POLICE INVESTIGATIONS 101
GUIDANCE FROM JULIUS CEASAR
Gilles Renaud | Ontario Court of Justice[1]
INTRODUCTION
In this article, I document the various elements of guidance and instruction from the classic play Julius Caesar 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 added “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, 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 … :
[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 observed closely to judge if it “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 that 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”. Refer again to King Henry VI (Part1), 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”, with a mirror or more advanced technology.
Demeanour - 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, of King Lear, 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 of that play: “Goneril. And let his knights have colder looks among you. …” In other words, a person may easily adopt a guise or a look, and demeanour, after all, is a form of communication that can 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.
Further on the subject of one’s ability to assume a certain element of demeanour, in our case involving a witness who seeks falsely to convince the listener, consider the passage that follows as support for this proposition:
Cassius. You are dull, Casca; and those sparks of life
That should be in a Roman you do want,
Or else you use not. You look pale and gaze
And put on fear and cast yourself in wonder,
[Julius Caesar, Act 1, sc. iii, l. 57-60][5] [Emphasis added]
Demeanour – Changes in manners and demeanour of persons that are being investigated
Refer to the passage found below, from Act 4, sc. ii, l. 13-19, as a useful example:
Brutus. He is not doubted. A word, Lucilius,
Howhe receiv'd you: let me be resolv'd.
Lucilius With courtesy and with respect enough;
But not with such familiar instances,
Nor with such free and friendly conference,
As he hath us'd of old.
A careful investigator will wish to assess closely such elements as it might suggest that the parties thought to be on friendly terms are no longer and this might open fruitful investigative avenues.
Demeanour – Difficulty in interpreting the looks of others
After Brutus has explained to his friend Cassius that he, Brutus, has been concealing his looks, referenced as his countenance, Cassius responds: Then, Brutus, I have much mistook your passion …” See Act 1, sc. ii, l. 48-49. Refer as well to the same scene at l. 235: “Casca. I can as well be hang'd as tell the manner of it …” This might mean several things, but I suggest it refers to the difficulty in attempting to fully interpret what a person meant by their non-verbal language. Consider the remarks Shakespeare as well, penned a few lines further in that scene: “235 … I saw Mark Antony offer him a crown—yet 'twas not a crown neither, 'twas one of these coronets—and, as I told you, he put it by once: but, for all that, to my thinking, he would fain have had it. Then he offer'd it to him again; then he put it by again: but, to my thinking, he was very loth to lay his fingers off it….” [l. 235]
Demeanour – Seeing the eyes of one who speaks, importance of
Although there is very little data to support the view that seeing the eyes of one who speaks will enhance the value of your assessment of the words spoken, it is a belief shared by many, including investigators. Perhaps this belief is the result of the opinion that a person will not be able to deceive when being examined by another, a belief also lacking in supporting studies. At all events, what matters for the careful investigator is that these “truths” are fundamental to the decision making of many. If a witness insists on being interviewed directly, and not by electronic means, you may have to comply with this request to enjoy the best evidence that is capable of being advanced. The play Julius Caesar lends support to this belief at Act 1, sc. ii, l. 18-24, set out below. It is obvious, given the last few words, that Caesar was not concerned by the threat, having examined the speaker, one he found not credible or reliable.
Cæsar What man is that?
Brutus. A soothsayer bids you beware the Ides of March.
Cæsar. Set him before me; let me see his face.
Cassius. Fellow, come from the throng; look upon Cæsar.
Cæsar. What say'st thou to me now? speak once again.
Soothsayer. Beware the Ides of March.
Cæsar. He is a dreamer; let us leave him. Pass.
[Emphasis added]
Consider this other excerpt as well, from Act 1, sc. ii, l. 32-42:
Cassius. Brutus, I do observe you now of late:
I have not from your eyes that gentleness
And show of love as I was wont to have …
Brutus. Cassius,
Be not deceiv'd: if I have veil'd my look,
I turn the trouble of my countenance
Merely upon myself. Vexed I am
Of late with passions of some difference
Conceptions only proper to myself,
I interpret these words to be stating that Cassius believes that the assessment of the eyes of a third person will disclose what their thoughts are, and Brutus shares that conviction as he has taken the trouble to camouflage what his eyes might otherwise reveal.
Demeanour – Veiling one’s thoughts by hiding one’s eyes
Review the discussion found under the rubric “Demeanour – seeing the eyes of one who speaks, importance of.”
Demeanour – Objective evidence, at certain times at least, of what is in the minds of others
The main reason that led Brutus to judge that his murderous plot was not uncovered, at the start of Act 3, was that Caesar was not reacting at all to whatever he was being told. Thus:
Brutus. Cassius, be constant:
Popilius Lena speaks not of our purposes;
For, look, he smiles, and Cæsar doth not change.
In addition, consider the quote that follows, in which the speaker suggests that the soldiers they face are not showing a war-like enthusiastic demeanour:
Brutus. Ride, ride, Messala, ride, and give these bills
Unto the legions on the other side:
Let them set on at once; for I perceive
But cold demeanour in Octavius' wing,
5And sudden push gives them the overthrow.
[Act 5, sc. ii, l. 1-5]
Demeanour – The Grey’s Anatomy of demeanour – the elements of
Brow
Brutus. I will do so. But, look you, Cassius,
The angry spot doth glow on Cæsar's brow,
And all the rest look like a chidden train …
[Act 1, sc. ii, l. 182-184]
BRUTUS … I will construe to thee,
All the charactery of my sad brows.
[Act 2, sc. i, l. 306-307]
Cheek
Brutus. Calpurnia's cheek is pale; and Cicero
Looks with such ferret and such fiery eyes
As we have seen him in the Capitol,
Being cross'd in conference by some senators.
[Act 1, sc. ii, l. 185-188]
Countenance -
Brutus. Cassius,
Be not deceiv'd: if I have veil'd my look,
I turn the trouble of my countenance
Merely upon myself….
[Act 1, sc. ii, l. 36-39]]
Casca. O, he [Brutus] sits high in all the people's hearts;
And that which would appear offence in us,
His countenance, like richest alchemy,
Will change to virtue and to worthiness.
[Act 1, sc. iii, l. 157-160]
Eyes
Cassius. Brutus, I do observe you now of late:
I have not from your eyes that gentleness
And show of love as I was wont to have …
[Act 1, sc. ii, l. 32-34]
2 Citizen. Poor soul! his eyes are red as fire with weeping.
[Act 3, sc. ii, l. 115]
Faces
Octavius … [Just prior to a battle]
they could be content
To visit other places, and come down
With fearful bravery, thinking by this face
To fasten in our thoughts that they have courage;
But 'tis not so.
[Act 5, sc. i, l. 7-10]
Fashion (of speaking)
Cassius. As they pass by, pluck Casca by the sleeve;
And he will, after his sour fashion, tell you
What hath proceeded worthy note to-day.
[Act 1, sc. ii, l. 179-181]
Fire
Cassius. I am glad that my weak words
Have struck but thus much show of fir from Brutus.
[Act 1, sc. ii, l. 176-177]
Foot
PORTIA
I urg'd you further; then you scratch'd your head,
And too impatiently stamp'd with your foot:
Hair 144149
Metellus. O, let us have him, for his silver hairs
Will purchase us a good opinion,
And buy men's voices to commend our deeds:
It shall be said, his judgment rul'd our hands;
Our youths and wildness shall no whit appear,
But all be buried in his gravity.
[Act 2, sc. i, l. 144-149]
Brutus. …
It comes upon me. Art thou any thing?
Art thou some god, some angel, or some devil,
That mak'st my blood cold, and my hair to stare?
[Act 4, sc. iii, l. 277-280]
Hand
PORTIA
Yet I insisted, yet you answer'd not,
But with an angry wafture of your hand
Gave sign for me to leave you…
[Act 2, sc. ii, l. 245-247]
Head
PORTIA
I urg'd you further; then you scratch'd your head,
And too impatiently stamp'd with your foot:
Lips
His coward lips did from their colour fly … [Act 1, sc. ii, l. 122]
Look
Cæsar. Let me have men about me that are fat,
Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep o' nights:
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
[Act 1, sc. ii, l. 192-195]
Casca. You pull'd me by the cloak; would you speak with me?
Brutus. Ay, Casca; tell us what hath chanc'd to-day,
That Cæsar looks so sad.
[Act 1, sc. ii, l. 213-215]
PORTIA
And when I ask'd you what the matter was,
You star'd upon me with ungentle looks …
[Act 1, sc. ii, l. 241-242]
Manner
Brutus. Was the crown offer'd him thrice?
Casca. Ay, marry, was't, and he put it by thrice,
every time gentler than other; and at every putting by mine honest
neighbours shouted.
Cassius. Who offer'd him the crown?
Casca. Why, Antony.
Brutus. Tell us the manner of it, gentle Casca.
Casca. I can as well be hang'd as tell the manner of it: …
[Act 1, sc. ii, l. 227-235] [Emphasis added]
Sighs
Portia. Nor for yours neither. You've ungently, Brutus,
Stole from my bed: and yesternight at supper
You suddenly arose, and walk'd about,
Musing and sighing, with your arms across …
[Act 2, sc. i, l. 237-240]
Smiles
Brutus.
Where wilt thou find a cavern dark enough
To mask thy monstrous visage? Seek none, conspiracy;
Hide it in smiles and affability:
[Act 1, sc. i, l. 80-82]
Brutus. Cassius, be constant:
Popilius Lena speaks not of our purposes;
For, look, he smiles, and Cæsar doth not change.
[Act 3, sc. I, l. 21-23]
Antony … Domestic fury and fierce civil strife
Shall cumber all the parts of Italy;
Blood and destruction shall be so in use,
And dreadful objects so familiar,
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quartered with the hands of war …
Octavius. …
And some that smile have in their hearts, I fear,
Millions of mischiefs.
[Act 4, sc. i, l. 50-51]
Stare
“Trebonius. … Men, wives, and children stare, cry out, and run…”
[Act 3, sc. i, l. 97]
Visage
Brutus.
Where wilt thou find a cavern dark enough
To mask thy monstrous visage? Seek none, conspiracy;
Hide it in smiles and affability:
[Act 1, sc. i, l. 80-82]
Interviewing skills in investigations
Interviewing skills – Admissions
The experienced interviewing officer will rarely encounter this type of admission, but I thought that it might be interesting to point out when a witness admits to being deceitful:
Cæsar. And you are come in very happy time,
To bear my greeting to the senators
And tell them that I will not come to-day.
Cannot, is false, and that I dare not, falser;
I will not come to-day. Tell them so, Decius.
[Act 2, sc. ii, l. 60-64] [Emphasis added]
Interviewing skills – Asking questions is useless if you do not pause to note the response
At the outset, consider this brief dialogue to illustrate asking a question but not ceasing to speak to obtain a response:
Brutus. What means this shouting? I do fear, the people
Choose Cæsar for their king.
Cassius. Ay, do you fear it? Then must I think you would not have it so.
Brutus. I would not, Cassius; yet I love him well. [Act 1, sc. ii, l. 78-81]
The better practice is to ask a question, as brief as possible, and then pause and note fully the reply.
Interviewing skills – Barrage of questions, to be avoided
The scene that follows, as consigned in Act 3, sc. iii, l. 5 and following, is not consonant with fairness to a witness, and ought not to take place in your offices:
1 Citizen. What is your name?
2 Citizen. Whither are you going?
3 Citizen. Where do you dwell?
4 Citizen. Are you a married man or a bachelor?
2 Citizen. Answer every man directly.
1 Citizen. Ay, and briefly.
4 Citizen. Ay, and wisely.
3 Citizen. Ay, and truly …
Interviewing skills - Caution required if seek an incriminating answer that will be relied upon to seek a penalty
In the passage that follows, a noble ‘busybody’ interferes with persons whom he thinks should be working or displaying the sign of their trade and their availability to work. In fact, he asks a question that might lead to a fine, as was levied against a relative of Shakespeare’s for a similar offence, but without a warning or caution that it need not be answered. If a modern-day detective does this, it is not prohibited if the answer is not resorted to in a prosecution, as when one wishes to make a point, let us say about opening hours for a boutique.
The excerpt is found at Act 1, sc. i, l. 2-6:
Flavius. Hence! home, you idle creatures, get you home:
Is this a holiday? what! know you not,
Being mechanical, you ought not walk
Upon a labouring day without the sign
Of your profession? Speak, what trade art thou?
Note the internal question “Is this a holiday?” Since it is not, one ought to be at home where work is undertaken. The detective who asks it is not necessarily seeking evidence with which to convict if the question is not unlike “Do you have a permit for that weapon?” or “A valid driver’s license?” One need not caution to obtain information that must be provided, or a fine is to be paid. The point to be recalled is the mandatory nature of the caution if the detective will prosecute no matter the answer and is seeking an admission as proof. This arises in a case in which you know that the driver is suspended, for example. In the case of the worker, if the questioner is seeking information in a genuine effort to understand the situation and will not necessarily charge, as when there is suitable evidence of an exception to the rule or a form of permit, then to caution may not be necessary. Indeed, it may lead to a pointless refusal to reply when the matter is not worth any time and leads to a pointless confrontation or stalemate.
Interviewing skills – Compare and contrast the statements you receive
Prior to Caesar’s funeral, his murderers addressed the crowd to explain their actions. I doubt that an investigator will ever receive the confession of two accomplices to a murder, if this ever occurs, they should follow the lead of the citizens described below:
1 Citizen. I will hear Brutus speak.
2 Citizen. I will hear Cassius; and compare their reasons,
When severally we hear them rendered.
[Act 3, sc. ii, l. 7-8]
Interviewing skills – Direct answers can be sought, need not be provided
In Act 1, sc. i, l. 0, Marullus states: “But what trade art thou? answer me directly.” Leaving aside the debate whether a witness risks a prosecution for refusing to answer a question on the basis all, and not just suspects, enjoy a right to silence, the fact remains that all potential witnesses at trial are free to answer questions as they see fit. In this instance, the cobbler, one who has little skill and is employed as a worker, a form of bungler if you wish, might be able to defend the accusation that he is being unhelpful in his replies with the statement: ‘If I could speak better, I might not be so poorly employed.’ As it turns out, he is quite skilled at making a fool out of Flavius by a sound selection of words, and ends us justifying is being out of doors, explaining that as a mender of shoes, he is enhancing his profit margin by leading people to parade, to celebrate Caesar. Indeed, he suggests at line 33 that it is a festive time as people are celebrating their great leader.
Interviewing skills – Deliberate before responding, the witness may wish to
Consider this excerpt as being descriptive of this option, that a witness may wish to take advantage of:
Brutus. …
I will with patience hear, and find a time
Both meet to hear and answer such high things…
[Act 1, sc. ii, l. 169-170]
Interviewing skills – Discriminate between factual statements and opinions
The excerpt that follows, from Act 1, sc. ii, l. 269, provides a sound example of the situation that I wish to emphasize for investigators: “Three or four wenches, where I stood, cried, 'Alas, good soul!' and forgave him with all their hearts. But there's no heed to be taken of them: if Cæsar had stabb'd their mothers, they would have done no less…” The careful investigator must be wary of such facile comments.
Interviewing skills – Eyesight, assess the ability of the witness in this regard
Consider this quote:
Brutus. … Ha! who comes here?
I think it is the weakness of mine eyes
That shapes this monstrous apparition.
[Act 4, sc. iii, l. 275-277]
At times, a witness might exaggerate their visual issues whilst others might avoid even evaluating the keenness of their eyesight and you as investigator must be careful to assess if this is an issue.
Interviewing skills – Fate in is the hands of the witness
At times, when it is apparent that a witness possesses information that is vital, but hesitates to disclose it, it may be appropriate to quote this passage from Act 1, sc. ii, l. 139:
Men [and women] at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings …
Interviewing skills – Flattery is permitted, at large; insulting language far less often
As discussed under the rubric “Caution required if seek an incriminating answer that will be relied upon to seek a penalty”, the so-called noble interviewer is not really exercising his profession as he is not a detective or law-enforcer of any kind. That said, what is important is the use of the language found at Act 1, sc. i, l. 2 and l. 14-15:
Flavius. Hence! home, you idle creatures, get you home… What trade, thou knave? thou naughty knave, what trade?
An interviewer will rarely be granted much leeway by the courts during a voluntariness voir dire when insults are bandied about. It is understood that criminal investigations are not garden parties but respect for those under your power is a fundamental value. In addition, the power imbalance between you and the person in your office may be titled beyond any tolerance, in accordance with the facts, including the degree of vulnerability, the nature and number of the comments, etc.
Interviewing skills – Inform person being interviewed that you are unsure of their meaning
This is the example I put forward found in Act 1, sc. ii, starting at l. 250: “Casca. He fell down in the market-place, and foam'd at mouth, and was speechless. Brutus. 'Tis very like; he hath the falling-sickness. Cassius. No, Cæsar hath it not; but you, and I, And honest Casca, we have the falling-sickness. Casca. I know not what you mean by that …”
Interviewing skills – Language skills, does the witness possess sufficient knowledge of the language of the statement they purportedly heard?
If you are familiar with the expression “That’s Greek to me!”, read what follows and retain it as an example of the type of judgment that you must engage in when a witness claims to understand what a witness stated in another language.
Cassius. Did Cicero say any thing?
Casca. Ay, he spoke Greek.
Cassius. To what effect?
Casca. Nay, and I tell you that, I'll ne'er look you i' the face again: but those that understood him smil'd at one another and shook their heads; but, for mine own part, it was Greek to me…
Interviewing skills – Leading question, an example of
Refer to the brief discussion found under the rubric “Interviewing skills – Asking questions is useless if you do not pause to note the response.” In effect, to add the words “I do fear” is suggesting a state of mind.
Interviewing skills - Leading questions, an example of one that barely qualifies as such, but that should be re-formulated
In the passage that follows, a lawyer might submit successfully at trial that you were leading the witness when you asked a question about the identity of the person involved, by naming him, and the better practice would be to ask: “Who is it you are describing?”
Casca. 'Tis Cæsar that you mean, is it not, Cassius?
Cassius. Let it be who it is …
[Act 1, sc. iii, l. 79-80]
Interviewing skills – Lengthy question(s) undermining confidence court might enjoy that witness truly understood the subject matter
Marullus asked a citizen who claimed to be rejoicing in Caesar’s triumphs: “Wherefore rejoice? What conquest brings he home? What tributaries follow him to Rome?” See Act 1, sc. i, l. 34-35. Such vocabulary and the tone of the interviewer might lead the witness to cower, and to state “None” or “Nothing”. Later, at trial, when the witness purports to provide information not shared with the investigator, the lawyer calling this person might well show that the response was incomplete, or totally wrong, by reason of the fault of the detective who did not ask fair questions.
Interviewing skills – Memory
Act 4, sc. iii, l. 255 reads: “Brutus. Bear with me, good boy, I am much forgetful.” The careful interviewer must be vigilant when witnesses resort to such phrases in order to avoid discharging their civic duty to assist the police but they must also be mindful that honest persons may be concerned that their ability to recall things is compromised to a certain extent.
Interviewing skills – Oath - example of a party not wishing that one be taken
The quite lengthy passage that follows, found at Act 2, sc. i, l. 113 and following, illustrates the precise justification for the taking of an oath or solemn affirmation – that one must bind the mind and soul of the potential witness. The mind by reason of the fact that one might be sent to jail for deceiving the police and the soul by making plain the importance of good citizenship. The scene describes a number of murderous conspirators banding together.
Cassius. And let us swear our resolution.
Brutus. No, not an oath: if not the face of men,
The sufferance of our souls, the time's abuse,—
If these be motives weak, break off betimes,
And every man hence to his idle bed;
So let high-sighted tyranny range on,
Till each man drop by lottery. But if these,
As I am sure they do, bear fire enough
To kindle cowards and to steel with valour
The melting spirits of women, then, countrymen,
What need we any spur but our own cause
To prick us to redress? what other bond
Than secret Romans, that have spoke the word,
And will not palter? and what other oath
Than honesty to honesty engag'd,
That this shall be, or we will fall for it?
Swear priests and cowards and men cautelous,
Old feeble carrions and such suffering souls
That welcome wrongs; unto bad causes swear
Such creatures as men doubt; but do not stain
The even virtue of our enterprise,
Nor th' insuppressive mettle of our spirits,
To think that or our cause or our performance
Did need an oath; when every drop of blood
That every Roman bears, and nobly bears,
Is guilty of a several bastardy,
If he do break the smallest particle
any promise that hath pass'd from him.
[Emphasis added]
Interviewing skills - Responding (or not) to what the witness states
It is difficult to state without reservation what the interviewer ought to do when confronted with information that is not thought to be fully accurate. One school of thought suggests that the better course is to do nothing until all the prepared questions are exhausted, and only after taking a break and conferring with the colleague who is monitoring the situation. The other is to simply converse, as one does in typical exchanges in everyday social discussions, as illustrated below:
Portia … Make me acquainted with your cause of grief.
Brutus. I am not well in health, and that is all.
Portia. Brutus is wise, and, were he not in health,
He would embrace the means to come by it.
… 268 You have some sick offence within your mind,
[Act 2, sc. i, l. 254-268]
Interviewing skills – Speaking out of both sides of your mouth when interviewing in tandem – An example
One of the challenges when conducting an interview with another police officer is the submission of contrary information. At the start of Act 1, Flavius asks a passerby, with a view to berate him for failing to follow the law: “… Is this a holiday?” He did so in the presence of Marullus. A few lines later, at 69, Marullus attempts to convince Flavius not to remove decorations put up to celebrate Caesar, stating “You know it is the feast of Lupercal…” If we view both as detectives and the person who was addressed at first as the witness / suspect, it is likely that a defence lawyer will submit, and a judge agree, that it was inappropriate for Flavius to berate a worker for not being at home to do their work and not being available to work in general, it not being a holiday, when it was a day of feasting. The objective is to be fair to the person interviewed but it is not prohibited to ask questions that serve to “trip up” witnesses who are not capable of showing that their actions were undertaken well knowing that they were justified by this, that or another reason.
Investigative skills – what to do and not to do
Investigative skills – Changes in manners and demeanour of persons that are being investigated
Refer to “Demeanour evidence – Changes in manners and demeanour of persons that are being investigated.”
Investigative skills – Hearing the important words, or sounds, show clear opportunity must be shown for this opportunity of
On occasion, it may be necessary for you as the investigator to demonstrate that the witness enjoyed a full opportunity to hear whatever it is that is vital to prosecute the case. In such situations, consider the passage that follows, from Act 1, sc. ii, l. 12-18, in which efforts are made to have the crowd fall silent. The prudent investigator will make all efforts to show a similar advantage was available to the witness. Thus:
Soothsayer. Cæsar!
Cæsar. Ha! who calls?
Casca. Bid every noise be still. Peace yet again!
Cæsar. Who is it in the press that calls on me?
I hear a tongue, shriller than all the music,
Cry 'Cæsar!' Speak; Cæsar is turn'd to hear.
Soothsayer.Beware the Ides of March.
[Emphasis added]
Of course, if the investigation is fairly capable of demonstrating that the same opportunity was not available to a defence witness, the same thorough efforts must be deployed to show that this is the case.
Investigative skills – Memory, assess the extent to which a witness recalls the event
You ought not to think that witnesses will, as did Casca, let you know that they are unsure of what they saw or heard. See l. 284 of Act 1, sc. ii: “There was more foolery yet, if I could remember it.”
Judgment in investigations
Judgment – Admission, proof of an indirect form of
Consider the dialogue that follows to judge whether it contains an indirect admission of fault by Cassius: 9
Brutus.Let me tell you, Cassius, you yourself
Are much condemn'd to have an itching palm,
To sell and mart your offices for gold
To undeservers.
Cassius. I an itching palm!
You know that you are Brutus that speaks this,
Or, by the gods, this speech were else your last.
Brutus. The name of Cassius honours this corruption,
And chastisement doth therefore hide his head.
Cassius. Chastisement!
Brutus. Remember March, the Ides of March remember:
Did not great Julius bleed for justice' sake?
What villain touch'd his body, that did stab,
And not for justice? What! shall one of us,
That struck the foremost man of all this world
But for supporting robbers, shall we now
Contaminate our fingers with base bribes,
[Act 4, sc. ii, l. 9-22] [Emphasis added]
Judgment – Common sense – night is more dangerous than day
BRUTUS
… O conspiracy,
Sham'st thou to show thy dangerous brow by night,
When evils are most free? …
Act 2, sc. i, l. 77-80.
The implications of this proposition are that police officers have more to fear from attacks coming from shadowy areas than from the stark light of day. That said, it does not mean that greater police resources are to be allocated to the night than the day…
Judgment – Conspiracies: difference between “I said I would do it” and “I did it in fact”
The excerpt from the play, seen at Act 1, sc., ii, l. 9-10, illustrates this distinction fully:
Antony. I shall remember:
When Cæsar says 'Do this,' it is perform'd.
Judgment – Conspiracies: proof of might disclose a single person’s work
On occasion, an investigator will receive evidence suggesting that a number of persons are acting in concert, or individually but with an apparently identical purpose, but upon close examination, you will discover that it is the work of one person. In this context, consider what follows:
Cassius. …
I will this night,
In several hands, in at his windows throw,
As if they came from several citizens,
Writings, all tending to the great opinion
That Rome holds of his name; wherein obscurely
Cæsar's ambition shall be glanced at:
And after this let Cæsar seat him sure;
For we will shake him, or worse days endure…
[Act 1, sc. ii, l. 312-319]
Judgment – Disclosure, advice from senior prosecutors may be required in cases of covert investigations such as involving techniques to be protected
As made plain in the passage that follows, there are occasions when you should consult with senior prosecutors to ensure timely and correct disclosure, and that any refusal is both revealed and justified so that the defence may seek a ruling from the courts.
Antony. …
And let us presently go sit in council,
How covert matters may be best disclos'd,
[Act 4, sc. i, l. 35-37]
Judgment – Evaluate the likelihood of what the witness claims to have heard
I do not know who first stated: “People are funny!” but it is very true. Consider the likelihood that a witness could hear clearly and retain fully, in a crowded festive atmosphere, the answer Casca provided to the question “Will you dine with me to-morrow?”: “Casca. Ay, if I be alive, and your mind hold, and your dinner worth the eating.”
Judgment – Fawning, be wary of
Act 1, sc. ii, l. 75 and following addresses the fact (and fear) that persons with your skills and position may be sought out for benevolent and less benevolent reasons. It is quite useful to the community that you are sounded on your interest in Rotary, or other service clubs, but far less so if the interest is to attempt to have you assess the actions of others in a biased manner.
Judgment – Hide one’s face, cannot be for anything but criminal behaviour
This is what Portia states in that regard: “… and what men to-night Have had resort to you; for here have been Some six or seven, who did hide their faces Even from darkness.” See Act 2, sc. ii, l. 276-278.
Judgment – Honour of a witness as a reason to accept their statement?
In Act 3, sc. ii, at the beginning, Brutus seeks to justify his part in killing Caesar and asserts as a justification that he is an honourable man and thus his actions ought to be viewed as honourable. I invite investigators to review these comments and to decide whether honour is a sound basis upon which to judge the honesty and the reliability of an account:
Brutus. Be patient till the last.
Romans, countrymen, and lovers! hear me for my cause, and be silent, that you may hear: believe me for mine honour, and have respect to mine honour, that you may believe: censure me in your wisdom, and awake your senses, that you may the better judge. If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of Cæsar's, to him I say that Brutus' love to Cæsar was no less than his. If then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Cæsar, this is my answer: Not that I lov'd Cæsar less, but that I lov'd Rome more. Had you rather Cæsar were living, and die all slaves, than that Cæsar were dead, to live all free-men? As Cæsar lov'd me, I weep for him; as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was valiant, I honour him: but as he was ambitious, I slew him. There is tears for his love; joy for his fortune … [Act 3, sc. ii, l. 15- 22]
Judgment – Human nature – Boasting, the investigator must be wary of
In Act 1, sc. iii, l. 114-115, Cassius states “… I am arm'd, And dangers are to me indifferent…” It may well be that this is factual but it might be nothing less than boasting having no basis in fact.
Judgment – Human nature – Death reveals our qualities or our failings?
Investigators must always be wary that persons they interview about someone who has died may not provide reliable information, for the general reason disclosed in the words of Anthony as set out below:
Antony. Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears:
I come to bury Cæsar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them:
The good is oft interred with their bones
[Act 3, sc. ii, l. 72-76]
Judgment – Human nature – Exaggeration: “this the worst, best I have ever seen”
Investigators should be wary of assigning too much weight to the type of statement we read below:
Cicero. …
Why are you breathless? and why stare you so?
Casca. Are you not mov'd, when all the sway of earth
Shakes like a thing unfirm? O Cicero,
I have seen tempests, when the scolding winds
Have riv'd the knotty oaks, and I have seen
Th' ambitious ocean swell and rage and foam,
To be exalted with the threatening clouds;
But never till to-night, never till now,
Did I go through a tempest dropping fire …
[Act 1, sc. iii, l. 1-10] [Emphasis added]
Judgment – Human nature, evolution of a person from basic character
The seasoned investigator will have understood that under the correct circumstances many persons will depart temporarily or abandon their typical character traits, and accordingly will act out of character. It is the evaluation of the surrounding “encouragement” or “incitation” that will show the talent of the detective. This is illustrated in the passage that follows:
Cassius. I will do so: till then, think of the world.
Well, Brutus, thou art noble; yet, I see,
Thy honourable metal may be wrought
From that it is dispos'd…
[Act 1, sc. ii, l. 304-307]
Judgment – Human nature – fear, of things we do not understand
Consider this passage, from l. 53-54 of Act 1, sc. iii:
Casca. But wherefore did you so much tempt the heavens?
It is the part of men to fear and tremble
When the most mighty gods by tokens send
Such dreadful heralds to astonish us …
Judgment – Human nature – flattery
This lengthy passage illustrates well the potential role that flattery plays in day-to-day life and how you must fear that the person you are interviewing (or investigating) is attempting to flatter you, the better to deceive you: 201
Decius. Never fear that: if he be so resolv'd,
I can o'ersway him; for he loves to hear
That unicorns may be betray'd with trees,
And bears with glasses, elephants with holes,
Lions with toils, and men with flatterers:
But when I tell him he hates flatterers,
He says he does, being then most flattered.
[Act 2, sc. ii, l. Emphasis added]
Judgment – Human nature – flesh and blood and thus weak
“Cæsar. … And men are flesh and blood …” This quote is advanced to remind investigators that they must always fear betrayal by witnesses who have given evidence in your offices based on sound reasons, but liable to be recanted later for no good reason!
Judgment – Human nature – follower, never
As a police officer, you might be involved in an investigation in which it is suggested that your suspect took up with a group or gang, but your information suggests that they would never be able to take orders from others. In this vein, consider this passage:
Brutus. O, name him not; let us not break with him,
For he will never follow any thing
That other men begin.
[Act 2, sc. i, l. 150-152]
Judgment – Human nature – forgetting that you climbed the ladder of success and thinking that you were always that experienced and able
This so-called trait of human nature that will mar your ability to judge the work and sacrifices of others is seen in the passage that follows, from Act 2, sc. i, l. 20 and following:
BRUTUS
I have not known when his affections sway'd
More than his reason. But 'tis a common proof,
That lowliness is young ambition's ladder,
Whereto the climber upward turns his face;
But when he once attains the upmost round,
He then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend…
Judgment – Information denouncing wrongdoers – requires some substance
At times, there is very little that an investigator may do with far too general information, such as set out below, but when it turns out that the men denounced acted in concert to kill, it will be essential that you can demonstrate that a file was opened and whatever information in support was sought out. Thus, Act 2, sc. iii, opens with these lines:
Artemidorus. Cæsar, beware of Brutus; take heed of Cassius; come not near Casca; have an eye to Cinna; trust not Trebonius; mark well Metellus Cimber; Decius Brutus loves thee not; thou hast wrong'd Caius Ligarius. There is but one mind in all these men, and it is bent against Cæsar. If thou beest not immortal, look about you: security gives way to conspiracy. The mighty gods defend thee!
Judgment – Interpret the words of the witness, after sound deliberation
Cassius. …
This rudeness is a sauce to his good wit,
Which gives men stomach to digest his words
With better appetite.
[Act 1, sc. ii, l. 294-297]
In effect, it is not sufficient merely to examine and assess the words in context, but to draw back from them and to evaluate them when your thinking has moved forward from your initial views and impressions.
Judgment – Prone to poorly assess things perceived in stressful situations, does the witness appear to be
I do not suggest that the passage that follows is accurate in suggesting that there are categories of persons prone to poorly assessing the things they see and experience under stress, but wise investigators will wish to weigh the objective ability of the potential witness to have made and to retain accurate observations of events against a background that is frightening. After all, seeing a carjacking or a bank robbery is a challenging event for anyone, least of all persons not trained to remain calm in a stressful situation. In this vein, note the following excerpt from Act 1, sc. iii, l. 65-72:
Cassius. Why old men, fools, and children calculate;
Why all these things change from their ordinance,
Their natures and preformed faculties,
To monstrous quality, why, you shall find
That heaven hath infus'd them with these spirits,
To make them instruments of fear and warning
Unto some monstrous state…
Judgment – Reading, influenced by
Act 1, sc. ii, l. 200, should inspire would-be investigators to read as Caesar states of Cassius:
… I do not know the man I should avoid
So soon as that spare Cassius. He reads much;
He is a great observer …
In my opinion, he is a great observer by reason of the fact that he reads.
Judgment – Reversing the proposition
This technique is often suggested in situations in which a would-be murderer is found red-handed, stooping over the body of a victim clutching the knife that is in the heart. The person will be arrested until information is received that the suspect is a surgeon who can be shown by CCTV to have come across the body a few seconds earlier and who was assessing if the person was still alive. In few words, if the investigator “flips” the information at hand from negative to positive, does the original conclusion remain sound?
In this context, consider what follows when Brutus is asked what he is contemplating:
Brutus. A piece of work that will make sick men whole.
Ligarius. But are not some whole that we must make sick?
Brutus. That must we also.
[Act 2, sc. ii, l. 328-330]
Judgment – Self-fulfilling prophesy – dangers of
Consider this passage:
Brutus.
He would be crown'd:
How that might change his nature, there's the question.
It is the bright day that brings forth the adder,
And that craves wary walking…
Act 2, sc. i, l. 10-15
Shakespeare meant to communicate to his audience that the adder, a poisonous snake, is what Caesar represented to Brutus, and that the bright day symbolized kingship. Thus, Brutus was deeply troubled fearing that Caesar's true self, evil and greedy with power, would be unchecked once he had been crowned king. For investigators, the lesson to be drawn is that you are disposed to arrest a suspect as he is, in your mind, a violent one capable of harming others, though he has not yet displayed this trait in terms of an offence already committed. When he later reacts violently to the fact of the arrest, you will be able to confirm your original belief as to the violent nature. This circular reasoning is to be avoided at all costs.
Judgment – Strength in numbers? Not if impossible no matter how often reported
The wise investigator cannot but consider at greater value the fact that a similar report is made by more than one person and that the more common is a report, the more likely the information is reasonable. However, at one point, caution is required if the number seems unlikely and of course, if the information is doubtful on an objective basis. Stated simply, if a first report is quite difficult to believe, it might become more plausible if supported but something impossible does not become more possible if repeated. An example follows:
CASCA … Who glaz'd upon me and went surly by
Without annoying me: and there were drawn
Upon a heap a hundred ghastly women,
Transformed with their fear, who swore they saw
Men all in fire walk up and down the streets…
[Act 1, sc. iii, l. 21-25]
Judgment – Subjective nature of our judgments
Consider well the wisdom of the statement that follows:
Cicero. Indeed, it is a strange-disposed time:
But men may construe things after their fashion …
[Act 1, sc. iii, l. 33-34]
Judgment - “Tongue-tied” individuals as proof of guilt?
Act 1, sc. i, l. 33 to 63 records how both Marullus and Flavius harangue the assembled citizens to accord Pompey as much by way of applause and gratitude as what is assigned to Caesar and when those who heard this exhortation do not react, Flavius states at l. 63-64:
… See, where their basest metal be not mov'd!
They vanish tongue-tied in their guiltiness…
I am in no position to support the suggestion that this might be the origin of the general belief that those who remain quiet in the face of accusations of wrongdoing are indirectly adopting the soundness of that accusation. But the fact remains that most individuals share this belief. The Courts, however, are far more methodical in their analysis of such claims and it is only in precise cases that such a finding is made. Indeed, the subject is so controversial of late that there is a general call for the issue to be resolved by the Supreme Court of Canada as two cases, R. v. Gordon, 2022 ONCA 799, and R. v. Scott, 2013 MBCA 7, present conflicting views on the impact of silence by a suspect when accused of criminal conduct.
Judgment – Victim blaming? Is witness relating objective facts or modifying the account by subconscious distortion based on criticism of conduct of person involved
I suggest that the example that follows may well support the view set out in the rubric:
Cassius. And why should Cæsar be a tyrant then?
Poor man! I know he would not be a wolf,
But that he sees the Romans are but sheep:
He were no lion, were not Romans hinds [i.e.: deer] …
[Act 1, sc. iii, l. 103-106]
In effect, we cannot blame the offender for stealing from the person who walked alone, or had a purse dangling, and does this view lead to exaggerating how dark it was, how distant the victim was from others, how far or much the purse was dangling, etc.
Judgment – Words before blows
Act 5, sc. i, l. 26-27 sets out these words:
Octavius. Stir not until the signal.
Brutus. Words before blows: is it so, countrymen?
In other words, it is wise to seek to negotiate some form of surrender or achieve an understanding prior to a form of violent action, such as “taking a door”.
Professionalism in investigations
Professionalism – Accusations flow from consideration of information over time and not rash conclusions
What follows displays want of professionalism if we were to consider the citizens to be investigators:
Cinna. [After being asked his name] Truly, my name is Cinna.
1 Citizen. Tear him to pieces; he's a conspirator.
Cinna. I am Cinna the poet, I am Cinna the poet.
4 Citizen. Tear him for his bad verses, tear him for his bad verses.
[Act 3, sc. iii, l. 25-29]
Professionalism – Confidence
Consider this profound statement:
Calpurnia.
Alas, my lord,
Your wisdom is consum'd in confidence!
[Act 1, sc. ii, l. 48-49]
Professionalism – Good reasons and even better ones!
L. 203of Act 4, sc. ii, sets out this wise saying that a professional investigator will adopt: “Brutus. Good reasons must of force give place to better.”
Professionalism – Nature must obey necessity
The investigator who wishes to succeed must heed the words of Brutus, spoken in the context of the need for proper rest in general, and especially prior to undertaking a greatly demanding task: “And nature must obey necessity…” See Act 4, sc. iii, l. 226.
Professionalism – Patience, arm yourself with
Consider this passage:
Brutus. …
For fear of what might fall, so to prevent
The time of life: arming myself with patience
[Act 5, sc. i, l. 104-105]
Professionalism – Privilege
On occasion, an investigator must address or explain to a witness whether they enjoy any kind of privilege, such as marital, and this is a complex matter and your decision to seek guidance from a prosecutor or more experienced colleague will reflect on your professionalism. In this context, consider the following: 279 287
Portia. I should not need, if you were gentle Brutus.
Within the bond of marriage, tell me, Brutus,
Is it excepted I should know no secrets
That appertain to you? Am I yourself
But, as it were, in sort or limitation,
To keep with you at meals, comfort your bed,
And talk to you sometimes? Dwell I but in the suburbs
Of your good pleasure? if it be no more,
Portia is Brutus' harlot, not his wife.
[Act 2, sc. i, l. 279-287]
A few lines later, at 298, Portia states: “… Tell me your counsels; I will not disclose 'em.” But, she might have to do so if her husband discloses harm to a child, even if not to their child, given the criminal law and most provincial child protection legislation.
Professionalism – Ranking your duties – Your advancement ranks last
In Act 3, sc. i, l. 9, Caesar states in accepting the petitions of others: “What touches us ourself shall be last serv'd.”
Professionalism – Reasons, consider fully what reasons you provide for your decisions and render the same respect to the reasons of others
Consider this passage in this regard:
Brutus. Or else were this a savage spectacle:
Our reasons are so full of good regard
That, were you, Antony, the son of Cæsar,
You should be satisfied.
[Act 3, sc. i, l. 224-226]
Professionalism – Respect for the law
The passage that follows, from Act 1, sc. i, l. 70-77, serves to illustrate that those who should serve and defend the law, in this case the nobles of Rome, cannot seek to advance their own agenda, a political one in this instance as they do not wish Caesar to increase his power. Whatever private views one may hold of politicians and politics, police officers apply the law to the utmost degree. In this example, to prevent or curtail a political demonstration is contrary to the even-handed respect that must be shown to those who demonstrate peacefully. A more modern example would be to interfere with a peaceful and otherwise authorized demonstration to “de-fund” police.
Flavius. It is no matter; let no images
Be hung with Cæsar's trophies. I'll about,
And drive away the vulgar from the streets:
So do you too, where you perceive them thick.
These growing feathers pluck'd from Cæsar's wing
Will make him fly an ordinary pitch.
Who else would soar above the view of men,
And keep us all in servile fearfulness.
Professionalism – Self-awareness of your strengths and weaknesses is fundamental
Consider this relevant example, drawn from Act 1, sc. ii, l. 26-29:
CASSIUS Will you go see the order of the course?
Brutus. Not I.
Cassius. I pray you, do.
Brutus. I am not gamesome [fond of games]: I do lack some part
Of that quick spirit that is in Antony. [i.e., lively humour]
The successful investigator will know when to seek advice from more experienced colleagues and when their own knowledge suffices. Indeed, later in the same scene, starting at line 63, Brutus is conscious that were he to follow his friend’s invitation, and to reach beyond his self-imposed limits, danger awaits:
Brutus. Into what dangers would you lead me, Cassius,
That you would have me seek into myself
For that which is not in me? Act 3, sc. i, l.
Professionalism – Tide in human affairs – awareness of
Investigators must be mindful of the wisdom found in the words that follow and strive to work to achieve whatever new policing goals are being pursued, such as implementing the use of body cameras or civilian surveillance or the incorporation of mental health professionals within the typical patrol period.
Brutus. …
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat;
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
[Act 4, sc. iii, l. 217-224]
CONCLUSION
This play is well known and offers a good number of insights to investigators about demeanour and plotting evident in the case of a conspiracy. Investigators will do well to study the various elements of planning and the examples of self-serving testimony to justify the actions undertaken.
[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.
[5] I will not repeat the reference to Julius Caesar, the title of the play, going forward.