Police INVESTIGATIONS 101

Guidance from SHAKESPEARE’S KING RICHARD THE SECOND

 Gilles Renaud | Ontario Court of Justice[1]

INTRODUCTION

In this article, I document the various elements of guidance and instruction from the play King Richard the Second 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 my 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 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 and within two broad rubrics: police interviewing techniques and skills, embracing the thorny issue of demeanour evidence and in addition, judgment to be exercised by the police interviewer. 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

INVESTIGATIONS 101 – INTERVIEWING SKILLS AND TECHNIQUES

In each of the points discussed below, the reader will take for granted that I am referencing an interview of a potential witness to be called at trial by the prosecution and possibly the suspect, as that person’s “quality” as the offender has not yet been established and may not be until the conclusion of all interviews.  I seek to highlight challenges to information gathering, skills and techniques and general elements of information gathering, notably the complex issue of the demeanour of those you interview.

Accurate information – The objective: to obtain

This self-evident proposition is described in so many words in Act 2, sc. i, l. 130: “JOHN GAUNT … May be a precedent and witness good …”  If an interview reveals that the witness engaged in a “fair discourse”, the expression consigned in Act 2, sc. iii., l. 6, it is likely that the information obtained is objective and reliable; whether it is of value is quite another thing. 

In this context, your goal is to belie (in the sense of not being truthful) the false information obtained from the witnesses.  Consider King Richard II, Act 2, sc. ii, l. 75: “YORK … Should I do so, I should belie my thoughts…”  The investigator’s function is to amass sufficient information to permit the authorities to belie, to contradict, what the witness has said, by means of the truth. 

Accurate information – Obstacles to obtaining – Bias

Bias – Assigning undue weight to the merits of the witness by reason of age, of seniority, of experience

The play begins with KING RICHARD II proclaiming: “Old John of Gaunt, time-honour'd Lancaster …”  It is one thing to proclaim overly polite phrases to flatter a person, another to inflate the potential merits of a witness without an objective analysis, and one’s advanced age does not necessarily render that person wiser or more experienced – he or she may simply have made far more mistakes over the years…

Credit assigned to information provided due to status or station

Act 3, sc. iii, l. 119-120 reads: “NORTHUMBERLAND … this swears he, as he is a prince, is just; And, as I am a gentleman, I credit him…”  This form of reasoning represents a grave mistake in that the sound investigator does not assign credit unless it is due.  One may consider that the chances that one who holds an important post would jeopardize that situation for no gain in the case of an event that does not involve them are reduced, but the fact remains that people have been shown to engage in strange conduct.  As for myself, I recall easily that I was a 37-year-old judge who was asked by a senior police officer, older than I was, whether I proposed to intervene to ensure that a senior Justice of the Peace cease to state out loud, in providing judgments in Highway Traffic Act cases, that the testimony of a police officer and that of a citizen, the defendant, are to be judged on the same footing, without preferential value being assigned to the testimony of a police officer.

Bias – Envy

“… rival-hating envy” is the phrase we encounter at Act 1, sc. iii, l. 131.  Such envy must be uncovered by the investigator and its potential impact on the question of the reliability and sincerity of the account provided must be measured fully. 

Bias – Familial relationship

It is not uncommon for Shakespeare to include language suggesting that royalty and nobles would never be swayed by their family relationships, no matter how unlikely it is that one can be neutral in such situations.  Thus, Act 5, sc. iii, l. 10-102 reads: “DUKE OF YORK Away, fond woman! were he twenty times my son, I would appeach him.”

Bias – Malice

Act 1, sc. i, l. 8 -10 and 15-16 reads: “KING RICHARD II Tell me, moreover, hast thou sounded him, If he appeal the Duke on ancient malice… JOHN OF GAUNT … On some apparent danger seen in him Aim'd at your highness, no inveterate malice.”  In effect, if it were an investigator responding to a prosecutor’s questions ahead of trial, we expect that the detective would be able to address whether malice was present that could bring about some malice and, if present, whether “ancient or inveterate”, which might make that bias quite ingrained, as opposed to the product of a more recent and less well anchored negative influence. 

In this context, consider these words: “KING RICHARD II … Deep malice makes too deep incision…”  See Act 1, sc. i, l. 155.   In effect one affected by such a core belief may be incapable of providing satisfactory testimony at trial, unless the investigator is able to find strong, supporting evidence. 

Bias – Thieves or other criminals

King Richard II, Act 4, sc. i, l. 122-123 reads: “BISHOP … Thieves are not judged but they are by to hear, Although apparent guilt be seen in them …”  The archaic language explained that one must nonetheless extend legal niceties to apparent thieves and, in the context, no less is to be extended to royalty.

Bragging during an interview

KING RICHARD II, Act 1, sc. i, l. 195 records the following: “KING RICHARD II. We were not born to sue, but to command …”  The prudent investigator will take pains to ensure that he or she is not overly impressed by braggadocio nor unduly critical of sinful pride.  It is a fact to be considered, but it cannot obscure the whole of the evaluation of the merits of the information provided.

Comfort - Must ensure their comfort lest they complain that statement obtained through duress

The play includes this example in Act 3, sc. ii, l. 64: “EARL OF SALISBURY …  discomfort guides my tongue…”  If such means that the witness was enduring some distress, the admissibility of the statement may be in serious doubt.

Compound questions – an example

KING RICHARD II includes this passage in Act 3, sc. ii, l. 122: “KING RICHARD II … Where is the Earl of Whitshire? Where is Green? ...” This ought to be avoided for fear that the response to one sub-question be understood to apply to a different one. 

Confidence, must foster this in the minds and souls of persons interviewed

KING RICHARD II, Act 2, sc. i, l. 276 instructs us as follows: “LORD ROSS Be confident to speak …” This must be a goal sought by the investigators and needs to be pursued at the outset of contact with the potential witness

Confidential information not involving informer privilege

King Richard II, Act 1, sc. i, l. 111-112 provides an example of a person wishing to provide information but reluctant to say it “out loud”.  Thus, “HENRY BOLINGBROKE. O, let my sovereign turn away his face And bid his ears a little while be deaf …”  At times, witnesses are uncomfortable speaking about private things if a male or female detective is present, such as the presence of a soiled sanitary product, and they wish to only impart the information to one person.  What must be explained clearly, from the outset, is that all non-privileged information will be disclosed.  Indeed, it is not necessary to seek details about information that is not helpful and quite embarrassing, and, in my experience, investigators typically demonstrate sound judgment in this regard. 

Counsel of choice, right to, and access to,

Although my objectives are not so broad as to embrace the Charter, I do wish to point out that no statement will likely be ruled admissible if the person questioned proclaims:

“BOLING … What would you have me do? I am a subject,

And I challenge law: attorneys are denied me …”

See Act 2, sc. iii, l. 134-135.  To the same effect is the phrase found at l. 153: “DUKE OF YORK … I must needs confess because my power is weak …”  It must always be obvious to any person questioned after arrest that they are under no obligation to assist the police and that they enjoy the right to silence. In fact, it is because the detainee faces a power imbalance that he or she enjoys the right to independent legal advice at no cost.

Demeanour of the witnesses during their interview – Introduction

I have always been impressed with this phrase: “SIR STEPHEN SCROOP. Men judge by the complexion of the sky The state and inclination of the day: So may you by my dull and heavy eye …” See KING RICHARD II, Act 3, sc. ii, l. 195-196. In other words, investigators, judges, suspicious parents speaking with teenagers, spouses … believe that examination of the face, notably the eyes, will reveal the true situation irrespective of the words communicated.  In the context of this introduction, consider the passage that follows, and substitute “he describes’ for the words “pleads”: “DUCHESS OF YORK Pleads he in earnest? look upon his face; His eyes do drop no tears, his prayers are in jest; His words come from his mouth, ours from our breast: He prays but faintly and would be denied; We pray with heart and soul and all beside …”  See Act 5, sc. iii, l. 99-103. 

These introductory phrases seek to make plain a vital element of demeanour that the investigator must assess to further the aims of justice: non-verbal language that purports to communicate information may well contradict what the speaker has stated.  It will assist the reader if I divert from this study of Richard II by William Shakespeare to quote from another play, Macbeth.[5] Perhaps the best known of the demeanour lessons is found in Act 1, scene iv, l. 12 of Macbeth: “Duncan: There's no art To find the mind's construction in the face…” The companion reference that is best suited to underscore this point is set down in Act 1, scene vii, l. 82: “Macbeth … Away, and mock the time with fairest show: False face must hide what the false heart doth know.” I note as well how apposite is the passage that follows on the issue whether witnesses may be adept at feigning emotions: “… Let's not consort with them: To show an unfelt sorrow is an office Which the false man does easy…” Refer to Act 2, scene iii, l. 135 of the same play.

An overview of the case law now follows, to assist in introducing this vexing element of police interviewing techniques and challenges to your skill in “reading” the body language of the witnesses. 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.

Demeanour of the witnesses during their interview – Interpretation of – Ability to fake sympathetic emotions or to hide the unsympathetic ones

DUKE OF AUMERLE

'Farewell:'
And, for my heart disdained that my tongue
Should so profane the word, that taught me craft
To counterfeit oppression of such grief
That words seem'd buried in my sorrow's grave…

Refer to KING RICHARD II, Act 1, sc. iv, l. 12-14.  In effect, the prudent investigator will take pains to ensure that any demeanour evidence, such as I have underlined, is sincere, leaving aside whether it is worth anything in the ultimate analysis. In the same vein, we read a few lines later: “KING RICHARD II With humble and familiar courtesy, What reverence he did throw away on slaves, Wooing poor craftsmen with the craft of smiles…”  This passage suggests that we are all susceptible to being impressed with smiles, and the comment touching upon the “craft” I take to mean that one can fake such an element of demeanour.  Refer to Act 1, sc. iv, l. 27, and to Act 3, sc. i, l. 8: “KING RICHARD II … Plays fondly with her tears and smiles in meeting…” in the sense that the witness can call upon tears or smiles, as the occasion requires, to produce the desired effect.

Demeanour of the witnesses during their interview – Interpretation of – Combination of outward manifestations of something – pale skin and trembling

“HENRY BOLINGBROKE Pale trembling coward, there I throw my gage … [challenging him to a fight].”  See Act 1, sc. i, l. 67-68.  In this instance, the observer of the episode is to be understood to be a detective interviewing a witness and the detective notes both the paleness of the witness and the fact of trembling.  Again, the investigator must ascertain what are the badges of demeanour, if any, that may be observed and if there are any, to analyze what they might disclose as to the inner thoughts of the person and, ultimately, whether it says anything about the reliability of the information that is being disclosed.  If a person is exposed to the winter elements, it may explain trembling as might the fact of just having been assaulted.  On the other hand, might it also denote that the suggested carjacking of the vehicle is part of a fraud, and the witness is quite nervous that the account will not be believed?

Other references to paleness include “HENRY BOLINGBROKE … Or with pale beggar-fear impeach my height Before this out-dared dastard?”  See Act 1, sc. i, l. 187-188. Refer as well to Act 2, sc. i, l. 116-119: “KING RICHARD II.  A lunatic lean-witted fool, Presuming on an ague's privilege, Darest with thy frozen admonition Make pale our cheek, chasing the royal blood With fury from his native residence…”  Interested readers may also wish to consider “DUKE OF YORK … Frighting her pale-faced villages with war…”  See Act 2, sc. iii, l. 95. Refer to Act 3, sc. ii, l. 77: “DUKE OF AUMERL.E Comfort, my liege; why looks your grace so pale?” I add “KING RICHARD II … Have I not reason to look pale and dead?”  See Act 3, sc. ii, l. 79.

As for trembling, note this passage: “KING RICHARD II … But self-affrighted tremble at his sin…”  See Act 3, sc. ii, l. 55.  

Demeanour of the witnesses during their interview – Interpretation of – Calmness

In the play King Richard II, Act 1, sc. iii, l. 96, we read: “THOMAS MOWBRAY … truth hath a quiet breast.”  He was about to endure “trial by ordeal” in the sense that he would meet another knight in combat with the understanding that it he was defeated, God would have thus wished to point out his guilt.

This brief phrase summarizes the reality, according to some, that innocent persons will respond calmly to questions of investigators as they have nothing to fear and that, by parity of reasoning, only the guilty will display nervousness or anxiety during any such proceedings, whether at the police station or in Court.  This is an extremely controversial position in the demeanour debate, in my view, as it takes for granted that no one has ever heard of wrongful convictions and that criminals are incapable of masking their apparent emotions and that the innocent are not intimidated, or scared, of being addressed by police officials.  Many new arrivals to Canada have had “unpleasant” past experiences, to use a quite polite word, ad may be expected to hold negative views of our professional police agencies.  In addition, there is to be established an independent Office to investigate whether wrongful convictions occurred in any given case.

Demeanour of the witnesses during their interview – Interpretation of – Eyes

Recall that the introductory passage to demeanour evidence included the passage: “SIR STEPHEN SCROOP. Men judge by the complexion of the sky The state and inclination of the day: So may you by my dull and heavy eye …”  I note as well” “KING RICHARD II Uncle, even in the glasses of thine eyes I see thy grieved heart: thy sad aspect …”  See King Richard II, Act 1, sc. iii, l. 208-210.  In effect, we all believe that the eyes reflect the soul but to what extent do the surrounding circumstances, if known, prejudice our ability to consider the eyes, and only the eyes, as a true indicator of inner thoughts and turmoil?  I believe that far to much credit is assigned to our ability to interpret the presentation of the eyes of a witness and too little to our “contaminated” mind that has taken in other information.

I add these references as well, at Act 2, sc. iii, l. 115: “… Look on my wrongs with an indifferent eye…”  “EARL OF SALISBURY Ah, Richard, with the eyes of heavy mind…”  At Act 2, sc. iv, l. 17.  King Richard II, Act 3, sc. ii, l. 147: “KING RICHARD II … Make dust our paper and with rainy eyes …”  And, at Act 5, sc. ii, l. 14-15: “DUKE OF YORK … You would have thought the very windows spake, So many greedy looks of young and old Through casements darted their desiring eyes Upon his visage …”  A few lines later, Shakespeare wrote: “DUKE OF YORK … Even so, or with much more contempt, men's eyes Did scowl on gentle Richard …”

I close this subsection with the following: “DUCHESS OF YORK … Thine eye begins to speak; set thy tongue there …”  Refer to Act 5, sc. iii, l. 126-127.

Demeanour of the witnesses during their interview – Interpretation of – Face, wrinkles

See King Richard II, Act 2, sc. i, l. 170: “DUKE OF YORK … Have ever made me sour my patient cheek, Or bend one wrinkle on my sovereign's face…”  In addition, consider “KING RICHARD II But now the blood of twenty thousand men Did triumph in my face …” See Act 3, sc. ii, l. 78. 

Demeanour of the witnesses during their interview - Interpretation of – Frowns

Act 1, sc. i, l. 16-17 reads as follows: “KING RICHARD II Then call them to our presence: face to face, And frowning brow to brow …”  This is the classic type of observation that the prudent investigator must take pains to note.  If you succeed in observing closely some outward manifestation of inward thought, as a first step (which is already quite challenging in terms of demeanour evidence) you must then attempt to interpret what it means in terms of the reliability of whatever information is shared.  If, in the example just noted, the mutual frowning demonstrates inner thoughts of mutual dislike, and the two exchange angry words, the outward interpretation of inner thoughts is hardly required. 

An example of unilateral frowning follows: “DUKE OF YORK … But when he frown'd, it was against the French And not against his friends …” Refer to Act 2, sc. i, l. 175.

Demeanour of the witnesses during their interview – Interpretation of – Looks

A sound interpretation to this subject is found at Act 3, sc. iii, l. 61 of KING RICHARD II: “HENRY BOLINGBROKE …March on, and mark King Richard how he looks.”  A few lines later, the Duke of York states: “Yet looks he like a king: behold, his eye, As bright as is the eagle's, lightens forth Controlling majesty …”

The play also informs us of the following: “QUEEN With signs of war about his aged neck: O, full of careful business are his looks!”  Note as well “CAPTAIN … Rich men look sad and ruffians dance and leap …”  See Act 2, sc. iii, l. 12.  Consider also King Richard II, Act 3, sc. ii, l. 163: “KING RICHARD II … be fear’d, and kill with looks …”  Act 3, sc. iv, l. 86-97 includes these remarks: “QUEEN … What, was I born to this, that my sad look Should grace the triumph of great Bolingbroke?”  Act 5, sc. ii, l. 14-15 informs us of the following: “DUKE OF YORK … You would have thought the very windows spake, So many greedy looks of young and old Through casements darted their desiring eyes Upon his visage …”  Another way of describing “look” is found in Act 5, sc. iv, l. 6: “EXTON And speaking it, he wistly look'd on me …”

Demeanour of the witnesses during their interview – Interpretation of – Sighs

Consider this example drawn from KING RICHARD II, Act 3, sc. iii, l. 163-164: “KING RICHARD II … Aumerle … Our sighs and they shall lodge the summer corn, And make a dearth in this revolting land…”

Demeanour of the witnesses during their interview – Interpretation of – Smiles

“KING RICHARD II With humble and familiar courtesy, What reverence he did throw away on slaves, Wooing poor craftsmen with the craft of smiles…”  This passage suggests that we are all susceptible to being impressed with smiles, and the comment touching upon the “craft” I take to mean that one can fake such an element of demeanour.  Refer to Act 1, sc. iv, l. 27.  Refer as well to Act 3, sc. i, l. 8: “KING RICHARD II … Plays fondly with her tears and smiles in meeting…” in the sense that the witness can call upon tears or smiles, as the occasion requires, to produce the desired effect.  Later, at Act 5, sc. ii, l. 31, we read of a character whose face is “… combating with tears

and smiles…”

Demeanour of the witnesses during their interview – Interpretation of – Sorrow

Refer to KING RICHARD II, Act 2, sc. ii, l. 25-26: “BUSHY … More than your lord's departure weep not: more's not seen; Or if it be, 'tis with false sorrow's eye, Which for things true weeps things imaginary.” Once again, it is an example of a counterfeit emotion being produced rather easily, a fact that the careful investigator will consider.

Demeanour of the witnesses during their interview – Interpretation of – Tears

Consider this first example drawn from KING RICHARD II, Act 3, sc. iii, l. 161-162: “KING RICHARD … Aumerle, thou weep'st, my tender-hearted cousin! We'll make foul weather with despised tears …” A little while later, at line 204, we encounter this phrase: “KING RICHARD II … nay, dry your eyes; Tears show their love, but want their remedies…” Later, at Act 5, sc. ii, l. 31, we read of a character whose face is “… combating with tears and smiles…”

Dragging out information rather than getting to the point quickly

This passage, found in KING RICHARD II, Act 3, sc. ii, l. 197-198 indicates to the careful investigator that a witness may provide accurate information, but with such great deliberation as to suggest that they take great pleasure in the task: “SIR STEPHEN SCROOP … My tongue hath but a heavier tale to say. I play the torturer, by small and small To lengthen out the worst that must be spoken …”

Dying declaration

KING RICHARD II, Act 2, sc. i, l. 4-6 reminds us of the importance of dying declarations:

“JOHN OF GAUNT O, but they say the tongues of dying men
Enforce attention like deep harmony: Where words are scarce, they are seldom spent in vain, For they breathe truth that breathe their words in pain
He that no more must say is listen'd more Than they whom youth and ease have taught to glose…” 

The lessons to be drawn include the belief that death brings sincerity to the words of those about to meet their maker, if they profess such a faith, a doubtful proposition at best.  They also include the belief that such persons tend to be brief, a subject upon I have no opinion.  What is evident is that the careful investigator will record the words and their manner of being communicated fully, and with the best equipment available.

Emotions that the person displays during questioning

“THOMAS MOWBRAY Let not my cold words here accuse my zeal … The blood is hot that must be cool'd for this …”  In effect, lines 47 and 52 of the play at Act 1, sc. i, were meant by Shakespeare to describe the continuous struggle in the heart and mind of a speaker to achieve a balance between what raw emotions might stir, such as the excitement in the face of war or other violence and the need for cool calculation of the reasons behind such a situation and the potential response.  Later, at sc. iii, l. 175, the King states: “… It boots thee not to become passionate…” in the sense of lachrymose or plaintive.  

An investigator must seek to examine closely if the emotions of a speaker affect the value of their potential account and if the absence of emotion render their words suspect as too rehearsed or scripted.  Of course, the danger is that by and large, you are seeking to judge perfect strangers and one does not know if there are far too excitable at the best of times to be reliable or if they are stoic “cool customers” whose outward appearance falsely reduces the merits of their account of the events.

An investigator is called upon to inform witnesses of terrible news and in this context consider this passage: “SIR STEPHEN SCROOP Glad am I that your highness is so arm'd To bear the tidings of calamity…” I suggest that most persons are not so well armed, and that extreme care must be exercised in breaking bad news, but the sad reality is that investigators must, at times, seek timely information immediately after informing individuals of a tragic event.  See lines 106-107 of the play King Richard II, Act 3, sc. ii.

In the final analysis, the prudent investigator will always be mindful that externally expressed emotions may be false.  Thus,

“KING RICHARD II.  Say that again.

The shadow of my sorrow! ha! let's see:

'Tis very true, my grief lies all within;

And these external manners of laments

Are merely shadows to the unseen grief …”

if they are accurate and sincere, I hasten to add.  Refer to Act 4, sc. i, l. 295-298.

Even-handed in your approach

In this vein, noteworthy is the passage that follows from the play at Act 2, sc. i, l. 237: “LORD WILLOUGHBY Quick is mine ear to hear of good towards him.”  An investigator must seek out, and readily accept, all manner of information as nothing is to pre-judged. An investigator need not be persuaded as to any precise theory but must find that there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the person to be charged is guilty.  Thus, consider “QUEEN It may be so; but yet my inward soul Persuades me it is otherwise…”  See Act 2, sc. ii, l. 28.  If the investigator is fully persuaded, so much the better, but the standard is not that exacting. 

Evolution in the information provided, any such – if so, how to explain it?

“NORTHUMBERLAND What was his reason? He was not so resolved when last we spake together.” If this phrase, found at Act 2, sc. iii, l. 27 of KING RICHARD II suggests that the witness is now confident, the prudent investigator needs to assess how this newfound confidence was acquired, and whether any element of contamination is at play.

Falsehood being communicated to police – How to confront the witness

“… Now swallow down that lie…” is how a character challenges another in King Richard II, Act 1, sc. i, l. 133-134.  However, the investigator is not allowed to echo that very challenging and confrontational expression, though he or she is allowed to demonstrate that the information advanced is without merit.  Of course, one may elect to play the cards close to one’s vest and to not communicate the contrary information possessed by the police. 

“Free speech” and fearless recitation of facts is the gold standard

King Richard II, Act 1, sc. i, l. 122-123 includes these words: “KING RICHARD II Free speech and fearless I to thee allow.” In other words, free speech means that the witness is to be concerned with the use of foul language or to offend those who do not share the same values, backgrounds, ethnicity, religion, etc.  As for being fearless, the potential witness who is interviewed must not be left to grapple with the fear of reprisals and the investigator must explain all potential measures to ensure the safety of the person.

He said! He said!

Act 1, sc. iii, l. 8-45, is made up of the mutual declarations under oath of two knights who each accuse the other of being a traitor and who largely state the same meritorious things about themselves and the same blameworthy things about the other.  They went on to fight to determine who was right, in God’s view. The investigator who interviews two persons who just fought, and who say largely the same things about their merit as the victim and of the demerits of the other, as assailant, can do little but attempt to obtain supporting evidence and testimony.  If none is available, then it is a situation calling upon the prosecutor for guidance as their may be no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Judging situation as a judge, or as a father?

Act 1, sc. iii, l. 236-238 of KING RICHARD II, provides useful instruction in this regard.  As we read: “JOHN OF GAUNT … You urged me as a judge; but I had rather You would have bid me argue like a father. O, had it been a stranger, not my child …”  The advice, albeit offered indirectly so many centuries ago in a different context, is to the effect that one assesses a legal problem either as a judge, applying little emotion and much objective logic and experience, or as a father being led by little other than one’s subjective appreciation of the situation.  Obviously, the prudent investigator considers the facts that emerge as will the judge at trial, and with little regard, if any, to such dubious things as family pride, protecting one’s good name or the need to sweep under the rug any difficult questions.

Memory – Improving with concentration

Act 3, sc. ii, l. 177-180 of KING RICHARD II is relevant: “BISHOP OF CARLISLE My lord, wise men ne'er sit and wail their woes, But presently prevent the ways to wail, To fear the foe, since fear oppresseth strength …” In other words, the prudent investigator will address the obstacles they face resolutely and accomplish their duty.  Consider as well: “DUCHESS … Though this be all, do not so quickly go; I shall remember more…”  The proposition is not that the memory is a faculty that gets better with age, or the passage of time, but rather that once the person begins the interview and is reminded of certain base facts, than their ability to marshal their recall and focus their concentration is engaged and may lead to an impressive recollection.  Of course, it might not…  See Act 1, sc. ii, l. 66 of KING RICHARD II.

In this context, recall the words in sc. iii of the same Act, at l. 264-266: “JOHN OF GAUNT What is six winters? they are quickly gone. HENRY BOLINGBROKE To men in joy; but grief makes one hour ten.  One of the elements the careful investigator will consider in evaluating the passage of time in terms of one’s memory is whether the events that person experienced were pleasant or not.  The person condemned to prison unfairly such as took place as described in the Goudge Inquiry may well have spent each second ruminating about their downfall and the events surrounding it and will be able to precisely recite every day of the many years spent behind bars for no reason!  The person who worked at a routine job and who enjoys a routine existence without any ups and down may have had no reason to recall any precise event.  But there is the rub, so to speak, why would he or she forget the one truly exciting event?  In short, there is no rule about memory. 

Memory – Incapable of improving if witness never knew of the contested event

“HENRY PERCY No, my good lord, for that is not forgot Which ne'er I did remember: to my knowledge, I never in my life did look on him.” Refer to KING RICHARD II, Act 2, sc. iii, l. 36-38. 

Mistakes, correct of - allow witness to correct them – unlike written statement that is read back, limited opportunity to have witness confirm accuracy

The quote that follows, taken from the play KING RICHARD II, Act 2, sc. iii, l. 74-75, illustrates the importance of a person correcting his interlocutor when that person is mistaken as to the meaning just then communicated.  That is the procedure that the prudent investigator wishes to follow, especially as the modern audio-visual recording does not include a formal review of the information provided by the witness.  Thus, “LORD BERKELEY Mistake me not, my lord; 'tis not my meaning …”

Note taking, with collaboration but not collusion!

King Richard II, Act 5, sc. iv, l. 1-4 reads: “EXTON Didst thou not mark the king, what words he spake, 'Have I no friend will rid me of this living fear?'
Was it not so?”  I understand fully the rule that one cannot prepare notes in collaboration with another but if a phrase is said by a witness with no opportunity to record with a device, it is wise for one to write down the words while another (or others) repeats the words in their own mind to then collaborate, putting in any differences of understanding or recall. 

Patience above all…

This self-evident proposition is described in so many words in Act 2, sc. i, l. 163 of King Richard II:

“DUKE OF YORK How long shall I be patient? ah, how long

Shall tender duty make me suffer wrong?”

Consider this passage as well: “DUKE OF YORK … You lose a thousand well-disposed hearts And prick my tender patience, to those thoughts Which honour and allegiance cannot think.”  2-ii-206. 

Person hurt or injured by recent event expected to be quite “worked up” in interview

Act 1, sc. iii, l. 2255-256 of KING RICHARD II reports the following: “HENRY BOLINGBROKE … When the tongue's office should be prodigal
To breathe the abundant dolour of the heart.”  If you understand dolour to mean pain, then one takes from Shakespeare’s writing that one anticipates that a victim will be detailed and indignant in reciting terrible events, but is this a true statement or merely the thoughts based on a stereotype?

Poor ability to relate the observations – Care not to throw out baby with bath water

KING RICHARD II includes this passage in Act 3, sc. ii, l. 121: “KING RICHARD II … thou tell'st a tale so ill.”  Some persons are not at ease in settings such as a police station and care must be taken not to lose precious information due to anxiety, leaving aside the concerns arising from being a victim of a crime, notably violent offences.

Pride, persons are unwilling to withdraw what was said to avoid embarrassment

Consider the example found in the play at Act 4, sc. i, l. 7-8: “BAGOT My Lord Aumerle, I know your daring tongue Scorns to unsay what once it hath deliver'd.” This is the reason juries are warned not to discuss the evidence of any witness until the trial is completed to avoid the human fault of not wishing to “eat our words” when we later see that our first impressions were mistaken.  Of course, the issue of recanting complainants stands on a different foundation. 

Record to be as complete as possible

HENRY BOLINGBROKE states in the play King Richard II, Act 1, sc. i, l. 30: “…. heaven be the record to my speech!”  He meant to say that he should be understood to be invoking God’s wrath should he fail to state the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  For our purposes, an investigator wishing to be as professional as possible will read that phrase to mean “A full record of what a potential witness says is heaven sent as it will not be challenged later as being incomplete, biased or slanted to favour the Crown.”

Of course, one must avoid all confusing answers, if possible, but once they are stated, every necessary clarification must be attempted.  For example, “KING RICHARD II Ay, no; no, ay; for I must nothing be; Therefore no no, for I resign to thee.”  Refer to Act 4, sc. i, l. 201-202.  A further element of confusion may involve the heavy accent of a witness such that the recording fails to capture precisely what was communicated. In this context, note Act 5, sc. i, l. 46: “… The heavy accent of thy moving tongue…”

Reversing the proposition – Is the investigator giving too great or too little credit?

“DUCHESS … That which in mean men we intitle patience Is pale cold cowardice in noble breasts…” This passage, found in KING RICHARD II, Act 1, sc. ii, l. 33-34, indicates to the careful investigator that a double standard might be at play in that we judge the actions of others according to a different standard in accordance to non-objective criteria.  For example, we judge drivers in accordance with the same objective standards if they possess a licence, but we allow more leeway to less experienced individuals in terms of judging their subjective conduct such as whether they were negligent in terms of skiing or skating.  The fact that one crashes into another on the ski hill, or the skating ring may be a factor of inexperience, for which different standards apply as an unlicensed activity.

In addition, note this humorous anecdote.  The Paris-Match edition of December 8 to 14, 2022, includes this exchange as between former President Barrack Obama and the former First Lady: “[Translation] You know, without me as President, you would not have enjoyed all of these great opportunities…” “Dear, you have it all wrong, without me, you would not have become President!” See pages 34-35. 

Right to counsel

KING RICHARD II, Act 2, sc. i, l. 26-28 reminds us of the potential impact of the right to counsel in the interview process.  Thus, YORK … Then all too late comes counsel to be heard…”  In other words, but for the lawyer’s advice, the person interviewed would not have answered the question is the suggestion offered.  The prudent investigator must understand that this is the fundamental belief held by defence counsel and it is often persuasive to judges and thus, you must make all efforts to ensure (and record) that the person sincerely wished to respond to your questions and did so well knowing that they could immediately contact a lawyer of their choice, including duty counsel, for free.

Right to silence

Act 2, sc. iii, l. 155 reads: “DUKE OF YORK … I must needs confess because my power is weak …”  It must always be obvious to any person questioned after arrest that they are under no obligation to assist the police and that they enjoy the right to silence. This is also a result of the power imbalance as opposed to armed individuals and members of the community, made more striking when referencing those who are members of marginalized communities or existing in quite difficult circumstances, leaving aside precise challenges such as mental health issues.

Sadness causes interview to be interrupted – Resumption once witness is composed

An example of the gentle approach in such a case follows, from King Richard II, Act 5, sc. ii, l. 1-3: “DUCHESS OF YORK. My lord, you told me you would tell the rest, When weeping made you break the story off …”

Swearing of oath or taking of solemn affirmation – Solemnity of the occasion

“KING RICHARD II. Marshal, demand of yonder champion The cause of his arrival here in arms: Ask him his name and orderly proceed To swear him in the justice of his cause.”  This passage, found in the play KING RICHARD II, Act 1, sc. iii, l. 8-10, and the further words at l. 14 “… Speak truly, on thy knighthood and thine oath …” makes plain that such an exercise underscores the solemnity of the occasion and enhances the likelihood that the witness will be both accurate and sincere, not wishing to be charged with a form of obstruct justice or with being criticized for misleading the official.  This is the reason why so-called KGB statements begin with the taking of an oath or solemn affirmation and our modern procedure appears to flow directly from the ancient ceremony described thus by Shakespeare and that includes the words at l. 28-29: “And formally, according to our law, Depose him in the justice of his cause.”

Sorrow – Negative results

King Richard II, Act 3, sc. iii, l. 183-184 sets out this belief: “NORTHUMBERLAND Sorrow and grief of heart Makes him speak fondly, like a frantic man …”  You must understand that “fondly” was defined as “foolishly”. 

Standing up to menacing individuals

The play records at Act 1, sc. i, l. 174, that the King stated: “Rage must be withstood: Give me his gage: lions make leopards tame.”  In effect, the investigator must not only not be intimidated but or she must exude outward contempt for such attempts at marring the interview process.

Third party intervention, including lawyer or family member, to “explain” answers

KING RICHARD II, Act 2, sc. i, l. 140-141 illustrates a situation all investigators will encounter: someone wishing you to interpret “a, b, and c” words as being “x, y, and z” words.  “DUKE OF YORK I do beseech your majesty, impute his words To wayward sickliness and age in him: He loves you, on my life, and holds you dear…”  This is not a request by anyone to overlook the interview, which is a criminal offence, but rather that you take a benign view of whatever was said or that you ignore any threat or admission as being the result of a passing incapacity. 

Threat - Suspect or defendant must be free of any  

We read at Act 4, sc. i, l. 36-39: “LORD FITZWATER … I heard thee say, and vauntingly thou spakest it That thou wert cause of noble Gloucester's death. If thou deny'st it twenty times, thou liest; And I will turn thy falsehood to thy heart, Where it was forged, with my rapier's point.”  In effect, that threat makes it impossible for the admission to be ruled admissible.  What the investigator seeks is to be able to demonstrate, as we read in Act 4, sc. I, l. 325, that the witness and especially the defendant was in such a comfortable position that he or she was able to “… freely speak [their] mind…”  That might be difficult to demonstrate if the person interviewed did not display an operative mind.  Consider this example: “QUEEN … and wilt thou, pupil-like, Take thy correction mildly, kiss the rod …” Pupils submit to teachers, in many cases, and they may thus not be free to withdraw their participation in the questioning. See Act 5, sc. i, l. 31-32. 

Unreliable information, chiefly by reason of how witness self-described

Consider this example, from Act 2, sc. ii, l. 111 of King Richard II: “DUKE OF YORK … Never believe me…”

Wills and successions, offences involving fraud upon an estate

Although these offences are unlikely to bedevil your existence, consider this classic passage from Act 3, sc. ii, l. 145-157:

KING RICHARD II

No matter where; of comfort no man speak:
Let's talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs;
Make dust our paper and with rainy eyes
Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth,
Let's choose executors and talk of wills:
And yet not so, for what can we bequeath
Save our deposed bodies to the ground?
Our lands, our lives and all are Bolingbroke's,
And nothing can we call our own but death
And that small model of the barren earth
Which serves as paste and cover to our bones.
For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings;
How some have been deposed; some slain in war,
Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed;
Some poison'd by their wives: some sleeping kill'd;
All murder'd: for within the hollow crown…

In such interviews, as in so many other instances, it is essential to obtain detailed notes, on the one hand, and to follow the time-tested detective story theme: “cherchez l’argent”, on the other.  People commit fraud to obtain money, or to frustrate others in their search for financial benefit. 

Youth, might wish to appear far older during their interview

“SCROOP …  boys, with women's voices, Strive to speak big …” is a phrase we encounter in King Richard II, Act 3, sc. ii, l. 113.

INVESTIGATIONS 101 – JUDGMENT IN INVESTIGATIONS

Investigators are vital to the protection of the community and risk their safety to ensure our well-being – a stressful situation

The first passage of great interest that I wish to quote under this heading, as it introduces the first and foremost reality of the investigator, the fact that police work is dangerous at the best of times and is essential to a free and safe society.  Thus, Act 2, sc. i, l. 163 of King Richard II reads: “DUKE OF YORK How long shall I be patient? ah, how long Shall tender duty make me suffer wrong?”  Investigators deal with the most horrible of situations and they must protect themselves from their own industry and willingness to endure, patiently, to bring about justice.  And, this degree of stress and danger may lead, unfortunately, to the occasional error in judgment.

A second relevant consideration in making intelligible the vital yet stressful role of investigators is captured in Act 2, sc. i, l. 298: “LORD ROSS … urge doubts to them that fear.”  In our adversarial system, defence counsel has a legitimate role in urging jurors to doubt the merits of the Crown’s case and they will plead in earnest that jurors ought to fear a miscarriage of justice.  Your vital role includes providing the prosecution, when available, the means, by way of testimony and documentation, of laying to rest unfounded doubts.  In this vein, should you ever be falsely accused, you will wish to retain a lawyer to defend your case with vigour and pains-taking preparation.  The foregoing comments are meant to underscore how democratic freedoms rest upon the sound judgment of investigators, but one cannot overlook the stressful reality of the circumstances of their profession.[6]

Human nature - Be fierce when called for as an investigator, mild otherwise

The play KING RICHARD II, Act 2, sc. i, l 175-176 sets out this advice: “YORK … In war was never lion raged more fierce, In peace was never gentle lamb more mild …”  One must never resort to confrontational means when diplomacy and gentleness suffices, but one must be mindful that criminal investigations are not for the faint of heart and trials are not afternoon teas.   

Human nature - “Blowing one’s top” may be a brief event versus a long simmering and negative response to police questioning

Consider this example, found in KING RICHARD II, Act 2, sc. i, l. 34-37. 

JOHN OF GAUNT

Methinks I am a prophet new inspired
And thus expiring do foretell of him:
His rash fierce blaze of riot cannot last,
For violent fires soon burn out themselves;
Small showers last long, but sudden storms are short;
He tires betimes that spurs too fast betimes;
With eager feeding food doth choke the feeder …

Hence, one may obtain more from a witness after an initial quite violent reaction to the fact of arrest and of invitation to being interviewed than the scenario in which the distrust, and the resulting mendacity (or refusal to help fully, at the very least) is simmering below the surface…

Human nature – Does the leopard change his spots?

KING RICHARD II, Act 1, sc. i, l. 174 and following includes these remarks by the King: “Rage must be withstood: Give me his gage: lions make leopards tame.”  In response, Thomas Mowbray states: “Yea, but not change his spots…”  This bit of received wisdom must be considered by the investigator in analyzing whether the repeat offender guilty of domestic violence was, in fact, the victim in the case being investigated. Mowbray refers to one with a “spotless reputation” a few lines further down.  Does one who enjoys this reputation always avoid being disbelieved during an investigation?  In effect, does one never believe the repeat offender when their potential testimony is stacked next to the account of the person enjoying a great reputation?  Consider that former President Richard Nixon famously said, “I am not a crook!”

Human nature – Griefs and hardships of the witness survive their presence in your office and at trial

We read this relevant passage in the play KING RICHARD II, Act 4, sc. i, l. 2191-194: “KING RICHARD II My crown I am; but still my griefs are mine:
You may my glories and my state depose, But not my griefs; still am I king of those.”  In other words, persons you encounter as witnesses and as victims must live with the altered state of their lives well after the trial, and this is true of the defendants, notably those whose offending conduct is best understood by their sad life. 

Human nature – Judge things over a long period, not an initial shorter one

Act 1, sc. iii, l. 235-236 of KING RICHARD II, provides useful instruction in this regard.  As we read: “JOHN OF GAUNT Things sweet to taste prove in digestion sour…”  Investigators cannot rejoice too quickly, and they ought not to despair too soon, but adopt a more measured approach.

Human nature – Low hanging fruit often picked off by the police

The play KING RICHARD II, Act 2, sc. i, includes these remarks at l. 154: “KING RICHARD II The ripest fruit first falls, and so doth he …”  It is often said that the police concentrate their efforts on the most visible of targets, the “ripest fruit” and that this results in bigger targets escaping investigation.  I am not qualified to discuss this belief, but I do agree that human nature teaches that there is a certain order to things, and those potential witnesses who have the most to fear from an investigation may be the first to cooperate. In that sense, they are the first to “fall”, in the sense of being taken “off the board”.

Human nature – No virtue like necessity

Consider the words consigned in KING RICHARD II, Act 1, sc. iii, l.  276-277 of KING RICHARD II: “JOHN OF GAUNT … Teach thy necessity to reason thus; There is no virtue like necessity.”

Human nature – Prone to compromise, not!

We read this relevant passage in the play KING RICHARD II, Act 2, sc. i, l. 254: “NORTHUMBERLAND … But basely yielded upon compromise…” Jurors will reach compromise verdicts, in which a group that did not agree with a certain view on one count will cede if others who were baulking as to another verdict change their mine.  This is in keeping with our sense of justice.  To the contrary, investigators cannot horse trade: either there are grounds to prosecute, or no grounds to do exist. 

Human nature – Sorrow, how experienced

“HENRY BOLINGBROKE … the apprehension of the good Gives but the greater feeling to the worse: Fell sorrow's tooth doth never rankle more
Than when he bites, but lanceth not the sore.”  See KING RICHARD II, Act 1, sc. iii, l. 300-304 of KING RICHARD II.  Once again, it is an example of a subjective perspective that may not be universal, or widespread, but the careful investigator considers the majority and minority views of all points of controversy. 

Human nature – Sorrow, when does it end?

“DUCHESS Yet one word more: grief boundeth where it falls, Not with the empty hollowness, but weight: I take my leave before I have begun, For sorrow ends not when it seemeth done.”  This passage, found at Act 1, sc. ii, l. 61-63 of KING RICHARD II, serves to remind us that there is no set, “one-size-fits-all” standard by which to judge the limits of genuine emotions, such as sorrow or grief. You will be exposed to opinions by witnesses that the family members were strangely detached from expressing the normal degree of sadness or, at the other end of the spectrum, it seemed that the grieving spouse was “over-egging the pudding” when it came to expressing their sentiments. 

Human nature – Stress, avoid situations of great

KING RICHARD II

Now put it, God, in the physician's mind
To help him to his grave immediately!
The lining of his coffers shall make coats
To deck our soldiers for these Irish wars.
Come, gentlemen, let's all go visit him:
Pray God we may make haste, and come too late!

See KING RICHARD II, Act 1, sc. iv, l. 63-64.  This section serves to demonstrate, in my opinion, the very human reaction when confronted with a difficult situation one would hope to avoid. In this case, to comfort one who is dying when nothing can be done and against a difficult background, one of imminent war.  Investigators must not be too harsh in judging third parties for the lack of empathy or kindness and must ensure a fair assessment of their other emotions and responsibilities. 

Human nature – Vanity, or conceit, might result in assisting the investigator

Consider this example, found in KING RICHARD II, Act 2, sc. i, l. 37. “JOHN OF GAUNT Light vanity … soon preys upon itself…”  It is a question of “sizing up” the person being interviewed and of finding the weak spot, if any.  Consider this example as well: “BUSHY 'Tis nothing but conceit, my gracious lady. QUEEN 'Tis nothing less: conceit is still derived …”

Human nature – Youth, rashness of

“DUKE OF YORK The king is come: deal mildly with his youth; For young hot colts being raged do rage the more.”  This passage is found in KING RICHARD II, Act 2, sc. i, l. 70, and seeks to counsel the investigator to seek out any inherent weaknesses but not to press a point that brings out a rash response that deprives the questioner of any information of value.  Of course, if the point is to see how easily the young person loses all self-control, then that is a different objective. 

Consider as well “DUKE OF YORK … Were I but now the lord of such hot youth …”  See Act 2, sc. iii, l. 98.

CONCLUSION

It is quite possible that investigators, at times or quite often, one cannot know, would rank their difficult task as just short of “… numbering sands …? In the sense of long, tedious, and unrewarding activity.  See King Richard II, Act 2, sc. ii, l. 148.  In addition, no matter how great the temptations are to cut corners, or to avoid some of the legal niceties, as stated by a servant in the play KING RICHARD II, at Act 3, sc. i, l. 41, as a servant of the law and of justice, you as investigator must “… Keep law and form and due proportion…” It must also be understood that the concerns arising from the role of defence counsel are typically overblown and of little concern.  Indeed, consider what we read in Act 4, sc. i, l. 149-151: “NORTHUMBERLAND Well have you argued, sir; and, for your pains,
Of capital treason we arrest you here…”

[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 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 Richard II” 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. 

[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]         Interested readers may wish to consult my text, Demeanour Evidence on Trial: A Legal and Literary Criticism, Sandstone Academic Press, Melbourne, Australia, 2008, and two articles: “Demeanour evidence: Guidance from the Tax Court of Canada for Criminal Defence Counsel”, Alan D. Gold Collection of Criminal Law Articles, ADGN/RP-294, May 4, 2020, and “Demeanour Evidence and "Eyelid Turns": Guidance from the Manitoba Court of Appeal and Anthony Trollope”, Alan D. Gold Collection of Criminal Law Articles, ADGN/RP-293, April 27, 2020.

[6]         Consider the example provided by the Duke of Aumerle in the play at Act 3, sc. iii, l. 131: “No, good my lord; let's fight with gentle words …”