POLICE INVESTIGATIONS 101

LESSONS FROM SHAKESPEARE’S Troilus and Cressida,

Gilles Renaud | Ontario Court of Justice (Retired)

INTRODUCTION

In this article, I document the various elements of guidance and instruction from Shakespeare’s play Troilus and Cressida, that may result in enhanced excellence in investigative work. Briefly stated, the discussion is organized along broad, thematic lines involving demeanour evidence, human nature, interviewing skills and judgment. I do not suggest that reading plays will make you better detectives, but I do suggest that reading articles such as this provides a focused understanding of various elements of what forms basic psychology and that knowledge makes us all better citizens, parents, students, spouses and observers of those around us.

DISCUSSION

Demeanour in police work

-       Acting or feigning – witnesses can disguise thoughts

Many plays by Shakespeare include references to the ease with which a person may seek or succeed in hiding their thoughts by means of a false outward appearance or emotion. Indeed, Macbeth is famous for three useful quotes on this subject. Firstly, in Act 1, sc. iv, l. 11, King Duncan states: ‘Theres no art To Find the minds’s construction in the face …”, meaning that people can hide their innermost thoughts easily from our attempts at discovering them. Secondly, sc. v of the same initial Act includes these remarks at l. 57: “Your face, my thane, is as a book where men May read strange matters.” Shakespeare insisted on the ability we possess to fool others by our looks when he added: “… bear welcome in your eye, Your hand, your tongue; look like th’ innocent flower, But be the serpent under ‘t…” Lastly, that play includes advice on how one should try to trick others who rely on demeanour cues to read the mind by examining the face.  Thus, investigators must be careful lest they be deceived by those who read Act 1, sc. vii, l. 82: “Away, and mock the time with fairest show; False face must hide what the false heart doth know.”  These words were spoken immediately after the two speakers decided to commit murder. (On the subject of false face, note what follows, taken from Act 5, sc. vi, l. 7: “Troilus … O traitor Diomed! Turn thy false face …”)

Leaving this introduction to demeanour based on Macbeth and returning to Troilus and Cressida, we read what follows at Act 1, sc. I, l. 38 on the dangers of witnesses you interview attempting to “con” you. Thus: “Buried this sigh in wrinkle of a smile. But sorrow that is couch’d in seeming gladness…” Interpret “couch’d” as the French word “cacher” or hide and you understand the danger of false face hiding information. Note as well the passage set out in Act 2, sc. iii, l. 109: “Cassandra … Practice your eyes with tears …” suggesting that feigning sadness is a question of practice.

-       Language in the eyes and features

This is what Ulysses advances in the play Troilus and Cressida at Act 4, sc. v, l. 55:

Fie, fie upon her!

There’s language in her eye, her cheek, her lip,

Nay, her foot speaks; her wanton spirits look out At every joint and motive of her body.

O! these encounterers so glib of tongue

That give a coasting welcome ere it comes,

I have often criticized the scope to which demeanour evidence is given welcome in the courts, but I cannot imagine how a movement of the foot qualifies as favourable non-verbal testimony, short of pacing discussed later.  In any event, note what Hector states in Act 4, sc. v, l. 238: “O, like a book of sport thou’lt read me o’er …”

Human nature

-       Advice, relish good

Nestor addresses Ulysses at the end of Act 1, sc. iii, l. 388 of Troilus and Cressida: “… I begin to relish the advice …” For present purposes, I invite detectives and other investigators to interpret the words in this fashion: advice is adopted after close consideration and the shifting of all the information collected.  The advice becomes sound after analysis – not the other way around when advice is taken and then the facts are re-worked to conform to what was suggested.

-       Chance, and the course of human affairs

Consider Act 1, sc. iii, l. 34 of Troilus and Cressida: “Nestor … In the reproof of chance Lies the true proof of men …” Stated otherwise, the true test of a person’s strength of character is how they react to adversity.  The detective must assess to what extent the witness who has suffered because of the offence but is not a victim in the strict sense is less able to testify as well as might otherwise be the case, and to what extent the lack of luck the victim has encountered results in reducing that person’s ability to testify. Agencies are available to assist such persons. 

-       Errors, admit any and go back to work

No authority is required to support this commonsense proposition.  But if any is required, I note that Hector proclaimed: “... Thus to persist In doing wrong extenuates not wrong, But makes it much more heavy …” See Act 2, sc. ii, l. 188 of Troilus and Cressida.

-       “Example to others”

Investigators must be mindful that others, would-be detectives especially, will seek to reproduce your successes, so you must seek to provide a great example. In this vein, consider what follows: “Ulysses … emulation hath a thousand sons …” See Troilus and Cressida, Act 3, sc. iii, l. 156.

-       “Hot blooded ...”

Pandarus explains to us the following reasonable equation at Act 3, sc. i, l. 123 of the play Troilus and Cressida: “Is this the generation of love: hot blood, hot thoughts, and hot deeds?” In other words, decisions not reached after cool and calm deliberation may be less well thought out than is ideal and certainly it is thought unwise to fail to consider long and hard any course of action.  Investigations are predicated upon logic, experience, training and the guidance of more experienced colleagues able to call upon the collected wisdom of several generations.

-       Lovers’ oaths and promises

Cressida sets out the following advice in Act 3, sc. ii, l. 81 of Troilus and Cressida: “They say all lovers swear more performance than they are able …” If this is true, and it is beyond our interest for the purposes of this article, it may explain why a certain number of potential witnesses who are involved in a romantic relationship are considered unreliable to a greater or lesser extent by the police.  In effect, they seek to protect loved ones. On the general subject of oath’s, refer to what Cassandra states at act 5, sc. iii, l. 23. “It is the purpose that makes strong the vow; But vows to every purpose must not hold…”

-       Misers and beggars

Consider the very interesting image found in the play Troilus and Cressida at Act 3, sc. iii, l. 143: “Achilles I do believe it; for they pass’d by me As misers do by beggars, neither gave to me Good word nor look…” Out of an abundance of caution, the prudent investigator might wish to ask the question what this phrase seeks to illustrate?

-       Passion

Hector states: “… The reasons you allege do more conduce To the hot passion of distemp’red blood Than to make up a free determination ’Twixt right and wrong; for pleasure and revenge …” See Act 2, sc, ii, l. 167 of Troilus and Cressida. Stated otherwise, investigators and other judges of fact should act upon cold reasoning free of prejudice and desire for a result. 

-       Pride comes before the fall!

Detectives and police officers in general must never allow sinful pride to sway their judgment, either by taking too great a degree of credit for a successful outcome or by refusing to admit errors and to seek corrective measures should the contrary arise. In this context, I quote Agamemnon at Act 2, sc. iii, l. 149 of Troilus and Cressida: “… He that is proud eats up himself. Pride is his own glass, his own trumpet, his own chronicle; and whatever praises itself but in the deed devours the deed in the praise.” “Pride cometh before the fall” and “When the Gods seek to destroy us, first they make us proud” are similar expressions.  All that said, note the further relevant quote at l. 154: “Ajax I do hate a proud man as I do hate the engend’ring of toads.”

-       Self generated assessments of both you and another

A detective must be careful not to be too judgmental when speaking to suspects in attempting to goad them into making harmful admissions but if the circumstances warrant doing so, a good illustration is seen in Act 3, sc. i, l. 26 of Troilus and Cressida: “Pandarus Friend, we understand not one another: I am too courtly, and thou art too cunning…” One should not say so to defence lawyers, as there is no purpose being served. 

-       Truth, is it simple?

In this vein, note how Troilus remarked on truth in the words that follow: “

That my integrity and truth to you

Might be affronted with the match and weight

Of such a winnowed purity in love.

How were I then uplifted! But, alas,

I am as true as truth’s simplicity …

Act 3, sc. ii, l. 165 of Troilus and Cressida

This type of difficult to understand phrase must be received in full, without unhelpful interruptions by way of questions until the witness has advanced all knowledge of the subject.  At that point, it may be wise to ask for a full explanation and to provide further details. At best, it sounds like a “too clever by half comment” that is without substance in an attempt to muddy the waters you are examining, so to speak. 

-       Truth, we all suggest to others that what we say is true

At times, conversation includes words such “I swear on my mother’s grave” and this is no less true in cases of police questioning, perhaps more often than in casual talk.  In the play Troilus and Cressida, Pandarus says: “I speak no more than truth.” See Act 1, sc. I, l. 65.  Police officers must be wary of this trait of human nature, for who says, “What I say next is bull…”? The fact that persons vouch for their trustworthiness is not worth much and perhaps greater trust ought to be assigned to those who do not act in this fashion.

-       “Under honest”

Although I have never heard this passage quoted in a court room or police report, I cannot say that it would be poorly received if resorted to with a view to describe more politely a dishonest person. Thus, Agamenon says of an enemy that he is “under-honest” at Act 2, sc. iii, l. 122 of Troilus and Cressida.

-       Wisdom

“Ulysses … The amity that wisdom knits not, folly may easily untie.” This quote, found at Act 2, sc. iii, l. 96 of Troilus and Cressida, should serve to assist investigators on at least two levels. The first addresses the thorny question of inter-jurisdictional co-operation, notably as amongst police forces serving the same area but within different forces.  My forty years of watching trials have led me to witness certain rare but unfortunate territorial squabbles that have serve to undermine justice.  These petty political fights only serve to undermine the administration of justice. Secondly, this quote may support the wisdom of pursuing police tactics seeking to drive a wedge as between rival criminal factions with a view to obtaining valuable intelligence from disgruntled offenders. 

Interviewing witnesses

-       Admissions, that are qualified soon after being made

A useful example of this type of difficult situation is illustrated in this play at Act 3, sc. ii, l. 48 of Troilus and Cressida. Indeed, Cressida exclaims: “… Where is my wit? I know not what I speak.” In effect, if you receive what appears at first blush as being an admission, let us say of assaulting a former boss years ago, which is followed by a comment along the lines of “I know not what I speak”, you may not have received a useful or even an admissible statement.  Is it not a case of taking away with the left hand what apparently the right hand granted?  It sounds a lot like the comment by Troilus at Act 3, sc. ii, l. 185, utters: “… yet let memory From false to false, among false maids in love …” 

-       Tongue-tied persons might need assistance

Consider the passage found at Act 3, sc. ii, l. 206 of Troilus and Cressida: “Pandarus … And Cupid grant all tongue-tied maidens here.” The better image would have us say we will assist all persons experiencing concerns about the ability to testify fully and fairly and involve agencies if required.  The Crown’s office may also provide valuable assistance. 

-       Warning as to duty to tell the truth

Shakespeare illustrates in Troilus and Cressida that police may begin an interview with a police witness by saying “Speak frankly …”, as we read at Act 1, sc. iii, l. 253.  If said harshly or with a far too intimidating tone, this must hinder your rapport with a potential source of information, but you are fully entitled to point out that to lie to the police brings about the possibility of criminal accusations.

Judgment

-       Be not fixated on what a lawyer might argue at trial

Troilus points out to Pandarus early in the play “… I cannot fight upon this argument …” [Act 1, sc. i, l. 93 of Troilus and Cressida].  If this means that an investigator must examine every factual controversy in a case and may have to find that it is impossible to know what took place on a precise point, it is a sound example of investigative judgment.  If it means that the detective is fixated on what might happen at trial when a defence counsel is going to “attack” a finding of fact you have reached, then what you are considering is a misplaced use of your time.  You must analyze all the information and reach conclusions, but you ought not to twist yourself in a knot about this point or that on the belief that a lawyer might suggest this argument or this other one.  Let the Crown perform its function before the Court. 

In fact, this type of “paralysis in analysis” was in evidence in the work of the fabled Sherlock Holmes who told a Scotland Yard police officer: “A clever counsel would tear it all to rags”.  See the short story “Silver Blaze” in the collected work The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes. If the criticism of your working theory is that what you suggest overlooks fact a or b of c, then it must be re-worked; it is not to be re-thought because a lawyer might find issue, only if it is not well considered.

-       Consent to amorous touching – it is contemporaneous and full?

At times, the submissions advanced by counsel in a s. 276 application to introduce evidence of other sexual activity is defeated by Crown counsel on the strength of the lack of valid and fresh consent, to use that expression.  Your task is to ask the suspect, if there is a desire to answer your questions, to set out in as much detail what took place and when.  In such a case, the prosecutor may be justified in submitting that the suggested consent falls within the situation described below:

MENELAUS.

I had good argument for kissing once.

PATROCLUS.

But that’s no argument for kissing now…

[Act 4, sc. v, l. 25, Troilus and Cressida]

-       Eloquence in testifying

One of the staples of the Joseph Wambaugh police novels was the skill with which experienced police officers gave their testimony, to the point that they were accused of enhancing verbal skills to cover up poor investigative skills.  In the context of this serious concern, note this passage from Act 1, sc. iii, l. 68 of Troilus and Cressida: “Ulysses … knit all the Greekish ears To his experienc’d tongue …” There is no harm and much benefit to seeking to present testimony in such a way that it is well received. In this vein, allow me to quote from Act 4, sc. i, l. 9: “Paris … Witness the process of your speech …” In addition, one is well served if one aspires to be a better communicator but this is not to be confused with the person Aeneas describes at Act 4, sc. ii, l. 75: “Good, good, my lord, the secrets of neighbour Pandar Have not more gift in taciturnity.” 

That said, if there is any extra time in your busy days, apply it to reviewing your notes as often as possible prior to other pursuits such as the enhancing your eloquence. 

-       Exaggeration

One ought to avoid this fault and it might be wiser to always undershoot the mark, so to speak, rather than go beyond the target, especially in situations involving utmost good faith such as affidavits and applications for warrants in which there is no immediate opportunity for challenges by the persons potentially affected.  The Courts expect your best and trust there is no omission or exaggeration. In this context, note what follows: “Pandarus Rude, in sooth; in good sooth, very rude.” See Act 3, sc. I, l. 55 of Troilus and Cressida.  In effect, what purpose is served and what advantage gained?  If you believe that X number of persons are involved in a criminal activity, but some of these conclusions are weaker than others, be careful and set out your very confident beliefs in a paragraph separate from the less confident conclusions.

-       “Folly” and judgment

Consider the implications of this passage to the merits of an account you might receive from a potential witness: “Alexander … a man into whom nature hath so crowded humours that his valour is crush’d into folly, his folly sauced with discretion…” [Act 1, sc. ii, l. 24 of Troilus and Cressida] Could you credit much of what such a person might state? Of course, the careful investigator will record all information and verify if any of it is supported by independent and reliable information.  

Consider also the accusation that Pandarus levels to his niece Cressida, a few lines later, at 88: “… You have no judgment …” In this vein, a witness wishing to discredit a third person might swell advance this opinion, but your task is to verify what support there is for this belief. That said, note as well what Pandarus advances even further, at l. 184 speaking of Antenor: “… he’s one o’ the soundest judgments in Troy.” Again, the investigator ought not to accept any bald statements without assessing the information in support.

-       Hearsay

The example that follows illustrates well the dangers of hearsay, by resort to the word “noise”.  Thus, Act 1, sc. ii, l. 12 of Troilus and Cressida sets out what follows: “Cressida What was his cause of anger? Alexander The noise goes, this: there is among the Greeks A lord of Trojan blood, nephew to Hector; They call him Ajax.” Noise sounds like nonsense and investigators must be worried about the relative lack of merits of hearsay-based information.

-       Justice, the police serve the ends of

A useful passage is found at Act 1, sc. iii, l. 116 of Troilus and Cressida: “Ulysses … Force should be right; or, rather, right and wrong — Between whose endless jar justice resides — Should lose their names, and so should justice too. Then everything includes itself in power, Power into will, will into appetite; And appetite, an universal wolf …” Expressed in more simple terms, police serve justice by investigating crime according to the rules of society and not by means of their position of power. Refer as well to Act 2, sc. ii, l. 180: “Hector … There is law in each well-order’d nation …”

In closing this sub-section, note the quote that follows that well summarizes what will be the general opinion if a police investigation is held to have been unlawful, and contrary to the ends of justice: “Pandarus … how earnestly are you set a-work, and how ill requited! Why should our endeavour be so lov’d, and the performance so loathed? …” Act 5, sc. x, l. 39.

-       Limits, know your

The wise investigator is always keenly aware of his or her talents and shortcomings and will ensure that any too challenging assignment is only undertaken with the understanding that others are available to be consulted and that numerous texts and articles exist to guide the steps of these who are hesitant on the path they must follow. The only true weakness is to fail to assess one’s talents and thus, to exaggerate one’s strengths and to ignore one’s weaknesses.  In this vein, note what follows, drawn from what Troilus states in Act 4, sc. iv, l. 91 of Troilus and Cressida: “… But something may be done that we will not; And sometimes we are devils to ourselves, When we will tempt the frailty of our powers, Presuming on their changeful potency.”

-       “No excuses”

This type of military-styled response in reply to a question about late arrival, or scuffed shoes, by way of limited examples, may well be fit within that type of context, but it does not transfer well to the courtroom.  If you are asked to explain a decision that you made by a lawyer or the judge, you cannot merely respond “No excuse” as I have observed on a few rare occasions.  A fulsome explanation is mandated by your oath or solemn affirmation. In this vein, note that Paris states at Act 3, sc. i, l. 84 of Troilus and Cressida: “Well, I’ll make excuse.”  What the judge requires is an understanding of a decision, not merely an admission that something might have gone wrong. To be unwilling to explain things may lead you to be described as one guilty of the “rude brevity” noted by Troilus in Act 4, sc. iv, l. 40.

-       Patient or physician

"He will be the physician that should be the patient" is found in the play at Act 2, sc. iii, l. 208 of Troilus and Cressida.  The Greek general Agamemnon says it about Achilles and seeks to underline the fact that Achilles’ arrogance in giving advice is quite misplaced as he is the one who requires guidance, as might offer a doctor.

-       Public opinion and investigations

“Nestor states at Act 1, sc. iii, l. 336 of Troilus and Cressida: “… Yet in this trial much opinion dwells …” Whatever may be the pressure to be withstood by Courts in rendering justice no matter what public opinion may clamour for, for detectives the beating of the drums of social media, to mix a metaphor poorly, is of no moment.  There is no timepiece for the achievement of justice. Recall that in the movie “In the Heat of the Night”, the town’s mayor suggests to Chief Gillespie that he ordered a cover-up arrest simply to take the pressure from the police in their hunt for a killer.  This demonstrates how such thoughts are in the minds of the public. 

-       Reason

Former Prime Minister P.E. Trudeau often stated that “Reason over passion” was the best means of ensuring enlightened decision-making. In this vein, note Act 2, sc. ii, l. 49 of Troilus and Cressida: “Troilus … Reason and respect …” bring about great results. The same holds true for investigators and other professionals who must apply logic to their endeavours.

-       Speedy judgment versus careful conclusion

Think about the wisdom of what Nestor states at Act 1, sc. iii, l. 327 of Troilus and Cressida: “… though, Apollo knows, ’Tis dry enough—will with great speed of judgement, Ay, with celerity, find Hector’s purpose Pointing on him.” Celerity denotes speed to demonstrates how great is the need for rapid decision making, which may be apt in battle, indeed a necessity, but rarely useful in the cold and methodical world of investigations where the only purpose is to reach the correct finding.

-       View all sides of a controversy fairly

Investigators must be objective and not have any preconceived perspectives such as “Toronto Maple Leaf fans” cannot be trusted considering their delusions about a Stanley Cup parade in June of 2026! In this context, one might conclude that no one who is interviewed about an event is to be trusted, by reason of general intoxication for example. At times, unfortunately, you may have to conclude in a manner that “echoes” what Troilus opined in the play, at Act 1, sc. I, l. 89 of Troilus and Cressida: “Fools on both sides!”

Method to police work

– Orthodoxy in approach?

I am not competent to comment, never having been a police officer, but I have observed the results of police work in courtrooms since 1979 and I have noted, from time to time, unorthodox methods leading to great results.  In few words, one need not start at the start… In this context, note that the Prologue includes these remarks: “Beginning in the middle; starting thence away”. See l. 27.

-       Patience

Although expressed in flowery language fit for the Shakespearean stage, Act 1, sc. I, l. 27 of Troilus and Cressida includes a useful reminder to investigators that success in all useful endeavours requires patience. As we read, “Troilus Patience herself, what goddess e’er she be, Doth lesser blench at suff’rance than I do…”

CONCLUSION

Possibly, after you have completed reading this article during the evening, after a long day waiting to testify outside of number 6 court in which you began your review, you will think, as did Hector: “… Now is my day’s work done …” Act 5, sc. viii, l. 4 of Troilus and Cressida.