POLICE INVESTIGATIONS 101

GUIDANCE FROM SHAKESPEARE’S KING LEAR

 Gilles Renaud | Ontario Court of Justice[1]

INTRODUCTION

In this article, I document the various elements of guidance and instruction from the classic play King Lear that may result in excellence in investigative work.[2] 

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 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 [or she] 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 to accomplish this objective?[4]

I have organized my thoughts along thematic lines embracing demeanour evidence, followed by interviewing techniques and skills that police officers must acquire and hone, judgment in police word including human nature and concluding with the subject of professionalism. Thus, my goal is to assist investigators to excel in their difficult but 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 at least, by analyzing this excellent play. 

DISCUSSION

Demeanour evidence as a guide to investigators

            General introduction

Justice O'Halloran cautioned against the fear that a good actor might hoodwink the Court (and His Lordship would have the investigator had he been asked) in Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 (B.C.C.A.), at para. 10. Refer as well to para. 46 of the judgment of Ryan J. A. in R. v. Sue, 2011 B.C.C.A. 91, in order to demonstrate the ongoing vitality of this judgment:

46 There are a number of cases which caution judges not to rely too heavily on demeanour in determining credibility. As stated by O'Halloran J.A. in the frequently cited case from this Court, Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 at paras. 10 and 11:

[10] If a trial Judge's finding of credibility is to depend solely on which person he thinks made the better appearance of sincerity in the witness box, we are left with a purely arbitrary finding and justice would then depend upon the best actors in the witness box. On reflection it becomes almost axiomatic that the appearance of telling the truth is but one of the elements that enter into the credibility of the evidence of a witness. Opportunities for knowledge, powers of observation, judgment and memory, ability to describe clearly what he has seen and heard, as well as other factors, combine to produce what is called credibility, and cf. Raymond v. Bosanquet (1919), 50 D.L.R. 560 at p. 566, 59 S.C.R. 452 at p. 460, 17 O.W.N. 295. A witness by his manner may create a very unfavourable impression of his truthfulness upon the trial Judge, and yet the surrounding circumstances in the case may point decisively to the conclusion that he is actually telling the truth. I am not referring to the comparatively infrequent cases in which a witness is caught in a clumsy lie.

Demeanour – body language being observed to judge if “matches” the words spoken

Consider a first example taken from another play, King Henry VI (Part1): “Plantagenet Meantime your cheeks do counterfeit our roses; For pale they look with fear, as witnessing The truth on our side.” Refer to Act 2, sc. iv, l. 62.  In effect, I imagine you as the investigator are speaking and that you are stating to the person you are interviewing: “your words and your demeanour are fighting each other as what you say is denied by your pale cheeks and fearful expression. In short, your face shows that you are caught in a lie!”

A further useful example follows of the appearance of the witness as a form of “lie-detector”, also from that other play, at 2-iv-64:

Somerset

No, Plantagenet,
'Tis not for fear but anger that thy cheeks
Blush for pure shame to counterfeit our roses,
And yet thy tongue will not confess thy error. 

            Demeanour – what Shakespeare teaches us in Macbeth

“Duncan: There's no art To find the mind's construction in the face…” [1-iv-12]; “Macbeth … Away, and mock the time with fairest show: False face must hide what the false heart doth know. » [1-vii-92]; “Malcolm … Let's not consort with them: To show an unfelt sorrow is an office Which the false man does easy…” [2-iii-135].

            Demeanour – a brief excerpt from R. v N.S., [2012] 3 SCR 726

I only wish to quote this passage from the majority judgment of McLachlin C.J.C. and Deschamps, Fish and Cromwell JJ.A.:

Changes in a witness's demeanour can be highly instructive; in Police v. Razamjoo, [2005] D.C.R. 408, a New Zealand judge asked to decide whether witnesses could testify wearing burkas commented:

... there are types of situations ... in which the demeanour of a witness undergoes a quite dramatic change in the course of his evidence. The look which says "I hoped not to be asked that question", sometimes even a look of downright hatred at counsel by a witness who obviously senses he is getting trapped, can be expressive. So too can abrupt changes in mode of speaking, facial expression or body language. The witness who moves from expressing himself calmly to an excited gabble; the witness who from speaking clearly with good eye contact becomes hesitant and starts looking at his feet; the witness who at a particular point becomes flustered and sweaty, all provide examples of circumstances which, despite cultural and language barriers, convey, at least in part by his facial expression, a message touching credibility. [para. 78]

Demeanour – Guidance from Bowman A.C.J. of the Tax Court of Canada

The future Chief Justice of the Tax Court observed in Faulkner v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue - M.N.R.), [2006] T.C.J. No. 173:

13 Where questions of credibility are concerned, I think it is important that judges not be too quick on the draw. In 1084767 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Celluland) v. Canada, [2002] T.C.J. No. 227 (QL), I said this:

8 The evidence of the two witnesses is diametrically opposed. I reserved judgment because I do not think findings of credibility should be made lightly or, generally speaking, given in oral judgments from the bench. The power and obligation that a trial judge has to assess credibility is one of the heaviest responsibilities that a judge has. It is a responsibility that should be exercised with care and reflection because an adverse finding of credibility implies that someone is lying under oath. It is a power that should not be misused as an excuse for expeditiously getting rid of a case. The responsibility that rests on a trial judge to exercise extreme care in making findings of credibility is particularly onerous when one considers that a finding of credibility is virtually unappealable.

14 I continue to be of the view that as judges we owe it to the people who appear before us to be careful about findings of credibility and not be too ready to shoot from the hip. Studies that I have seen indicate that judges are no better than any one else at accurately making findings of credibility. We do not have a corner on the sort of perceptiveness and acuity that makes us better than other people who have been tested such as psychologists, psychiatrists or lay people. Since it is part of our job to make findings of credibility, we should at least approach the task with a measure of humility and recognition of our own fallibility. I know that appellate courts state that they should show deference to findings of fact by trial judges because they have had the opportunity to observe the demeanour of the witness in the box. Well, I have seen some accomplished liars who will look you straight in the eye and come out with the most blatant falsehoods in a confident, forthright and frank way, whereas there are honest witnesses who will avoid eye contact, stammer, hesitate, contradict themselves and end up with their evidence in a complete shambles. Yet some judges seem to believe that they can instantly distinguish truth from falsehood and rap out a judgment from the bench based on credibility. The simple fact of the matter is that judges, faced with conflicting testimony, probably have no better than a 50/50 chance of getting it right and probably less than that when their finding is based on no more than a visceral reaction to a witness. Moreover, it is essential that if an adverse finding of credibility is made the reasons for it be articulated. [Emphasis added]

Demeanour evidence – We all judge the looks of others, on a day-to-day basis, not just investigators

That demeanour is the stuff of day-to-day observations and judgments is supported by the quote that follows: “Polixenes. The king hath on him such a countenance …” See The Winter’s Tale – Act 1, sc. ii, l. 368.

Demeanour evidence – Actors may put on a brave face, or others, to fool you

In this vein, recall that Leontes observed: “… May a free face put on … and making practised smiles, As in a looking-glass, and then to sigh…” The Winter’s Tale – Act 1, sc. ii, l. 113, 117-118.  The lesson for investigators is that offenders know that their demeanour may betray them, and they may thus practice their “looks”, their face, with a mirror or more advanced technology.

Demeanour evidence and assuming a look, a countenance, to trick the person being spoke to

Goneril. Put on what weary negligence you please,
You and your fellows. I'd have it come to question.

With these words, at l. 517-518 of Act 1, sc. iii, Goneril invites her servant and his staff to deceive the King, her father, and obviously intends that they do so both by their inaction in following his orders and by their appearance in not showing any interest in their duties.  That is the subtle nature of demeanour evidence as it goes hand in hand with words and objective actions such as holding out one’s hand, to shake, for example, in a greeting in which a broad smile is visible. At all events, the Lady then states, at Act 1, sc. iii, l. 528-529: “Goneril. And let his knights have colder looks among you. …” In other words, a person may easily adopt a guise, a look, and demeanour is a form of communication that is to be resorted to at will.  The example that follows is in keeping with this line of thought: “Duke of Cornwall. This is some fellow Who, having been prais'd for bluntness, doth affect A saucy roughness …” Refer to Act 2, sc. ii, l. 1165.

Demeanour information involves silent communication versus words that obviously embrace sound in conveying meaning

This fundamental difference expresses and explains why investigators, whether interviewing witnesses in their office or viewing what they might have said and done by means of CCTV, for example, face a different challenge in terms of demeanour versus testimony.  In the former case, the purported communication is non-verbal whilst the words are not and it is obviously far easier to interpret words than in the case of movements of the head, flaring of nostrils and the turns of eyelids!  In this context, consider what Edmund stated at Act 1, sc. ii, l. 476-477 of King Lear: “Parted you in good terms? Found you no displeasure in him by word or countenance?” Contrasting words with appearance makes plain the challenges one faces when assessing the value of non-verbal testimony.

Along the same lines I found this relevant passage at Act 1, sc. iv, l. 714: “Fool. … [To Goneril] Yes, forsooth, I will hold my tongue. So your face bids me, though you say nothing.”

Demeanour evidence – more than one element might be in evidence, at once, and they may appear at cross purposes

It is quite common that a witness being interviewed by a police officer and whose “countenance” is filmed fully will demonstrate more than one so-called “tell”, such as licking of lips while the eyes flare or the signs described in the passage set out below.  Indeed, one may perceive apparently contradictory manifestations of demeanour. Thus, when asked about a person’s reaction to certain news, the potential witness, so to speak, responded:

Gentleman. Not to a rage. Patience and sorrow strove
Who should express her goodliest. You have seen
Sunshine and rain at once: her smiles and tears
Were like, a better way. Those happy smilets
That play'd on her ripe lip seem'd not to know
What guests were in her eyes, which parted thence
As pearls from diamonds dropp'd. In brief,
Sorrow would be a rarity most belov'd,
If all could so become it. [Emphasis added]

[Act 4, sc. iii, l. 2470-2479]

            Demeanour evidence – The Grey’s Anatomy version

            Brow

“Lear … Let it stamp wrinkles in her brow of youth …” [1-iv-81]

Cheek

“Lear … With cadent tears fret channels in her cheeks …” [[1-iv-82]

Countenance

“Lear. Dost thou know me, fellow? Earl of Kent. [In disguise] No, sir; but you have that in your countenance which I would fain call master.” [1-iv-559-560.] I quote further: “Earl of Kent. His countenance likes me not.” Act 2, sc. ii, l. 1158.

Eyes

“Lear. … Old fond eyes…” See Act 1, sc. iv, l. 830. Later, Kent states: “… heavy eyes…”. L. 1247 of sc. ii of Act 2. Consider as well: “Lear. You nimble lightnings, dart your blinding flames Into her scornful eyes! Infect her beauty…” [2-iv-1449]. Further, “Lear. … Thy tender-hefted nature shall not give Thee o'er to harshness. Her eyes are fierce; but thine Do comfort, and not burn…” See Act 2, sc. iv, l. 1456-1457. Consider as well the issue of eyelids that follows: “Regan. … She gave strange eyeliads and most speaking looks To noble Edmund…” [4-5-2580.] Finally, I quote: “Goneril. Holla, holla! That eye that told you so look'd but asquint” Act 5, sc. iii, l. 3205.

Face

“Fool. … [To Goneril] Yes, forsooth, I will hold my tongue. So your face bids me, though you say nothing.” [Act 1, sc. iv, l. 714.]

Frown

“Cordelia. … Myself could else outfrown false Fortune's frown…” Act 5, sc. iii, l. 3130.

Grief

“Earl of Kent. Did your letters pierce the Queen to any demonstration of
grief?” See Act 4, sc. iii, l. 2463.

Head

“Lear. …  and does shake the head To hear of pleasure's name.” [5-vi-2730].

Looks

“Goneril. And let his knights have colder looks among you. …” Act 1, sc. iii, l. 528. The same image is found in Act 2, sc. iv, l. 1315. Further, consider “Lear. And here's another, whose warp'd looks proclaim…” See Act 3, sc. vi., l. 2055. Consider as well what follows: “Regan. … She gave strange eyeliads and most speaking looks To noble Edmund…” [4-5-2580.]

Quake

“Lear. … When I do stare, see how the subject quakes.” Act 4, sc. vi, l. 2717.

Smiles

“Earl of Kent. …  Such smiling rogues as these …” Act 2, sc. ii, l. 1140. Not soon after, he states: “… Smile you my speeches, as I were a fool?” See l. 1149.  Consider as well “Oswald. Madam, within, but never man so chang'd. I told him of the army that was landed: He smil'd at it…” [4-ii-2341.]

Tears

“Edgar. [aside] My tears begin to take his part so much They'll mar my counterfeiting.” [3-vi-2063]

Visage

“Earl of Kent. …  A plague upon your epileptic visage!” L. 1148, Act 2 sc. ii.

Voices

“Edgar. …  Of Bedlam beggars, who, with roaring voices …” Act 2, sc. iii, l. 1265.

Interviewing skills and techniques

Accused or detained person invoking right to silence: Requesting them to speak nonetheless

I know of no disciplinary or other kind of proceedings against a police officer who heard an accused or detained person invoke their right to silence, which is not to say that there have been none, but the case books abound with instances in which police officers were criticized for not respecting this right.  And, of course, there are cases in which this was sufficient to exclude a statement by itself, and at times, in combination with situations involving a breach of the right to counsel.  What is particularly thorny is when investigators act in the imperative style described below, at Act 1, sc. i, l. 87-97 in which King Lear makes plain that to remain silent will cost his daughter Cordelia dearly, the “mar your fortune reference”, a clear inducement if we assume it is a police interview.

Lear. … what can you say to draw
A third more opulent than your sisters? Speak.

Cordelia. Nothing, my lord.

Lear. Nothing?

Cordelia. Nothing.

Lear. Nothing can come of nothing. Speak again.

Cordelia. Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave
My heart into my mouth. I love your Majesty
According to my bond; no more nor less.

Lear. How, how, Cordelia? Mend your speech a little,
Lest it may mar your fortunes. [Emphasis added]

Allow witness full opportunity to explain their position

The passage that follows makes plain how an investigator ought to proceed after receiving a full explanation or account of an important element or aspect of the interview, be it from the suspect / accused or a potential witness at trial: allow them to confirm that they wish to add nothing and to delete nothing.  In effect, “that their head and heart goes with this statement.” In this illustration, note that Cordelia spoke volumes about how a bride assigns love to her spouse ahead of her father upon marriage, and how her father sought and obtained her conformation that this was in fact her position.  

Cordelia. Good my lord,
You have begot me, bred me, lov'd me; I
Return those duties back as are right fit,
Obey you, love you, and most honour you.
Why have my sisters husbands, if they say
They love you all? Haply, when I shall wed,
That lord whose hand must take my plight shall carry
Half my love with him, half my care and duty.
Sure I shall never marry like my sisters,
To love my father all.

Lear. But goes thy heart with this?

Cordelia. Ay, good my lord. [Act 1, sc. i, l. 98-109.]  

The same type of question is asked by Lear at Act 2, sc. iv, l. 1534, to confirm that his daughter well understands the impact of her disavowal of his wishes: “Lear. Is this well spoken?”

            Confidentiality of your interviews with potential witnesses

What King Lear requested of Old Tom at Act 3, sc. iv, l. 1853 is not possible: “Let me ask you one word in private.” Such interviews must be disclosed unless the person providing the information qualifies fully within the very narrowly defined strictures of a confidential informant.

Consistency in answers – as you question, pause, and assess this element

I note that in Act 1, sc. i, l. 50-51, King Lear asked: “Which of you [my daughters] shall we say doth love us most? That we our largest bounty may extend …” Later, we read at l. 128 of the same scene the King laments: “… I lov'd her most …”  The use of the superlative in each case demonstrates consistency in his way of looking at things. 

            Denial of any background information or knowledge

I note that the Duke of Albany stated to the King when Lear asked him to explain what role he played in the poor treatment the King was receiving: “My lord, I am guiltless, as I am ignorant Of what hath mov'd you.” See Act 1, sc. iv, l. 8799-800.  It is sometimes quite useful for the investigator to ask an open-ended question in the nature of “What can you say about the troubles last night?”  If the witness emulates Albany and claims no knowledge, you will enjoy a tactical advantage later if it turns out that the witness was being disingenuous. 

Disguised voices

Be wary that the person you interview may be attempting to modify both their voice and their speech patterns to avoid being recognized or being linked to intercepted communications.  In this context, Kent shaved his beard and changed is speech to help the King without being recognized, as he had been banished: “If but as well I other accents borrow, That can my speech defuse …” Refer to King Lear, Act 1, sc. iv, l. 535.

            Guilty conscience might lead to a need and wish to confess

Basic psychology does instruct that there are instances in which persons who harbour a guilty mind will wish to confess, to unburden themselves of this guilt.  In this vein, note what Lear states at Act 3, sc. ii, l. 1727:

Lear. … Tremble, thou wretch,
That hast within thee undivulged crimes
Unwhipp'd of justice…

            Imagery during interviews – ensure a full understanding

It is not just Shakespearean actors who resort to difficult to understand imagery, and so the prudent investigator will seek to obtain an explanation for any such expressions.  In the case of Lear, he tells Kent: “The bow is bent and drawn; make from the shaft.” This meant to communicate that his decision was made, and if Kent stood in the way, he would suffer as well as the person his wrath, the arrow if you wish, was aimed at.  See the play at Act 1, sc. i, l. 149.

Consider as well what follows:

Earl of Kent. Sir, in good faith, in sincere verity,
Under th' allowance of your great aspect,
Whose influence, like the wreath of radiant fire
On flickering Phoebus' front-

Duke of Cornwall. What mean'st by this? [2-ii-1173-1176]

,           Impossible to answer questions may be put to assess perspective on case

In the first act and scene of King Lear, the ruler asks this famous question at l. 47-54:

Tell me, my daughters
(Since now we will divest us both of rule,
Interest of territory, cares of state),
Which of you shall we say doth love us most?
That we our largest bounty may extend
Where nature doth with merit challenge…

This kind of question is impossible to be responded to fully and fairly and most persons recoil at a Sophie’s Choice kind of question.  That said, the investigator is called upon, sadly, to consider at times the possibility of a murder within a family unit and who might be the better (or best) suspect.  Hard questions may be asked, and it may be of great assistance to focus not on the responses but on the wish to respond.  Is there a desire to throw someone else under the bus, so to speak, or is there a refusal to respond which might be noble, but might be a wish not to say anything that might ricochet right back to the speaker once investigated?

Interruptions may distort what it is the witness intended to state

When interviewing a potential witness in your office, or elsewhere such as the classic scene of the crime, be mindful of how laypersons are nervous and be careful not to interrupt to confirm what you believe to be a significant observation until the witness has completed their comment on this subject. By way of explanation for my counsel of care, consider the lengthy passage that follows as it appears in Act 1, sc. i, l. 131 and following, and how it’s meaning is distorted if I interrupt the speaker, so to speak, as if I were a too impatient investigator:

Lear. … Cornwall and Albany,
With my two daughters' dowers digest this third;
Let pride, which she calls plainness, marry her.
I do invest you jointly in my power,
Preeminence, and all the large effects
That troop with majesty. Ourself, by monthly course,
With reservation of an hundred knights,
By you to be sustain'd, shall our abode
Make with you by due turns. Only we still retain
The name, and all th' additions to a king. The sway,
Revenue, execution of the rest,
Beloved sons, be yours; which to confirm,
This coronet part betwixt you. [Emphasis added]

If I stop the flow of words with the underlined passage, the two sons-in-law do not have to bear the burden of what Lear then retains for himself, which is a serious distortion of his intentions. 

In this context, the funniest and easy to retain example of how best to recall this advice is to think of the M*A*S*H* episode where they try to disarm an unexploded bomb by following a guidebook that states “… cut the red wire…”, and they do and turn the page to read “but not before cutting the blue wire…”  In effect, express things clearly and in the logical order when drafting bomb disposal instructions, obviously, but in terms of human affairs, be mindful that we sometimes present disorganized speech patterns and say things such as “I give you $1,000”, and pause, to then interrupt your exultations by adding “but only if you get straight A’s on your report card.”

Is cooperating with the police the equivalent of tattling when it involves family or friends?

On occasion, a potential witness will state that they are concerned that no matter what they do, they will be in trouble with someone.  This is captured in the phrase that follows, stated in response to a request to hand over a document:

Edmund. I shall offend, either to detain or give it. The contents, as
in part I understand them, are to blame. [Act 1, sc. ii, l. 375.]

Later, we read this in the play, starting at l. 705, Act 1, sc. iv:

Fool. I marvel what kin thou and thy daughters are. They'll have me
whipp'd for speaking true; thou'lt have me whipp'd for lying;
and sometimes I am whipp'd for holding my peace.

Joint interviews: To be avoided to ensure independent accounts

No long explanation is required to justify why potential witnesses who might have seen an event at the same time ought not to be interviewed together, as they inevitably will influence each other.  In the play, the King asks each of his three daughters to set out the extent of their love for him and dangles the reward of a greater part of his kingdom as a prize.   Understandably, no matter how flattering was the first account, the second was more impressive, and “built upon” the first, so to speak.  To understand better this basic element of human nature, allow me to reproduce the second “praising” presentation, with the underlined words seeking to accentuate how the fact of hearing the first ‘witness’ speak influenced the second one:  

Regan. Sir, I am made
Of the selfsame metal that my sister is,
And prize me at her worth. In my true heart
I find she names my very deed of love;
Only she comes too short, that I profess
Myself an enemy to all other joys
Which the most precious square of sense possesses,
And find I am alone felicitate
In your dear Highness' love. [Emphasis added]

King Lear, Act 1, sc. i, l. 69-78.

Leading questions – not always answered as intended by the questioner

Experience has taught me that not every leading question is followed by the answer proposed by the questioner. Indeed, it is a mark of reliability and honesty that a witness does not jump on the “ready made reply” so to speak.  This example, taken from the world of fiction, is apt as it shows the Earl not falling in step with what Regan falsely insinuates at Act 2, sc. i, l. 1031:

Regan. Was he not companion with the riotous knights

That tend upon my father?

Earl of Gloucester. I know not, madam…

Leading questions – some are close to the line

In the course of an interview of a witness, at the police station or elsewhere, you will naturally enough be provided with information suggesting this, that or the other thing of a criminal nature.  What you should avoid is then asking: “Has this happened before?” Although close to the line, the question is leading although it does not suggest a crime as one has already been discussed, but it does suggest a further offence. It is preferable to ask a general question along the lines of “What else can you say, if anything, on this subject?”  What follows is an example of the prohibited type of question. “Earl of Gloucester. Hath he never before sounded you in this business?” See Act 1, sc. ii, l. 400.

In addition, it is often thought useful, if not necessary, for the question to contain “if anything” at its conclusion.  For example, it would be technically incorrect if the investigator were to ask the question found below:

Duke of Albany. … Come hither, friend.
Tell me what more thou know'st.

In effect, this formulation suggests that there is more knowledge to be obtained, which is leading in the sense that the person being interviewed is provided the suggestion that “your answer(s) to date are not entirely satisfactory and I wish you to provide more information …”  In effect, an honest and confident witness may be misled to conclude that they must “add a little” and an honest and lacking in confidence witness may be misled to “add a lot”.  All that being said, if one adds the words “if anything” to the question “Tell me what more thou know'st?” the fault is cured. 

Lengthy answers: listen politely and pursue your agenda after a polite pause

On occasion, a potential witness being interviewed in your office will wish to make a speech (or many) to praise or bury the probable suspect or the accused, if one has been identified.  An example of a person praising to no one another is seen below.  I offer it to demonstrate that no purpose would be gained by interrupting the flow of words, whether favourable or not, and you are potentially penalized in that the witness may cease to be cooperative on the assumption that he or she saw what they were communicating as a demonstration of cooperation.  Indeed, by listening closely to what the witness in saying in this long-winded response, you might gain an insight as to any bias present and whether the person is delivering a scripted answer, suggesting that there has been an attempt by a third party to influence the information you will receive.

Goneril. Sir, I love you more than words can wield the matter;
Dearer than eyesight, space, and liberty;
Beyond what can be valued, rich or rare;
No less than life, with grace, health, beauty, honour;
As much as child e'er lov'd, or father found;
A love that makes breath poor, and speech unable.
Beyond all manner of so much I love you.

King Lear, Act 1, sc. I, l. 55-61.

Length of interview may lead to witness beginning to suffer from such anxiety or other intervening cause of loss of reliability

As illustrated by the comments of the Earl of Kent who intervened to put an end to the questions asked of King Lear, “… Importune him once more to go, my lord.
His wits begin t' unsettle”, one has to be careful not to tax the endurance of a potential witness who suffers from any number of difficulties in ordinary circumstances that pose obstacles to the provision of a full, fair and frank account of their knowledge of information.  Obviously, these grow greater as the length of the interview increases.  Refer to Act 3, sc. iv, l. 1854.

Further, I point to what the Earl of Gloucester noted a few lines later: “…
The grief hath craz'd my wits…”  Simply put, there will be times when the interview cannot be held by reason of things such as grief, obviously, but there will also be occasions in which an appropriate interview is undertaken, but it cannot be pursued save for a brief period. Further yet, consider the insights found in what follows:

Earl of Kent. Well, sir, the poor distressed Lear's i' th' town;
Who sometime, in his better tune, remembers
What we are come about … [4-iii-2495]

In effect, how will the prudent investigator know when the memory of the witness is as strong as it can attain, assuming it is satisfactory at that time, and when will one’s memory sink below any acceptable level?  In this vein, I note that in Act 4, sc. iv, l. 2523 and following, Cordelia seeks to obtain help for her father, to restore what is capable of being restored with respect to his memory and related faculties:

Cordelia. … What can man's wisdom
In the restoring his bereaved sense?
He that helps him take all my outward worth.

In fact, a doctor intervenes and suggests that her father seek rest, nature’s remedy 

            Lips of victims to be unsealed y the diligent work of the investigators

Consider this relevant passage, from Act 4, sc. vi, l. 2773: “Lear. … Take that of me, my friend, who have the power To seal th' accuser's lips…” Your task is to achieve the contrary result, in the interests of justice. 

Listening to the witness and judging whether they are “adopting” a “crime scenario” merely by being interviewed?

The prudent investigator will seek to study how potential witnesses express themselves, especially those who adopt a certain vocabulary in response to a situation, which may result in exaggerating their meaning, or the contrary, a vital concern either way.  In this light, I note that King Lear states at the outset: “Meantime we shall express our darker purpose…” [Act 1, sc. i, l. 35]  These are ominous words and in your office, you must ask yourself: “Is the witness describing an event in a similar manner, by reason of the facts at play, or as a result of being interviewed, giving the cue that something criminal is being investigating?” Consider the situation of a car accident.  Is the witness “over-egging the pudding”, to refer to an English example, having concluded perhaps unwittingly that your request to interview him conveyed the message that a crime has been committed?

Long winded answers – beware those who, when asked what time it is during an interview, go on to explain how watches work!

A good example follows. When asked how old he is, the Earl of Kent says: “Not so young, sir, to love a woman for singing, nor so old to dote on her for anything. I have years on my back forty-eight.” See Act 1, sc. iv, l. 569-570. Later, at Act 2, sc. ii, l. 1198 he states: “Sir, I am too old to learn.”  A better one is found at Act 4, sc. i, l. 2311-2312.

Earl of Gloucester. Know'st thou the way to Dover?

Edgar. Both stile and gate, horseway and footpath…

            “Mar a tale by telling it” - be wary of this type of interviewee

Note the interesting comment advanced by Kent (in disguise) when asked by the King to list his talents: “I can keep honest counsel, ride, run, mar a curious tale in telling it and deliver a plain message bluntly…” Refer to Act 1, sc. iv, l. 563-564. The prudent investigator must always be wary of this peculiar kind of interviewee – it is one thing not to be able to tell a joke, quite another not to be able to explain one’s observations without confusing the parties or the sequence, etc.  After all, reliable information is at the heart of what you seek. 

            Motivations quite subjective in nature may lead to disclosure of information

Edmund, who schemes against his brother and later his father, mocks the fact that the latter blames the stars for the increasing complexities of his life.  From the investigator’s perspective, however, one must “play the cards the witness deals” and if a potential witness will be more forthcoming by reason of the Maple Leafs’ eternal playoff disasters, the fact of bad weather or the pandemic, to cite but few examples, then the questioning should be framed to tap into this potential mine of information.  Consider in this vein what follows, found in Act 1, sc. ii, l. 441-454 and later at l. 465-470, though these lines are stated by Edmund about eclipses directly to deceive his brother Edgar:

Edmund. This is the excellent foppery of the world, that, when we are
sick in fortune, often the surfeit of our own behaviour, we make
guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and the stars; as if
we were villains on necessity; fools by heavenly compulsion;
knaves, thieves, and treachers by spherical pre-dominance;
drunkards, liars, and adulterers by an enforc'd obedience of
planetary influence; and all that we are evil in, by a divine
thrusting on. An admirable evasion of whore-master man, to lay
his goatish disposition to the charge of a star! …

Edmund. I promise you, the effects he writes of succeed unhappily: as
of unnaturalness between the child and the parent; death,
dearth, dissolutions of ancient amities; divisions in state,
menaces and maledictions against king and nobles; needless
diffidences, banishment of friends, dissipation of cohorts,
nuptial breaches, and I know not what.

I hasten to add that person who is swept up in the emotions that engulfed King Lear and led him to say: “I am a man More sinn'd against than sinning” might well wish to denounce those who have sinned against him.  See l. 1736 of Act 3, sc. iii.

“Nothing” by way of response to any police questioning – a valid reply

It is my view, and not one shared by all judges and supported by the tons of cases on this difficult point, that no offence is committed by a witness who is not a suspect or accused, who refuses to respond to a question during a police interview.  I am of the view, and it may be a minority one, I repeat, that all who are questioned by the police enjoy a right to silence and no one is required to respond to a question put by those who seek to protect our community.  It is good citizenship to respond to such questions, but not an offence to fail to do so, in my private opinion.  Thus, you may find yourself facing the situation set out below, in which a witness imitates Cordelia and says “noting”, to then explain why they have said “nothing”.  

Lear. [Speaking to his daughter Regan]

To thee and thine hereditary ever
Remain this ample third of our fair kingdom,
No less in space, validity, and pleasure
Than that conferr'd on Goneril.- Now, our joy,
Although the last, not least; to whose young love
The vines of France and milk of Burgundy
Strive to be interest; what can you say to draw
A third more opulent than your sisters? Speak.

Cordelia. Nothing, my lord.

Lear. Nothing?

Cordelia. Nothing

Lear. Nothing can come of nothing. Speak again.

King Lear Act 1, sc. ii, l. 80-95.

For present purposes, I hasten to add that if the potential witness, by saying nothing, is lying or misleading the investigator, then a crime has been committed.  I cannot imagine a situation in which a person states “I have nothing to say” that leads to a prosecution.  This is different from one who states “Nothing happened” or “I saw nothing” when something did occur, in fact.  In those instances, there is a positive statement that is false, knowingly so.

My last observation surrounds the comment made by the Duke of Burgundy in Act 1, sc. i, l. 218: “I know no answer.” In such a case, it would be quite difficult to prove a wilful attempt to obstruct as the answer is so vague.

            Oath or solemn affirmation

It is vital in all cases in which you wish to convey to the potential witness the importance of their information to request that the questioning take place after an oath or solemn affirmation.  That said, I am mindful that Shakespeare’s plays are infamous for how easily and often the characters make oaths and how quickly they fail to honour them.  For example, King Lear records these words at Act 3, sc. iv. l. 1883 on how Edgar (in disguise) described his past life:

Edgar. … swore as many oaths as I spake
words, and broke them in the sweet face of heaven …”

            Plain speaking individuals – take their measure as

It matters not that a person you interview self-describes as a plain speaker, so long as they act in accordance with their own label.  Consider that the Earl of Kent stated: “Sir, 'tis my occupation to be plain. I have seen better faces in my time.”  Refer to Act 2, sc. ii, l. 1160.

Precision in information gathering is vital – clarify any potential confusion

I begin by quoting from Act 1, sc. i, l. 8-9:

Earl of Kent. Is not this your son, my lord?

Earl of Gloucester. His breeding, sir, hath been at my charge …

The careful investigator cannot accept so indirect an answer as that provided by Gloucester in that many non-biological parents (and perfect strangers) provide funds for the education of a child.  If the response was meant to state “yes” to the question “are you the father?”, then the questioner goes on to elicit a clear and compelling response.  A brief example a few lines further is instructive: “Earl of Kent. I must love you, and sue to know you better.” The meaning is not in reference to a legal claim but rather to an obligation resulting from friendship with the father to better know the adult son, newly introduced.

Progression – from no knowledge to producing a document that is incriminating – an example

The dialogue that follows between the “illegitimate” son Edmund and his father illustrates well what investigators will experience, the movement from a full denial of any knowledge of anything remotely suspicious to providing some incriminating document, not just information.  The conversation begins with the Earl asking Edmund what news he possesses: 361

Edmund. So please your lordship, none. [Puts up the letter.]

Earl of Gloucester. Why so earnestly seek you to put up that letter?

Edmund. I know no news, my lord.

Earl of Gloucester. What paper were you reading?

Edmund. Nothing, my lord.

Earl of Gloucester. No? What needed then that terrible dispatch of it into your
pocket? The quality of nothing hath not such need to hide
itself. Let's see. Come, if it be nothing, I shall not need
spectacles.

Edmund. I beseech you, sir, pardon me. It is a letter from my brother
that I have not all o'er-read; and for so much as I have
perus'd, I find it not fit for your o'erlooking.

Earl of Gloucester. Give me the letter, sir. [Act 1, sc. ii, l. 361-377.]

Of course, it is part of a plan by Edmund to destroy his brother’s reputation in the eyes of his father. 

            Prophecy DNA evidence many centuries ago

Victims may be heard to provide information to the investigators who will eventually try to bring to justice the criminal who harmed them, such as crying out the name of the assailant, and such information has always been sought.  Of interest, the Earl of Gloucester reacted to his victimization by referring to potential evidence in the nature of DNA!

Consider:

Naughty lady,
These hairs which thou dost ravish from my chin
Will quicken, and accuse thee… [3-vi-2165-2166]

Racist, sexist, antisemitic, or other vile demonstrations of hatred must be assessed in determining the value of potential testimony

Consider how you would assess the merits of the proposed testimony of one such as the Third servant who stated: “… Women will all turn monsters.” See Act 3, sc. 7, l. 237.  Any such vile views must be evaluated closely for obvious reasons. 

Reputation evidence – seek out such information for background

On occasion, when investigating a crime of violence, it might be quite useful to ascertain if a person of interest possesses a reputation for rash actions and decisions.  Consider the comments that follow: 320

Goneril. The best and soundest of his time hath been but rash; then
must we look to receive from his age, not alone the
imperfections of long-ingraffed condition, but therewithal
the unruly waywardness that infirm and choleric years bring with
them. [Act 1., sc. i, l. 320.]

Right to silence does not prevent police from questioning

I start by observing that Lear stated at Act 3, sc. ii, l. 1713: “No, I will be the pattern of all patience; I will say nothing.” This invocation of the right to silence does not interdict police questioning.  Later, we read: “Goneril. Ask me not what I know.” See Act 5, sc. iii, l. 3315.

Self-description of a witness at the start of a formal police interview

I think it wise for police investigators to ask witnesses they interview to say a little about themselves at the outset.  On the one hand, it helps you to assess their ease, their formal education, their vocabulary, the need for an interpreter, and to allow them to get comfortable with the setting without having to respond right away to quite complex questions, on the other.  That said, I doubt you will encounter one who states what Kent said (in disguise) to the King when first approaching him and asked to state his business: 546

Earl of Kent. I do profess to be no less than I seem, to serve him truly
that will put me in trust, to love him that is honest, to
converse with him that is wise and says little, to fear
judgment, to fight when I cannot choose, and to eat no fish.

King Lear, Act 1, sc. iv, l. 546-550. [Emphasis added]

By way of full disclosure, so to speak, he added later, starting at line 563:

Earl of Kent. I can keep honest counsel, ride, run, mar a curious tale in
telling it and deliver a plain message bluntly. That which
ordinary men are fit for, I am qualified in, and the best of me
is diligence.

Single word answers are not to be sought by wise investigators

The incorrect procedure is demonstrated by the Duke of Cornwall and Regan as they seek a confession from the Earl of Gloucester: “Come, sir, what letters had you late from France? Regan. Be simple-answer'd, for we know the truth.” See Act 3, sc. vii, l. 2168.  Investigators wish full information, both to assess if this is a false confession situation, based on media reports, by an individual who is deluded into thinking they are involved or a situation in which it will be suggested at trial that the police induced a false confession from one who stated nothing of the facts save to agree with the accusations.     

“Speak less than thou knowest” – a challenge for investigators wishing a full account of every aspect of information 

In this context, the investigator must be careful to ensure that those they interview before trial have not just seen this play and heard the Fool give the advice below, as it might result in a truncated statement when what you pursue is not only the truth but the whole truth!  [Emphasis added]

Fool. Mark it, nuncle.
Have more than thou showest,
Speak less than thou knowest,
Lend less than thou owest… [1-iv-645-649.]

Threat made to a witness to ensure that they agree with your suggestions

A rather extreme, but entertaining preamble to the threat is set out below, taken from l. 1087-1095 of Act 2, sc. ii:

Earl of Kent. A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud,
shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy,
worsted-stocking knave; a lily-liver'd, action-taking, whoreson,
glass-gazing, superserviceable, finical rogue;
one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd in way of
good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave,
beggar, coward, pander, and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch;
one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deny the
least syllable of thy addition. [Emphasis added]

Verbatim accounts by a witness in your office –

To understand fully my comments that follow, I invite the reader to review the brief dialogue between Lear and his Knight, consigned at Act 1, sc. iv, l. 584-585:

Lear. Why came not the slave back to me when I call'd him?

Knight. Sir, he answered me in the roundest manner, he would not. [Emphasis added]

I often encountered this situation in my career as a judge and was always surprised by the number of times a witness is asked “what were you told” to respond by explaining the response rather than repeating the words.  The best evidence is a verbatim account.  More to the point, when persons reply with words such as “he answered me in the roundest manner”, they are providing opinion and perhaps avoiding the question.  I suggest that you address this situation in your interviews by noting the answer, to then ask again: “What were you told”, and add information to the effect “not in so many words, but in the precise words?” Further, I take the opportunity to point out to police witnesses that their testimony will be received more readily when they avoid saying “He replied in the negative / affirmative” or similar words when the person said “yes” or “no” as the case may be.  Precision in such situations is essential. 

Wisdom – is it wanting in the person who provides the testimony at the police station?

Goneril takes her husband to task towards the end of scene iv of Act 1 by making plain that he is not so much to be thought of as kind as condemned for his folly.  Thus:

Goneril … [to her husband Albany]

No, no, my lord!
This milky gentleness and course of yours,
Though I condemn it not, yet, under pardon,
You are much more at task for want of wisdom
Than prais'd for harmful mildness. [1-iv-872-875.]

Judgment in police investigations

            Anger and dramatic and unthought of statements and declarations

Act 1, sc. i, l. 112 and following of King Lear demonstrates how easily a person may articulate rash and stupid things, and these at times result in prosecutions for death threats, by way of limited example.  For present purposes, investigators may wish to interview witnesses who are still angry if they think the information they receive will be accurate and that it would be unlikely obtained once passions are cooled.  For example, in the context of an intimate homicide investigation, a person who might not be inclined to cooperate with the police, much less confide in them, might do so upon learning of the tragic circumstances.  Of course, discretion and judgment are essential lest it be argued there was an unreliable statement that was obtained and that it resulted, for example, in a search warrant subject to be upset.  Consider thus how Lear rashly disowns his daughter, stating he would rather consort with a devil than Cordelia, as underlined below. 

Lear. Let it be so! thy truth then be thy dower! 
For, by the sacred radiance of the sun,
The mysteries of Hecate and the night;
By all the operation of the orbs
From whom we do exist and cease to be;
Here I disclaim all my paternal care,
Propinquity and property of blood,
And as a stranger to my heart and me
Hold thee from this for ever. The barbarous Scythian,
Or he that makes his generation messes
To gorge his appetite, shall to my bosom
Be as well neighbour'd, pitied, and reliev'd,
As thou my sometime daughter.

I hasten to add that Lear is so upset that he reacts bitterly and violently to the intervention of his heretofore close advisor the Earl of Kent when he seeks to intervene.  Thus:

Earl of Kent. Good my liege-

Lear. Peace, Kent!
Come not between the dragon and his wrath…

King Lear Act 1, sc. i, l. 125-127.

485

In terms of anger and other emotions, prudent investigators will assess how much is potentially gained or lost when interviewing before anger cools, or other emotions move along their spectrum.  In this context, I note that Edmund remarked: “… I pray you have a continent forbearance till the speed of his rage goes slower …” See l. 485-486 of sc. ii of the first Act of the play. Subsequently, Shakespeare wrote at l. 1137 of King Lear, Act 2, sc. ii: “Earl of Kent. … but anger hath a privilege.”

            Bias – spouse favourably towards each other

When Goneril asks her spouse for his opinion of the conflict she is experiencing with her father, all he can say is: “Duke of Albany. I cannot be so partial, Goneril, To the great love I bear you …” Refer to l. 843 of Act 1, sc. iv. 

            Bias – parental versus children

The well-known phrase from King Lear on this subject follows:

Lear … Turn all her mother's pains and benefits
To laughter and contempt, that she may feel
How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is
To have a thankless child! Away, away!  [1-iv-813-815.]

In effect, investigators cannot merely take for granted that parents will invariably support their offspring.  In cases such as those involving Lear, it is the contrary situation that is at play in that his state of mind is such that not only will he not provide fair information about Goneril, but he would also doubtless provide unfair information.

In closing this brief section, one may not overlook that there may be ore favourable bonds between children and parents, as made plain at Act 2, sc. ii: “Edmund ... with how manifold and strong a bond The child was bound to the father.”[5]  In such cases, objectivity may not be present.

            Circumstantial information – Be wary of such unreliable evidence

The case law makes plain that circumstantial evidence is to be looked at carefully.  In this context, take note that Edmund advances the plot against his brother by engaging him in a false combat to then injure himself deliberately. Thus, line 960, Act 2, sc. i, reads as follows: “Edmund. … Some blood drawn on me would beget opinion Of my more fierce endeavour. [Stabs his arm.]”

Contrived confessions – be wary of

King Lear provides an example of a schemer who sets up his brother to appear to wish his father’s death and proposes to his father to have him secretly hear a conversation between the parties, in the hope that the evil son will boast of his scheme.  This:

Edmund. If your honour judge it meet, I will place you where you shall
hear us confer of this and by an auricular assurance have your
satisfaction, and that without any further delay than this very
evening.  [Act 1, sc. ii, l. 420.]

Investigators should be leery of such situations as one never knows if the other person has been tricked into a scenario of this nature as a joke, for example. 

            Correct initial errors upon further consideration

The wise investigator will not hesitate to admit that an initial opinion was mistaken, especially if the correction is brought about by further information.  This sound judgment is exemplified in the passage that follows, in the opening lines of Act 1, sc. i:

Earl of Kent. I thought the King had more affected the Duke of Albany than
Cornwall.

Earl of Gloucester. It did always seem so to us; but now, in the division of the
kingdom, it appears not which of the Dukes he values most, for
equalities are so weigh'd that curiosity in neither can make
choice of either's moiety.

In addition, do not hesitate to make these corrections plain in your notes or other documentation to be disclosed as only a fool will not admit to having erred at some point. 

Credulity – be wary that you not fall prey to the guile that was at play to commit the offence 

At times, the guilty party in a fraud or other confidence crime is so crafty that no one would suspect them of any wrongdoing.  One must be wary in all circumstances, but especially in fraud cases as the guilty ones know how to shift suspicion onto others.  In this context, consider how well Edmund deceived all those around him and made his brother a patsy:

Edmund. I do serve you in this business.
[Exit Edgar.]
A credulous father! and a brother noble,
Whose nature is so far from doing harms
That he suspects none; on whose foolish honesty
My practices ride easy! I see the business.
Let me, if not by birth, have lands by wit;
All with me's meet that I can fashion fit.

[Act 1, sc. ii, l. 495-502.]

Denying a suggestion of wrongdoing at first, emphatically, to then provide damning information none the less

Judge well these not uncommon situations in which persons wishing to support the honesty or reliability of one suspected of unlawful behaviour will deny any knowledge o the wrongful behaviour described, with a view to appear honest and objective.  Right away, however, they slyly refer to a related matter just as bad if not worse in degree.  Consider this response to such a question, in King Lear, Act 1, sc. ii, l. 401-403.

Edmund. Never, my lord. But I have heard him oft maintain it to be fit
that, sons at perfect age, and fathers declining, the father
should be as ward to the son, and the son manage his revenue.

Eloquence and the danger of being influenced unduly by a well-spoken individual (or poorly impressed by an unimpressive speaker)

By way of introduction, I wish to quote from the words of the King’s third daughter, Cordelia, as she hears her two sisters praise their father, in accordance with his wish to be told how much he is loved: “Cordelia. [aside] Then poor Cordelia! And yet not so; since I am sure my love's More richer than my tongue.” [Act 1, sc. i, l. 77-80]. In effect, she despairs that she will appear not to love her father much, or at all, and certainly less than her two much more eloquent (or conniving) sisters, given her less than convincing gift of the gab.  A few lines later, at 93, Cordelia added: “Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave
My heart into my mouth…” Later still, starting at l. 243, Cordelia expresses this lament:

I yet beseech your Majesty,
If for I want that glib and oily art
To speak and purpose not, since what I well intend,
I'll do't before I speak …
A still-soliciting eye, and such a tongue
As I am glad I have not, though not to have it
Hath lost me in your liking.

Further, consider this comment, from Act 5, sc. iii, l. 3359-3361, and that the person addressed need not accept the invitation to speak:

Edmund. This speech of yours hath mov'd me,
And shall perchance do good; but speak you on;
You look as you had something more to say.

For investigators, the lesson to be drawn is that one must focus on the contents of the information being presented, as opposed to the finesse of the speaker in weaving words together.  In the case of demeanour evidence, where the investigator seeks to hear and interpret the silent non-verbal communication, in this instance one is focused on the quality of the information, not on whether the speaker is a wordsmith able to impress with a tapestry of multi-syllabic words.  If both speakers describe a victim being attacked, and one can name the parts of the anatomy that were touched with their Latin roots while the other does not know a patella from a scapula, but knows the kneecap was hit with a Tanya Harding type of blow, that is all that matters.  In fact, careful investigators will be vigilant to ascertain whether the eloquent speaker is responding in a natural or a practiced fashion, to impress.  In such cases, they may fall prey to defence cross-examination more easily as they get tripped by their own unfamiliar vocabulary.  It is said that one witness stated that the person he saw verbally threaten another was “odiously verbose”, leading the defence to ask whether his client was also “otiose, morose, pastose, grandiose, religiose, and bellicose …”

            Evidence gathering is not unlike surfing – you catch the wave

I have been told by experienced investigators over the years that there are times when sources dry up, intelligence gathering is neutralized and your work resembles pushing a broken car uphill while on other occasions, you face the opposite situation and might be run over by the vehicle containing information.  If this image is sound, and the truism can be defended, reflect on how Shakespeare framed a similar thought:

Fool. … Let go thy hold when a great
wheel runs down a hill, lest it break thy neck with following
it; but the great one that goes upward, let him draw thee after…

King Lear, Act 2, sc. iv. L. 1350.

            Evolution in the perspective a person adopts over time – some concerns

Considering the growing number of cases that results from investigations dating back decades, in some cases due to increased forensic tools, in others flowing from a growing awareness that there is no legal impediment to distant prosecutions, you may be called upon to interview potential witnesses whose evidence will focus on past events. In some cases, the perspective of witnesses today may not reflect their initial views, had they been interviewed years earlier. I was involved in two different investigative teams seeking information to prosecute the authors of World War II atrocities in two different countries.  Accordingly, I met with witnesses in the early 1990’s who recounted events from the early 1940s.  I certainly suspected that some persons were far less “invested” in uncovering the truth from that distant date, a truth that did not involve them as either direct victims or the friends and families of the victims.  Social science studies may be consulted to address questions such as the evolution of one’s desire for justice in terms of strangers having been victimized.  At all events, basic psychology teaches us that our thoughts and beliefs evolve over time and there are middle-aged and older persons who sport tattoos today who condemned decades ago, to cite but one example.  Therefore, investigators must be wary of the type of “movement” in thinking made plain in the passage that follows, taken from Act 1, sc. i, l. 8-10 of King Lear:

Earl of Kent. Is not this your son, my lord?

Earl of Gloucester. ... I have so often [by reason of his birth outside of wedlock]
blush'd to acknowledge him that now I am braz'd to't.

Exclamations points – how to ensure that your notes reflect the question, or exclamation, contained in the response, not to mention sarcasm …

In the play, the King hears his daughter Cordelia refuse to place her love for him above all other considerations. He then states: “So young, and so untender?” at l. 110.  If your interview is being recorded and both sight and sound of the witness are well captured, there is no difficulty.  The judge (and jury) will assess whether it was a question that went with “untender?” or, to the contrary, an exclamation “untender!”.  When you are scribing the unrecorded interview, a difficult to defend practice in this day and age of ubiquitous cell phones and other such devices, you must ask follow-up questions to avoid any confusion. 

            False opinion – the investigator must ferret out

In effect, though it not be an easy task, the investigator is charged with ascertaining the truth of any opinions that are advanced.  Consider that Edgar states at Act 3, sc. 6, l. 2215: “When false opinion, whose wrong thought defiles thee …”

            Feigning illness – be careful in suggesting such things

If your judgment cannot be questioned, based on sound information including your observations, you may well be on sound ground to accuse a would-be witness of deception by falsely claiming illness.  But I counsel a great deal of hesitation.  In this light, I note that Lear stated: “… This act persuades me That this remotion of the Duke and her
Is practice only….” Refer to Act 2, sc. iv, l. 1390.  I find it ironic that the next words from Lear’ mouth, at l. 1398, suggest a cardiac issue, and this adds to my comment that I should be circumspect before accusing others of faking a medical issue.  Thus: “Lear. O me, my heart, my rising heart! …”

Fixation of a potential witness with a particular issue may cause you to have no faith in the reliability of information provided

As the reader or audience member of the play appreciates early on, Lear’s mental well-being is quite precarious, and he soon fixates on his two elder daughters as the cause of all his troubles and loses nearly all ability to correctly discern the reality that surrounds him.  In the same vein, the investigator must assess carefully if a potential witness is also grappling with their ability to judge the reality of their situation, at the very least.  Here is but one relevant example:

Earl of Kent. He hath no daughters, sir.

Lear. Death, traitor! nothing could have subdu'd nature
To such a lowness but his unkind daughters.
Is it the fashion that discarded fathers
Should have thus little mercy on their flesh?
Judicious punishment! 'Twas this flesh begot
Those pelican daughters. [3-iv-1868-1874.]

Human nature and ambition – young displace their elders, even in the world of crime

Consider what Edmund states as he proposes to frame his father for treason: “… That which my father loses – no less than all. The younger rises when the old doth fall.” See Act 3, sc. iii, l. 1799.  On occasion, your investigation will lead to actions by those wishing to take over what their older relatives and confederates began, the better to steal the profits.

Human nature and critical self-examination

On occasion, I have encountered situations in which persons who were quite critical of their actions and conduct thought they did nothing remotely worthy of criticism.  The alert investigator will seek to identify any such signs to ensure a clear and coherent and above all fair and balanced account of whatever is being described.  In this context, I offer this example from the play, at Act 4, sc. i, l. 2268-2269: “Earl of Gloucester. I have no way, and therefore want no eyes; I stumbled when I saw…”

Human nature and evolution of one’s emotions may open or close investigative leads

Experience has shown that persons appear at police stations to report crimes involving strangers, or to inform on the actions of family or friends, years and even decades after the fact.  These decisions may be motivated by several factors but typically, human nature is at play and the evolution of one’s emotions is decisive.  Witnesses learn that they have been deceived, cheated, scorned, etc. and this leads to a resolve to assist the authorities, rarely in order that justice be achieved.

In this context, I quote from the Earl of Gloucester, at Act 1, sc. ii, l. 429 and following:

These late eclipses in the sun and moon portend no good to
us. Though the wisdom of nature can reason it thus and thus, yet
nature finds itself scourg'd by the sequent effects. Love cools,
friendship falls off, brothers divide. In cities, mutinies; in
countries, discord; in palaces, treason; and the bond crack'd
'twixt son and father. This villain of mine comes under the
prediction; there's son against father: the King falls from bias
of nature; there's father against child. We have seen the best
of our time. Machinations, hollowness, treachery, and all
ruinous disorders follow us disquietly to our graves. Find out
this villain, Edmund; it shall lose thee nothing; do it
carefully. And the noble and true-hearted Kent banish'd! his
offence, honesty! 'Tis strange. [Emphasis added]

Human nature and hope – be wary that the potential witness is not embellishing their account by reason of hope of reconciliation if a domestic offence

I recall an individual who sought a divorce in the early 1980’s, when such matters were heard in open court, and who stated “I have not given up hope my spouse will return home” when asked by the judge whether there was any hope of reconciliation, a question that was asked as a matter of routine given that the filing of a divorce petition clearly suggested that there was not.  The answer almost ended the hearing… From the perspective of the investigator, one must be wary that a person suspected of having been victimized in a domestic context is being unduly supportive of the suspect when describing the events, perhaps without being conscious of this situation.  In this context, I quote from Act 4, sc. i, l. 2246 and following:

Edgar. Yet better thus, and known to be contemn'd,
Than still contemn'd and flatter'd. To be worst,
The lowest and most dejected thing of fortune,
Stands still in esperance, [i.e. hope] lives not in fear.2250
The lamentable change is from the best;
The worst returns to laughter. … [Emphasis added]

Human nature and joint interviews: Natural tendency to be influenced by what others say (or refuse to say)

I refer to my earlier comments found at “Joint interviews: To be avoided to ensure independent accounts”, under the heading “Interviewing skills and techniques”.

            Human nature and love - might prevent a full account from being given

At the end of sc. i of Act 1, starting at l. 291, Cordelia speaks to her sisters, well knowing they have done their best to bamboozle their father with the praise he so eagerly sought and the professions of love he solicited and stated:

The jewels of our father, with wash'd eyes
Cordelia leaves you. I know you what you are;
And, like a sister, am most loath to call
Your faults as they are nam'd. Use well our father.
To your professed bosoms I commit him;
But yet, alas, stood I within his grace,
I would prefer him to a better place!
So farewell to you both. [Emphasis added]

It will be useful to add what follows, from l. 305 and following:

Cordelia. Time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides.
Who cover faults, at last shame them derides.
Well may you prosper!

For the investigator, what this passage expresses is the possibility, indeed the probability, that a sisterly relationship (or other loving bond) might well give rise to the kind of reluctance to inform the authorities of what may have transpired when asked that we have read just now,

Human nature and superficially “fair and equal” comments

The prudent investigator will always be careful in weighing comments that must appear, outwardly at least, to be fair in the nature of “I am not prejudiced but …” and even the typical “I love all of my children equally” as the investigation may well show racism, on the one hand, or a less than even-handed view of paternal love such that information about one child may be slanted to protect the other. No doubt, unconscious bias may play a role in such situations. 

With these comments in mind, I quote from Act 1, sc. i, l. 16-18: “Earl of Gloucester. But I have, sir, a son by order of law, some year elder than this, who yet is no dearer in my account. …” Indeed, modifying an unseemly descriptor, the words that follow suggest that what might pass for love is rather an expression of acquiescence in the expectations of society: “… though this knave came something saucily into the world before he was sent for, yet was his mother fair, there was good sport at his making, and the
[love child] must be acknowledged…”

            Human nature – satisfactory lost in the pursuit of the perfect

Investigators must be careful to not delay bringing forth the results of their efforts in a vain effort to move from the satisfactory to the perfect.  The Duke of Albany says I this vein: “… Striving to better, oft we mar what's well.” See Act 1. Sc. iv, l. 876-878.

Investigations of superior quality might not result in a firm conclusion

On occasion, sound and experienced investigators are stymied in their work as the evidence that is available is incapable of providing a clear answer to fundamental questions such as “who did what to whom?” and was the event the result of an unlawful act?  Consider the classic “flying packet” situations in which a police officer not investigating anyone for anything merely entered a bar seeking to use the facilities and was met by the sight of dozens of flying bags containing unlawful substances.  It was impossible without CCTV or similar screen captures or testimony by witnesses or forensic evidence to ascertain who might have done such an action.  This is illustrated in the start of the play at Act 1, sc. I, by these lines: “Earl of Gloucester. … for equalities are so weigh'd that curiosity in neither can make choice of either's moiety.”  This arcane language discloses that no amount of “figuring” can answer the question who got the most land.

            Look at both sides (or more) of any question you are considering

Consider this excerpt from King Lear wherein the King states:

Thou but rememb'rest me of mine own conception. I have
perceived a most faint neglect of late, which I have rather
blamed as mine own jealous curiosity than as a very pretence
and purpose of unkindness. I will look further into't … [1-iv-595]

In effect, the prudent investigator will emulate the words and thoughts of Lear and will seek to examine if other explanations appear to justify the course of conduct.  To track the language of fraud found above, i.e., the word “pretence”, you might examine the background to ascertain that no misunderstanding arose due to subjective elements.  In this vein, think of how often one is asked to pay for some purchase on the Web that is expressed in US dollars in fine print and we miss it, thinking it is in our currency.   

            Protestations of innocent are to be given whatever weight they deserve

In King Lear, the King is dumbstruck by his daughter’s Cordelia’s refusal to place her love for him above all other considerations, including her future husband’s place at her side for life. This leads Lear to state: “So young, and so untender?” at l. 110.  In response, Cordelia says: “So young, my lord, and true.”  Investigators must be careful not to assign undue weight to such simple expressions of credit, but I must add that I am often impressed by those who do not go on to explain too much at too much length.  Cordelia had already stated her position forcefully, and she did not think it necessary to renew her plea. 

Later, it is impressive, to me at least, that Kent scants defends himself when challenged for his being put in the stocks:

“Gentleman. Made you no more offence but what you speak of?

Earl of Kent. None.” [Act 2, sc. iv, l. 1340.

Reproducing what the subject of the investigation stated together with what was in hand during the communication

A simple example is found at lines 36-40 of the opening scene of the play as King Lear states: “Give me the map there. Know we have divided In three our kingdom; and 'tis our fast intent To shake all cares and business from our age …” In many cases, it will be impossible to understand fully the speaker’s words unless the document or article they had available if also in your possession.

Reversing the proposition – the defence that a letter soliciting someone to commit a crime was an attempt to assist the authorities to unmask a criminal

In what are rare cases, defendants will explain during a pre-trial interview that they possessed, or communicated a letter, the contents of which solicit participation in a crime, with a view to unmasking (and later denouncing) a criminal.  This amounts to an example of reversing the proposition, a technique best illustrated by the person who is found kneeled over a recently deceased stabbing victim, holding the hilt of the knife while the weapon is still in the body.  Rather than admitting having been caught red-handed, the person states that “I came upon the body and was just now looking to see what I could do to help the victim when you came along…”

The dialogue that follows flows along the same line of argument: 378-391

Edmund. I hope, for my brother's justification, he wrote this but as
an essay or taste of my virtue. [i.e. as a test of my virtue]

Earl of Gloucester. [reads] 'This policy and reverence of age makes the world
bitter to the best of our times; keeps our fortunes from us
till our oldness cannot relish them. I begin to find an idle
and fond bondage in the oppression of aged tyranny, who sways,
not as it hath power, but as it is suffer'd. Come to me, that
of this I may speak more. If our father would sleep till I
wak'd him, you should enjoy half his revenue for ever, and live
the beloved of your brother, Edgar.’

Hum! Conspiracy? 'Sleep till I wak'd him, you should enjoy half
his revenue.' My son Edgar! Had he a hand to write this? a heart
and brain to breed it in? …

            Self-awareness – assess to what degree this trait might be present

Consider this example to introduce my comments: “Lear. … Beat at this gate that let thy folly in [Strikes his head.] And thy dear judgment out! …” See l. 797-798 of Act I, sc. iv.  Note this further observation as well: “Lear. Pray, do not mock me. I am a very foolish fond old man … And, to deal plainly, I fear I am not in my perfect mind.” See Act 4, sc. vii, l. 2978-2979. In effect, the careful investigator will pay close attention to the degree of self-awareness of the witnesses you interview as you might well be cross-examined later this topic, including the suggestion that you took advantage of one suffering from any number of medical or mental difficulties.

            Speak the truth – not what is you are expected to say

The inspiration for this passage is found in the concluding words of the play, in Act 5, sc. iii, at l. 3516:

Duke of Albany. The weight of this sad time we must obey,
Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say…

Undercover work – some observations

The Earl of Gloucester, taken in by his son Edmund’s plot to destroy the Earl’s older son Edgar, agrees with Edmund that he should attempt a form of deception to uncover evidence of betrayal.  Thus, “… Edmund, seek him out; wind me into him, I pray
you; frame the business after your own wisdom. I would unstate
myself to be in a due resolution.” See l. 423-426 of Act 1, sc. ii.  In effect, the Earl is stating that he could not undertake this type of undercover activity in which guile and deception are foremost in importance.

            Voice identification – difficult for a person to maintain a false speaking voice

The reader will recall that Edgar, disguised as Old Tom, is the Earl of Gloucester’s son and that the Earl has not recognized him earlier and cannot now, having been blinded, and Edgar does not wish to cause his further harm by revealing too quickly that fact. Thus, this dialogue takes place, indicating how the listener is now better able to distinguish elements of speech that were better altered and hidden earlier. 

Earl of Gloucester….
Methinks thy voice is alter'd, and thou speak'st
In better phrase and matter than thou didst.

[King Lear, Act 4, sc. vi, l. 2603-2604.]

Note as well this phrase:” Earl of Gloucester. Methinks y'are better spoken.” See l. 2610.  This refers to the quality of the speech, a factor that investigators must examine as some people they interview pretend to be otherwise than they are by means of a better or lesser speech, to advance their own agenda.  Finally, under the rubric of voice identification, consider what follows: “Earl of Gloucester. The trick of that voice I do well remember. Is't not the King?” See Act 4, sc. vi, l. 2715.

Professionalism and police investigations

Correct initial errors upon further consideration

Refer to this discussion consigned under the same rubric, under the heading “Judgment in police investigations”.

            Equality before the law - treat all as equals

I need not defend this comment, but it will be useful to quote what follows:

Lear. … See how yond justice rails upon yond
simple thief. Hark in thine ear. Change places and, handy-dandy,
which is the justice, which is the thief? … [4-vi-2759]

            Future strife may be prevented

As alluded to by King Lear in the passage that follows, prudent investigators focus not only on solving a crime that has occurred, but in seeking to avoid future ones.  For example, if one notices a young person involved with the so-called wrong crowd, one will intervene.  The apt reference is found at Act 1, sc. i, l. 43-44: “[My wish] to publish
Our daughters' several dowers, that future strife May be prevented now…”

            Good intentions are not always sufficient to bring about good results

It is critical to keep abreast of developments in the field of criminal law and procedure, notably in terms of the Charter. In this vein, noteworthy are these comments: “ Cordelia. We are not the first Who with best meaning have incurr'd the worst …” See Act 5, sc. iii, l. 3128.

            Knowledge governs your decision making

Expressed perhaps better is what Cordelia states at Act 4, sc. vii, l. 2930: “Be govern'd by your knowledge, and proceed I' th' sway of your own will…”

            Learn from mistakes

Consider this passage, from Act 2, sc. iv. L. 1609-1610: “Regan. O, sir, to wilful men The injuries that they themselves procure Must be their schoolmasters…” For modern times expressed in modern speech, one must understand that one has to learn from one’s mistakes.   

Professionalism in not being too intimidated to disagree with the judgment of a Superior Officer 

Although I am not suggesting that one is called upon to tell the Emperor that he is naked, as Hans Christian Anderson wrote so ably, but I am suggesting that one must, with respect and without subordination, not be too shy from voicing a truly help opinion, in keeping with your oath.  Consider this relevant passage, found in King Lear, Act 1, sc. i, l. 150-160:

Earl of Kent. Let it fall rather, though the fork invade

The region of my heart! Be Kent unmannerly
When Lear is mad. What wouldst thou do, old man?
Think'st thou that duty shall have dread to speak
When power to flattery bows? To plainness honour's bound
When majesty falls to folly. Reverse thy doom

And in thy best consideration check
This hideous rashness. Answer my life my judgment,
Thy youngest daughter does not love thee least,
Nor are those empty-hearted whose low sound
Reverbs no hollowness.

Later, starting at l. 173, Kent pursues his duty after being threatened with death by Lear and goes so far as to state: “

Kill thy physician, and the fee bestow
Upon the foul disease. Revoke thy gift,
Or, whilst I can vent clamour from my throat,
I'll tell thee thou dost evil.

In effect, Kent is holding to his sworn duty to his sovereign to point out the rashness of his actions and how terribly wrong he has judged what has taken place and how fully he has “swallowed hook, line and sinker” the base flattery of his two elder daughters. 

Slow to judge and quick to reconsider a decision upon new evidence

Newly appointed judges are admonished to be slow to judge, lest hasty decisions cause prejudice.  In addition, members of juries are told to not discuss the evidence of any witness until the final witness is heard and even then, not until they have received the Court’s direction.  The reason is to keep an open mind which may be difficult if one has remarked too strongly too early in the matter – pride being what it is, one may be reluctant to reconsider considering further information. In my opinion, the same values and teachings apply to investigators.

In this context, I highlight how Lear not only rushes headlong into an ill-considered decision, to banish his trusted confidant of so many years, Kent, he states that he will never re-think this decision to have him put to death if found in his kingdom after ten days grace. Refer to l. 178-192 of Act 1, sc. i. 

Lear. Hear me, recreant!
On thine allegiance, hear me!
Since thou hast sought to make us break our vow
Which we durst never yet- and with strain'd pride
To come between our sentence and our power,-
Which nor our nature nor our place can bear,-
Our potency made good, take thy reward
Five days we do allot thee for provision
To shield thee from diseases of the world,
And on the sixth to turn thy hated back
Upon our kingdom. If, on the tenth day following,
Thy banish'd trunk be found in our dominions,
The moment is thy death. Away! By Jupiter,
This shall not be revok'd.

            Winning and losing – no such thing exists!

It is imperative that investigators not concern themselves with the sporting or electoral notions of wins and losses.  All that you can do is amass the available admissible evidence and support the efforts of the prosecution.  Some, but not all, far from it, of the inquiries judging why wrongful convictions have come about have underscored the tunnel vision of some investigators, bent on proving they were correct.  Relevant to your thoughts on this issue is this passage:  

Lear. … So we'll live,
And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, …

and hear poor rogues
Talk of court news; and we'll talk with them too-
Who loses and who wins; who's in, who's out …

King Lear, Act 5, sc. iii, l. 3134-3139.

Conclusion

Perhaps the best advice for investigators in the entire play is one of the briefest of quotes: “Regan. We shall further think on't.”  This splendid and focused injunction that is found at l. 330 of Act 1, sc. i, can never be too often applied by investigators, and prosecutors, and judges.  In addition, I note that the Fool states at Act 1, sc. iv, l. 640: “Truth's a dog must to kennel; he must be whipp'd out …” This phrase, notwithstanding its rhetorical flourish, suggests clearly how challenging is your task, to uncover what did take place in any criminal act. But this challenging task must be discharged fully and fairly, and if you can do so, it may bring about what the Fool spoke of in Act 3, sc. ii, l. 1766, a time when “… every case in law is right … Nor cutpurses come not to throngs…”  Of course, it is always well received to be compensated well for one’s signal efforts, and Shakespeare had this to say on that subject: “Earl of Kent. To be acknowledg'd, madam, is o'erpaid…” Act 4, vii, l. 2915.

Finally, we read at line 2039 of Act 3, sc. vi: “Lear. I'll see their trial first. Bring in their evidence…” which is your ultimate duty to the administration of justice.

[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 counsel, I find that I was wrong!”  I recall a very experienced judge, who had one of his books cited by a lawyer, and who stated: “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 “the play”.  As for the citations, Act 2, sc. ii, l. 2 may be referenced as 2-ii-2.

[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.