be lost as a result, and the advice resonates with modern-day witnesses as their information may alter the course of the lives of many and this requires them to be strictly honest and reliable:

King Henry V...

My learned lord, we pray you to proceed

And justly and religiously unfold …

Or should, or should not, bar us in our claim:

And God forbid, my dear and faithful lord,

That you should fashion, wrest, or bow your reading,

Or nicely charge your understanding soul

With opening titles miscreate, whose right

Suits not in native colours with the truth…

Under this conjuration, speak, my lord;

For we will hear, note and believe in heart

That what you speak is in your conscience wash'd

As pure as sin with baptism.

INVESTIGATIONS 101 – POLICING AND PROFESSIONALISM

Analyze the evidence closely, for the Court will

“NYM. …Things must be as they may. Men may sleep, and they may have their throats about them at that time; and some say knives have edges. It must be as it may…” This comment, found at King Henry V, Act 2, sc. i, l. 20, is certainly open to interpretation an the investigator does well to assess critically this admission, or witness report, prior to charging the suspect with conspiracy, or making a death threat.

In the same vein, one does well to examine closely the passage that follows: “HOSTESS. … Lady, if he be not drawn now! We shall see wilful adultery and murder committed.” See King Henry V, Act 2, sc. i, l. 37. Does the speaker certify that adultery and assassination are sure to occur as she proposes to commit these crimes, or that it is likely (or speculative to believe) that the others might act in this fashion?

Consider the challenge as well one faces as an investigator in attempting to interpret the words that follow, found at l. 48 of Act 2, sc. i. “Pistol … I do retort the solus in thy bowels; For I can take, and Pistol’s cock is up,
And flashing fire will follow.” I would tend to conclude that this is a threat, of resorting to a firearm already primed to be discharged and that will result in a projectile being expelled but further inquiry must be made to ascertain whether there were firearms at the time, or did Pistol state that his “blood is stirring”?

A further example of a challenging bit of speech follows: “NYM. I am not Barbason; you cannot conjure me. I have an humour to knock you indifferently well. If you grow foul with me, Pistol, I will scour you with my rapier, as I may, in fair terms. If you would walk off, I would prick your guts a little, in good terms, as I may; and that’s the humour of it.” See King Henry V, Act 2, sc. i, l. 53. He next few lines, though, would tend to assist the investigator in opting towards a prosecution. Thus, “PISTOL.O braggart vile and damned furious wight! The grave doth gape, and doting death is near …”

Brevity in speech

The Prologue to King Henry V, Act 1, l. 26, includes language that illustrates what investigators must seek to master, the ability to write concise reports and to briefly inform the prosecution of the case as it is being put together, and to respond to the issues as they arise during the trial. Hence, “Chorus … Think, when we talk of horses, that you see them Printing their proud hoofs I’ th’ receiving earth …” Not all can be so descriptive, but it is a much-desired quality. That being said, we read a few lines below at numbers 29-30 how this talent must also embrace brevity: “… Turning the accomplishment of many years Into an hour-glass…” Noteworthy as well is the passage found in Act 4, sc. i, l. 65: “Fluellen … speak fewer …” and Act 3, sc. ii, l. 36, which includes the following remarks: “Boy. … For Nym, he hath heard that men of few words are the best men; and therefore he scorns to say his prayers…”

“Lack of brevity in speech”, so to speak, is illustrated next: “King Henry remarked: … What! a speaker is but a prater: a rhyme is but a ballad…” See Act 5, sc. ii, l. 162. In other words, beware of those who speak without end and without purpose.

Confidence, projecting – Witnesses, especially complainant, must not perceive any fear

The play King Henry V, Act 4, scene i, l. 103, suggests that any appearance suggesting fright will impair the ability of those who look to the person experiencing this situation for comfort and support to perform their duties, such as testifying. The passage in question follows: “… I think the king is but a man, as I am … Therefore when he sees reason of fears, as we do, his fears, out of doubt, be of the same relish as ours are: yet, in reason, no man should possess him with any appearance of fear, lest he, by showing it, should dishearten his army.” In the same light, consider Act 4, sc. i, l. 1 as well: “King … ‘tis true that we are in great danger; The greater therefore should our courage be …”

Further, the play at Act 2, sc. iv, l. 13, includes the following: “King of France … As fear may teach us …” In other words, take not counsel of your fears. Pay attention to any fear exhibited by the defence witnesses, as hinted at in Act 4, sc. i, l. 106: “King … when he sees reason of fears …”

“Diplomatic status” in respect to witnesses

You might find yourself in a situation in which a potential witness who enjoys diplomatic status and is therefore not necessarily concerned or interested in good citizenship, displays little sympathy for the victim. If you refer to the custom, the culture, of assisting the authorities with their inquiries, you might be met with the curt reply: “KING HENRY. O Kate, nice customs curtsy to great kings. Dear Kate, you and I cannot be confined within the weak list of a country’s fashion…” See Act 5, sc. ii, l. 266.

Euphemisms abound when speaking to certain offenders and suspects

“Boy … They will steal any thing and call it purchase …” See King Henry V, Act 3, sc. ii, l. 44-45. Consider in this light what Mark Twain wrote: “Steal a chicken if you get a chance, Huck, because if you don't want it, someone else does and a good deed ain't never forgotten.” You may need to resort to euphemisms in order to sidesteps pointless confrontations, such as stating that that a long-time incorrigible offender who wishes to provide information is someone “with a sheet”.

Patience – in general

Patience is the foremost quality of the successful investigator, even before imagination and lots of shoe leather. In this context, see l. 28 of the PROLOGUE wherein the CHORUS exclaims in Act 2 of King Henry V:

“… If hell and treason hold their promises,
Ere he take ship for France, and in

Southampton.

Linger your patience on, and we’ll digest

The abuse of distance, force a play.”

Patience in receiving and analyzing information

In King Henry V, in the PROLOGUE, (Act 1) we hear the Chorus proclaim: “… Who prologue-like your humble patience pray, Gently to hear, kindly to judge, our play.” Refer to l. 33.

In addition, Act 2, scene i, l. 24 includes this observation by Nym: “… though patience be a tired mare, yet she will plod…” The successful investigator will attempt the utmost not to tax the patience of the witnesses.

Police officers are part of a band of brothers and sisters devoted to justice

Investigators are friends worthy of the title of “Band of brothers (and sisters)” that King Henry V proclaims at Act 4, scene iii, l. 55:

.… Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.

This story shall the good man [or woman] teach his or her son [and daughter];

And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,

From this day to the ending of the world,

But we in it shall be remember'd;

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers [and sisters];

For he [and she] to-day that sheds his [or her] blood with me

Shall be my brother [and sister]; be he [or she] ne'er so vile,

This day shall gentle his condition …

Rape as a war crime

King Henry V, Act 3, sc. iii, l. 10 sets out the infamous example of King Henry V threatening to law waste the port of Harfleur unless there is an immediate surrender, and making plain that systematic rape and mass destruction is to be inflicted:

Till in her ashes she lie buried.
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the flesh’d soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh fair virgins and your flow’ring infants.
What is it then to me, if impious War,
Array’d in flames like to the prince of fiends,
Do with his smirch’d complexion all fell feats
Enlink’d to waste and desolation?

What is’t to me, when you yourselves are cause,
If your pure maidens fall into the hand
Of hot and forcing violation? [Emphasis added]

One hopes fervently that such offences never have to be investigated in the future!

Ruses

King Henry V, Act 1, sc. ii, l. 175-180, includes this observation by Exeter: “It follows then the cat must stay at home: Yet that is but a crush'd necessity, Since we have locks to safeguard necessaries, And pretty traps to catch the petty thieves…” [Emphasis added] It must be understood that the law often limits the extent to which ruses may be resorted to, lest the accusation fail by reason of entrapment. It is always wise to seek the advice of the prosecution. Some techniques that have been upheld include leaving a ball cap found at the scene on a desk with the expectation that the suspect will pick it up on his or her way out of the police station. See also Act 1, sc. i, l. 64 65 describing a ruse resorted to by the young monarch, to hide his growing maturation and character, "Ely ... And so the prince obscured his contemplation Under the veil of wildness; which, no doubt, Grew like the summer grass, fastest by night, Unseen, yet crescive in his faculty."

Summarize many actions over much time without omitting any of the important points

The PROLOGUE in King Henry V, (Act 1) records that the Chorus noted at l. 29: “… Turning the accomplishment of many years into an hour-glass…”

Translation, quality of – be frank as to your second (or third) language skills

“Boy” makes a telling, and frank, admission in King Henry V, Act 4, scene iv, l. 29-30, about his limited ability to translate. As we read: “I do not know the French for fer, and ferret, and firk.” If you do not command the language in which the witness is best able to provide a witness statement, you must obtain the services of a qualified interpreter. Refer as well to the rubric “Ensure that you understand fully what the witness stated” under the heading of Interviewing skills”.

A second issue is the reluctance of persons to admit, language issue or not, that they do not understand your question. Not every witness responds as we see here, from Act 5, sc. ii, l. 107-108 of King Henry V:

KING HENRY. O fair Katharine, if you will love me

soundly with your French heart, I will be glad to

hear you confess it brokenly with your English

tongue. Do you like me, Kate?

KATHARINE. Pardonnez-moi, I cannot tell vat is

“like me.”

Unlawful orders – to kill or harm prisoners

“KING HENRY… But hark! what new alarum is this same? The French have reinforc’d their scatter’d men. Then every soldier kill his prisoners; Give the word through.” This terrible passage illustrates in Act 4, sc. vi, l. 35-39 the nature of an unlawful order.

Work, work, work ensures success

King Henry V, Act 3, Prologue, l. 24, reminds us of the imperative need for industry if success is to be achieved in the Courtroom by the prosecution applying the fruits of the investigation: “… Work, work your thoughts …” suggests to the investigator the need to think out all potential scenarios. Indeed, sc. i then begins with the King uttering the memorable phrase, summarizing the ever repeated and arduous task of the investigator: “Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more…” In other words, find the mistakes or outstanding questions in the case and respond to those challenges.

In addition, “Work around the clock” is the message we receive from the following passage of the play, at Act 1, sc. ii, l. 300: “KING HENRY. … Therefore, my lords, omit no happy hour That may give furtherance to our expedition…” and later, at l. 309-310: “… We’ll chide this Dauphin at his father’s door. Therefore let every man now task his thought, That this fair action may on foot be brought.” In other words, work without pause and our cause may not succeed, and vital evidence is lost.

Workings of our thoughts might be quick, might not

Act 5, PROLOUE, l. 23 reads: “CHORUS But now behold,
In the quick forge and working-house of thought …” It is wise to ascertain how the witness thinks, and whether he or she does before responding to questions, especially difficult ones.

CONCLUSION

In the final analysis, if it is suggested that police officers, lawyers and judges do not currently read and watch Shakespearean plays and are not influenced by them if they do, I reply that one ignores the lessons they contain to one's peril. In fact, the internet has made it far easier for all those vitally interested in studying psychology of fact finding as taught by the Bard to do so at any time and in any location. Indeed, it was said by Mr. Bruce Hutchinson, in praise of the late Chief Justice Wilson of the British Columbia Supreme Court: "And always, without fail, the judge's cloth bag contained, in one volume, now crumbled with much use ... the complete works of Shakespeare, whose every word he has read, whose every play he has pondered ..."[8] It is not my belief that all wise investigators, lawyers, and judges must be as familiar with Shakespeare as was the late Chief Justice, but no one has ever wasted his or her time in reading the timeless lessons about human nature, interviewing and scheming, to name but three areas of interest, put forward by William Shakespeare.

[1] This article is written in a private capacity. Should any of my opinions be quoted to me by a prosecutor seeking to support the work of an investigator, I reserve the right to state: “Now that I think about that point, in light of the cases cited by defence lawyer, I find that I was wrong!” I recall a very experienced judge, who had one of his books cited by a lawyer to support his final submission, conclude: “I will change that part when the book goes to the printer for the next edition.”

[2] For the sake of brevity, I might only refer to “King Henry V” or to “the play”. As for the citations, Act 2, sc. ii, l. 2 is referenced as 2-ii-2. By and large, only the first line reference is included. It is understood that “investigators” refers to all police work, on the field or in the office, by anyone who seeks out information.

[3] See "A List of One Hundred Legal Novel" (1922), 17 III. L. Rev. 26, at p. 31.

[4] Refer as well to a similar article by Law Professor W.H. Hitchler who published these relevant remarks in "The Reading of Lawyers", (1928) 33 Dick. L. Rev. 1-13, at pp. 12-13: "The Lawyers must know human nature. [They] must deal with types. [They] cannot find all them around... Life is not long enough. The range of [their] acquaintances is not broad enough. For this learning, they must go to fiction. ...” I could easily replace “lawyers” by “police officers” and the meaning remains correct.

[5] About cross-examination, I did not address the role of police officers in this respect as the play did not lend itself to that theme. I do note, however, that the lawyer for the defendant is entitled to make suggestions that are not necessarily contained within the client’s suggested explanation of the facts, so long as there is a reasonable basis, a good faith basis for the suggestion. In that sense, it is not an exercise in “invention”, but rather in imagination in setting out reasonable alternatives. In considering the expression “invention”, refer to the CHORUS in the PROLOGUE of Act 1 of the play King Henry V: “… the brightest heaven of invention.” This phrase, found at line 2 makes plain that the successful advocate is supreme in the use of invention, of imagination, of cleverness to persuade the fact finder that the theory being advanced is both credible and reliable.

[6] Demeanour Evidence on Trial: A Legal and Literary Criticism, Sandstone Academic Press, Melbourne, Australia, 2008. Refer as well to my article, "Demeanour Evidence and "Eyelid Turns": Guidance from the Manitoba Court of Appeal and Anthony Trollope", posted in Alan D. Gold Collection of Criminal Law Articles, ADGN/RP-293, April 27, 2020.

[7] I invite any readers to contact me at gilles.renaud@ocj-cjo.ca if they require assistance in locating these or any other cases.

[8] Refer to "Address to the Victoria Bar Association", (1993), 51 Advocate 199-205, at page 203.