POLICE INVESTIGATIONS 101
LESSONS FROM SHAKESPEARE’S AS YOU LIKE IT
Gilles Renaud | Ontario Court of Justice
INTRODUCTION
In this article, I document the various elements of guidance and instruction from the classic play As You Like It that may result in excellence in investigative work.[1]
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.”[2] 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?[3]
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 - 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 about 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] [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 of Julius Caesar, 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 – Testimony, as a form of
At the outset, consider this example: “Oliver. This was not counterfeit: there is too great testimony in your complexion that it was a passion of earnest.” As You Like It, Act 4, sc. iii, l. 167-169. In other words, an investigator at their office may “read” the face of a witness and conclude how credible and / or reliable are the words spoken.
Demeanour – Multiple elements “on display” at once
Consider this example from our featured play: “Oliver. … but should I anatomize him to thee as he is, I must blush and weep and thou must look pale and wonder. [1-i-146]
Demeanour – Acting, putting on the element(s) to convince
Consider this excellent example: “Orlando … I thought that all things had been savage here; And therefore put I on the countenance Of stern commandment. … [2-vii-107] Consider as well: “Phebe … Now counterfeit to swoon; why now fall down…” [3-v-16]
Demeanour – Grey’s Anatomy of the elements of
Bitterness
“Silvius. Sweet Phebe, do not scorn me; do not, Phebe; Say that you love me not, but say not so In bitterness…” As You Like It, Act 3, sc. v, l. 1-2.
Blush
“Oliver. … but should I anatomize him to thee as he is, I must blush and weep and thou must look pale and wonder.” [1-i-146]
“Orlando … If ever from your eyelids wiped a tear
And know what 'tis to pity and be pitied,
Let gentleness my strong enforcement be:
In the which hope I blush, and hide my sword.
As You Like It, Act 2, sc. vii, l. 115-118.
Brow
“Rosalind. Nay, but the devil take mocking: speak, sad brow and true maid.” As You Like It, Act 3, sc. ii, l. 212-213.
“Silvius. … My gentle Phebe bid me give you this:
I know not the contents; but, as I guess
By the stern brow and waspish action
Which she did use as she was writing of it,
It bears an angry tenor …
As You Like It, Act 4, sc. iii, l. 8-13.
Countenance
“Orlando … I thought that all things had been savage here; And therefore put I on the countenance Of stern commandment. … [2-vii-107]
“Rosalind. … and almost chide God for making you that countenance you are …” As You Like It, Act 4, sc. i, l. 30-34.
Eyes
“Celia. With his eyes full of anger.” As You Like It, Act 1, sc. iii, l. 40.
“Jaques. And then he drew a dial from his poke, And, looking on it with lack-lustre eye …” As You Like It, Act 2, sc. vii, l. 22-23.
“Jaques … And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe…” [2-vii-160]
“Jaques … Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.”
As You Like It, Act 2, sc. vii, l. 163-165.
“Orlando … thrice-crowned queen of night, survey
With thy chaste eye, from thy pale sphere above …” [3-ii-1]
“Phebe … Thou tell'st me there is murder in mine eye …” [3-v-10]
“Phebe. … and faster than his tongue Did make offence his eye did heal it up. [Act 3, sc. v, l. 118-120]
Face
“Jaques … And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover … [2-vii-145]
“Rosalind. … I am sure, as many as have good
beards or good faces or sweet breaths …” Epilogue
Frown
“Phebe. … Now I do frown on thee with all my heart …” [3-v-15]
“Rosalind … If it be so, as fast as she answers thee with frowning looks, I'll sauce her with bitter words. Why look you so upon me? [3-v-66]
“Orlando. I would not have my right Rosalind of this mind, for, I protest, her frown might kill me.” As You Like It, Act 4, sc. i, l. 104-105.
Glances
“Jaques. … Even by the squandering glances of the fool…” [2-vii-56]
Look
“Orlando. … Well said! thou lookest cheerly … As You Like It, Act 2, sc. vi, l. 15.
“Duke Senior. … What, you look merrily! As You Like It, Act 2, sc. vii, l. 11.
Mirth
“Rosalind. Dear Celia, I show more mirth than I am mistress of; and would you yet I were merrier? …” [1-ii-2]
Nose
“First Lord … Coursed one another down his innocent nose …” [2-i-37]
Palour
“Oliver. … but should I anatomize him to thee as he is, I must blush and weep and thou must look pale and wonder.” [1-i-146]
“Celia. … For, by this heaven, now at our sorrows pale …” [1-iii-106]
“Celia. Come, you look paler and paler …” Act 4, sc. iii, l. 175.
Scorn
“Corin. … And the red glow of scorn and proud disdain …” [3-iv-51
Semblance
“Rosalind. … As many other mannish cowards have That do outface it with their semblances.” [1-iii-120]
Sighs
“Jaques … And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow…” [2-vii-150]
“Rosalind. … for your brother and my sister no sooner
met but they looked, no sooner looked but they
loved, no sooner loved but they sighed …
As You Like It, Act 5, sc. ii, l. 28-31.
“Silvius. “It is to be all made of sighs and tears…” [Act 5, sc. ii, l. 80.]
Teeth
“Jaques … Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.”
As You Like It, Act 2, sc. vii, l. 163-165.
Weep
“Oliver. … but should I anatomize him to thee as he is, I must blush and weep and thou must look pale and wonder.” [1-i-146]
Interviewing skills and techniques:
Interviewing: Admissions, at request of investigator
The example that follows underscores the fact that the decision of a person, including and especially the suspect or accused, to provide information to the police is not subject to criticism by the Courts if the person has been provided with the appropriate caution and rights to counsel, and decides to comply with your request as an exercise of free will. It might not be to “please themselves”, as noted by Amiens, but that is not a basis for rejection if the decision to please the police is freely made.
Amiens
More at your request than to please myself.
As You Like It, Act 2, sc. v, l. 23.
Consider this straight-forward example as well:
Jaques:
Which is he that killed the deer?
A Lord
Sir, it was I.
As You Like It, Act 4, sc. ii, l. 1-2.
On the other hand, it will be useful to point out that on occasion, there are suspects who advance a full defence by way of their statement to the police, as in his example: “Silvius. … pardon me, I am but as a guiltless messenger.” As You Like It, Act 4, sc. iii, l. 12-13. This could describe the person who delivers the drugs in a delivery service context.
Interviewing: Better information obtained than what speaker might have understood was being provided
This reality is well described by Shakespeare in Act 2, sc. iv, l. 55 when Rosalind states: “Thou speakest wiser than thou art ware of As You Like It.
Interviewing: Compound question – a great example
Rosalind
Alas the day! what shall I do with my doublet and
hose? What did he when thou sawest him? What said
he? How looked he? Wherein went he? What makes
him here? Did he ask for me? Where remains he?
How parted he with thee? and when shalt thou see
him again? Answer me in one word. [Act 3, sc. ii, l. 216-22]
Interviewing: Confusing comments must be the subject of “clarifying” questions
Consider the answer that follows: “Orlando … Besides this nothing that he so plentifully gives me, the something that nature gave me his countenance seems to take from me …” As You Like It, Act 1, sc. i, l. 15. Since I am not sure what the interviewee meant to say, I suggest that the investigator move forward and ask all the other questions that are prepared. It is only once everything that had to be asked is completed that you should seek clarification. On the one hand, the witness may explain it later and avoiding further questions may eliminate the possibility that the judge will be invited by the defence to discount the answers as being re-worked; the witness will be less likely to take offence earlier on in the interview if they believe that they were clear, on the other hand.
In the same vein, I do not understand the phrase that follows and if I were interviewing someone, I would wish to obtain some degree of clarification: “Touchstone. … rich honesty dwells like a miser. Sir, in a poor house, as your pearl in your foul oyster.” As You Like It, Act 5, sc. iv, l. 58-60.
Interviewing: Criticizing the suspect to then question is not wise
Consider this example:
Jaques
You are full of pretty answers. Have you not been
acquainted with goldsmiths' wives, and conned them
out of rings?
As You Like It, Act 3, sc. ii, l. 268-270.
Interviewing: Curtailing what witness states to an investigator
As a rule, the prudent investigator ought not to cut off a witness in midsentence and ought not to discontinue an interview on the grounds that a proposed trial witness is not providing information that the police consider useful. This might result in a sound submission by defence counsel that the police investigators were not seeking the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In this vein, I quote this passage: “Orlando I will not, till I please: you shall hear me. My father charged you in his will to give me good education: you have trained me like a peasant, obscuring and hiding from me all gentleman-like qualities…” As You Like It, Act 1, sc. i, l. 62-64.
Interviewing: Describing information you seek may lead to information being withheld as interviewee misunderstood parameters of question
Consider this example: “Oliver. Good Monsieur Charles, what's the new news at the new court? Charles. There's no news at the court, sir, but the old news, that is, the old duke is banished by his younger brother the new duke … In effect, the witness might have responded that he new of none, if they took the question literally. [1-i-92-95]
Interviewing: Explanations from the witness are required on occasion
This is illustrated in the passage that follows: “Touchstone. When a man's verses cannot be understood …” [Act 3, sc. iii, l. 10].
Interviewing: Last word, avoid getting the “last word in”, so to speak
A great example of winning the debate is seen in the brief dialogue below:
Jaques
Why, 'tis good to be sad and say nothing.
Rosalind
Why then, 'tis good to be a post.
As You Like It, Act 4, sc. i, l. 8-9.
The danger is that you might be depriving the prosecution of a strong point at trial. Your function is to secure as much information as possible.
Interviewing: Persuading the “witness on the fence” to do the right thing
Investigators may draw from this excerpt found at l. 10-11 of Act 2, sc. I, that persons may well be persuaded to demonstrate good citizenship by cooperating with the authorities. “Duke Senior. … 'This is no flattery: these are counsellors That feelingly persuade me what I am.'”
Interviewing: Recording all that is said fully
Consider the challenge that confronts you as investigator if you attempted to record in your notebook, as opposed to some electronic means, the following:
Jaques.
And then he drew a dial from his poke, And, looking on it with lack-lustre eye, Says very wisely, 'It is ten o'clock:
Thus we may see,' quoth he, 'how the world wags:
'Tis but an hour ago since it was nine,
And after one hour more 'twill be eleven;
And so, from hour to hour, we ripe and ripe,
And then, from hour to hour, we rot and rot;
And thereby hangs a tale.' …
As You Like It, Act 2, sc. vii, l. 22-29.
Interviewing: Self-description is so important to your assessment of te person you are investigating
As an investigator, it may be quite important to interview a potential or actual suspect even if they stipulate that no questions may be asked of the alleged criminal act. Indeed, if the person goes on to provide a “verbal self-portrait”, you may be far advanced in gaining insights that point to guilt or innocence. Thus:
Corin.
Sir, I am a true labourer: I earn that I eat, get
that I wear, owe no man hate, envy no man's
happiness, glad of other men's good, content with my
harm, and the greatest of my pride is to see my ewes
graze and my lambs suck.
As You Like It, Act 3, sc. ii, l. 70-75.
Noteworthy as well is this passage:
Jaques
I have neither the scholar's melancholy, which is
emulation, nor the musician's, which is fantastical,
nor the courtier's, which is proud, nor the
soldier's, which is ambitious, nor the lawyer's,
which is politic, nor the lady's, which is nice, nor
the lover's, which is all these: but it is a
melancholy of mine own, compounded of many simples,
extracted from many objects, and indeed the sundry's
contemplation of my travels, in which my often
rumination wraps me m a most humorous sadness.
As You Like It, Act 4, sc. i, l. 10-19.
Interviewing: Sexual assault investigations
To avoid the kind of statement blurted out by the witness in the example below, the prudent investigator will explain to all interviewees before an interview that you will not be asking any questions touching upon intimacy and that no such “accidental” questions ought to be answered. “Celia. “… we still have slept together …” As You Like It, Act 1, sc. iii, l. 74.
Interviewing: Silent type of witness may be more difficult to interview
I confess that it is difficult to engage in interviews witnesses who are of the type described below:
Duke Frederick.
She is too subtle for thee; and her smoothness,
Her very silence and her patience
Speak to the people, and they pity her…
As You Like It, Act 1, sc. iii, l. 77-80.
Interviewing: Thoughts, how do you question thoughts never expressed?
Rosalind is quoted at 1-iii-50 as stating: “… Never so much as in a thought unborn Did I offend your highness.” The challenge for investigators is to obtain a frank admission from a potential witness that they secretly dislike the suspect and or victim or that they have thought of causing harm to so and so. It is quite a challenge! On the other hand, when a witness advances a statement that is totally unqualified such as what Rosalind has stated, it does permit the prosecutor (or the defence counsel) quite a far-ranging cross-examination at trial.
Interviewing: Unclear responses, equivocal at best, must be pursued
An interviewer who receives the type of “so, so” response found below must pursue the questioning to obtain clearer responses, and not follow the example that follows:
William.
[In reply] Faith sir, so so.”
Touchstone.
'So so' is good, very good, very excellent good; and
yet it is not; it is but so so. Art thou wise?
As You Like It, Act 5, sc. i, l. 28-29.
Interviewing: Vocabulary – ensuring that all words you state and those you hear are fully understood
It is a simple and wise rule to follow at the start of ay interview: explain to the potential trial witness that you wish them to inform you immediately if they hear a word they do not understand fully so that you may re-phrase the question. In the same vein, you will not hesitate to point out if you hear a word from the witness that may be confusing. For example: “Amiens. What's that 'ducdame'?” s You Like It, Act 2, sc. v, l. 57.
Investigative skills
Investigative skills: Lies, you must understand the seven stages of a lie
Touchstone.
Upon a lie seven times removed:--bear your body more
seeming, Audrey:--as thus, sir. I did dislike the
cut of a certain courtier's beard: he sent me word,
if I said his beard was not cut well, he was in the
mind it was: this is called the Retort Courteous.
If I sent him word again 'it was not well cut,' he
would send me word, he cut it to please himself:
this is called the Quip Modest. If again 'it was
not well cut,' he disabled my judgment: this is
called the Reply Churlish. If again 'it was not
well cut,' he would answer, I spake not true: this
is called the Reproof Valiant. If again 'it was not
well cut,' he would say I lied: this is called the
Counter-cheque Quarrelsome: and so to the Lie
Circumstantial and the Lie Direct.
As You Like It, Act 5, sc. iv, l. 66-80.
I do not think it is likely that you will encounter all these levels in one interview, but it is of assistance to investigators, I suggest, to recall each. Thus:
1) If told the beard was cut well, respond “to my liking” – Retort Courteous
2) Same accusation - respond “yes, to please myself” – Quip Modest
3) Ditto – accusation of having no judgment – “Reply Churlish”
4) Ditto – respond “the accusation is not true” - Reproof Valiant
5) Ditto – respond more directly “accuser a liar” - Counter-cheque Quarrelsome
6) Ditto – … - Lie Circumstantial
7) Ditto - … - Lie Direct
Investigative skills –Working backwards from what the suspect appears to have done
Consider this passage as the starting point to that kind of investigation, i.e., your work in tracking what were the steps taken by the parties to avoid detection:
Celia.
… Devise the fittest time and safest way
To hide us from pursuit that will be made
After my flight. …
As You Like It, Act 1, sc. iii, l. 136-139.
Judgment in investigations
Judgment: Actors, be wary as the world is full of people who are
I suggest that investigators take this lengthy passage to heart, as it makes plain that the persons investigators will meet from time to time include several actors for whom mendacity is a script with which to subvert justice. In addition, this excerpt illustrates that the judgment of those who witnessed crimes may be severely compromised by the situations in which they find themselves over their lifetime, from the immaturity of youth to the bias of a young love-struck individual, not to mention the prone to violence stage of life in which bellicose challenges are common, progressing (or regressing, in accordance with your perspective) to the older dispenser of justice, within a home, office or group, keen to see the faults of others and blind to our own errors and finally, to a state of mind that might suggest poor abilities to perceive events, not to mention impaired abilities to recall or recite them in the future.
Jaques
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
As You Like It, Act 2, sc. vii, l. 139-165.
Judgment: Coaching
The passage that follows, to my inexpert reading, suggests that the investigator must demonstrate caution when a person, whether by reason of youth or inadequate formal education, to name but two reasons, appears to resort to vocabulary beyond their reach, unless coaching was at play:
Celia.
You must borrow me Gargantua's mouth first: 'tis a
word too great for any mouth of this age's size. To
say ay and no to these particulars is more than to
answer in a catechism.
As You Like It, Act 3, sc. ii, l. 223-26.
Judgment: Criticism, of an unrelenting nature – be wary of
On occasion, you will receive information that is so one-sided that the interviewee is obviously biased, and this must be considered in formulating your conclusions. Consider: “Oliver. … I'll tell thee, Charles: it is the stubbornest young fellow of France, full of ambition, an envious emulator of every man's good parts, a secret and villanous contriver against me his natural brother: therefore use thy discretion …” As You Like It, Act 1, sc. i, l. 132-135.
Judgment: Human nature – absolute statements
The prudent investigator will weigh and re-weigh any such “absolute” statements as they are unlikely to withstand scrutiny at trial.
Adam.
… Though I look old, yet I am strong and lusty;
For in my youth I never did apply
Hot and rebellious liquors in my blood,
Nor did not with unbashful forehead woo
The means of weakness and debility …
As You Like It, Act 2, sc. iii, l. 47-50
Judgment: Human nature – bias – love, familial
Investigators must always be wary of the scope of a potential bias that will “colour” any information obtained from one in a familial relationship. For example, a daughter might well seek to protect a father, but at times, the opposite situation arises. For example: “Celia. My father's love is enough to honour him: enough! speak no more of him …” [1-ii-78]
Noteworthy as well is this example: “Rosalind. The duke my father loved his father dearly. Celia. Doth it therefore ensue that you should love his son dearly? By this kind of chase, I should hate him, for my father hated his father dearly; yet I hate not Orlando.” As You Like It, Act 1, sc. iii, l. 30-34. In short, investigators assess the dynamics they encounter, in fact, not the ones they might expect to encounter.
Finally, consider this counter-intuitive comments:
Oliver
O that your highness knew my heart in this!
I never loved my brother in my life.
As You Like It, Act 3, sc. i, l. 14-15.
Judgment: Human nature – bias – love, amorous kind
Orlando references his inability to speak clearly in the passage that follows, a classic example of being “tongue-tied”, but the prudent investigator will also be wary of the potential that an amorous hope or relationship will prevent the true facts from being disclosed. Thus: “Orlando. What passion hangs these weights upon my tongue? I cannot speak to her, yet she urged conference…” As You Like It, Act 1, sc. ii, l. 245-246.
Judgment: Human nature – bias – money and other such influences
The exchange that follows makes plain that witnesses may well be influenced by considerations such as monetary advantages. Indeed, this influence may be decisive at a subconscious level, as seen in situations in which victims do not wish the family “bread winner” to be arrested or prosecuted.
Le Beau. What colour, madam! how shall I answer you?
Rosalind. As wit and fortune will.
As You Like It, Act 1, sc. ii, l. 95-97.
Judgment – Human nature – chameleon-like, we are all multi-faceted
The careful investigator will take pains to consider that the witnesses they interview may well describe the same person even though they refer to apparently diametrically opposed personalities. This seeming dichotomy may be explained by the multi-faceted element of human behaviour; the chameleon-like quality of human personality and behaviour. In this context, Rosalind proclaims what follows in As You Like It, Act 3, sc. ii, l. 396-412.
… at which time would I, being but a moonish
youth, grieve, be effeminate, changeable, longing
and liking, proud, fantastical, apish, shallow,
inconstant, full of tears, full of smiles, for every
passion something and for no passion truly any
thing, as boys and women are for the most part
cattle of this colour; would now like him, now loathe
him; then entertain him, then forswear him; now weep
for him, then spit at him; that I drave my suitor
from his mad humour of love to a living humour of
madness; which was, to forswear the full stream of
the world, and to live in a nook merely monastic.
And thus I cured him; and this way will I take upon
me to wash your liver as clean as a sound sheep's
heart, that there shall not be one spot of love in't.
Judgment: Human nature – complaining about one’s spouse
At times, investigators may receive information standing no higher than this: the witness wishes to complain about their spouse in the process of providing information. Do you find this is reliable information from both perspectives in the sense that they have a sound basis to describe gripes about both their spouse’s actions towards them, which is not a crime, and about their actions towards others which may involve criminality? On occasion, the degree of ill-considered grievances will undermine all potential information of value due to the bias being displayed.
Jaques
You have a nimble wit: I think 'twas made of
Atalanta's heels. Will you sit down with me? and
we two will rail against our mistress the world and
all our misery. As You Like It, Act 3, sc. ii, l. 270-273.
Judgment: Human nature – definite “maybe”
Investigators sometimes can do no better than to conclude that no definite opinion is capable of being reached considering the conflicting or less than clear testimony. In this regard, consider this example:
Duke Senior
Dost thou believe, Orlando, that the boy
Can do all this that he hath promised?
Orlando
I sometimes do believe, and sometimes do not;
As those that fear they hope, and know they fear.
As You Like It, Act 5, sc. iv, l. 1-4.
Judgment: Human nature – feigning friendship
Consider what Amiens stated: “… Most friendship is feigning, most loving mere folly …” As You Like It, Act 2, sc. vii, l. 181.
Judgment: Human nature – foolish behaviour, no one is safe from such acts
“Touchstone. The more pity, that fools may not speak wisely what wise men do foolishly.” As You Like It, Act 1, sc. ii, l. 81. In effect, this quote supports the view that fools and wise persons may both act in an unwise fashion.
Judgment: Human nature – friendship
This play contains two relevant assertions in this context: “
Amiens: “… Most friendship is feigning, most loving mere folly …” [2-vii-181.
Amiens: “… Thy sting is not so sharp As friend remember'd not.” [2-vii-188]
Judgment –Human nature - ingratitude
Amiens suggests clearly that gratitude is not as common as its opposite side, a factor investigators may wish to weigh in judging others potential trial witnesses.
Blow, blow, thou winter wind.
Thou art not so unkind
As man's ingratitude …
As You Like It, Act 2, sc. vii, l. 173-176.
Judgment – Human nature – inherited views
Consider this phrase: “Rosalind. … Treason is not inherited, my lord …” As You Like It, Act 1, sc. iii, l. 62.
Judgment: Human nature – kindness
I need only quote Oliver: “But kindness, nobler ever than revenge …” As You Like It, Act 4, sc. iii, l. 127.
Judgment: Human nature – love – emotional acts that might defy logic
The words uttered by Silvius at Act 2, sc. iv, l. 33-35 are quite helpful in reminding us of the potential unreliability of information made available by one in love:
O, thou didst then ne'er love so heartily!
If thou remember'st not the slightest folly
That ever love did make thee run into,
Thou hast not loved …
In the same vein, consider what follows:
Celia.
It is as easy to count atomies as to resolve the
propositions of a lover; but take a taste of my
finding him, and relish it with good observance.
I found him under a tree, like a dropped acorn.
As You Like It, Act 3, sc. ii, l. 230-234.
Judgment: Human nature – mercy
I need only cite Duke Frederick:
But were I not the better part made mercy,
I should not seek an absent argument
Of my revenge, thou present. …
As You Like It, Act 3, sc. i, l.
Judgment: Human nature – oath
I refer to Celia’s words to make plain the caution that investigators must demonstrate when they are taking statements under oath or solemn affirmation:
'Was' is not 'is:' besides, the oath of a lover is
no stronger than the word of a tapster; they are
both the confirmer of false reckonings…
As You Like It, Act 3, sc. iv, l. 29-32.
Subsequently, Celia states:
Celia.
O, that's a brave man! he writes brave verses,
speaks brave words, swears brave oaths and breaks
them bravely, quite traverse, athwart the heart of
his lover; as a puisny tilter, that spurs his horse
but on one side, breaks his staff like a noble
goose: but all's brave that youth mounts and folly
guides. Who comes here? [Emphasis added]
As You Like It, Act 3, sc. iv, l. 38-43.
Ultimately, we read:
Touchstone.
God 'ild you, sir; I desire you of the like. I
press in here, sir, amongst the rest of the country
copulatives, to swear and to forswear: according as
marriage binds and blood breaks…
As You Like It, Act 5, sc. iv, l. 52-56.
Judgment: Human nature – passion – can run to two extremes
The words uttered by Rosalind make plain that a person who is being interviewed as a potential witness may be either emboldened or put-off, to name but two possible antagonistic positions, by the actions of a third party. Thus: “Jove, Jove! this shepherd's passion Is much upon my fashion.” As You Like It, Act 2, sc. iv, l. 58-59. It might have brought about the complete opposite reaction.
Judgment: Human nature - patience, there are limits to even a Saint’s patience
Rosalind suggested at Act 4, sc. iii, l. 14: “Patience herself would startle at this letter …”
Judgment – Human nature – pride, cometh before the fall
To the same effect as the adage I have just quoted is what Jaques states at Act 2, sc. vii, l. 70: “Why, who cries out on pride …”.
Judgment – Human nature – reasons to believe the witness is reliable include whether the witness can articulate a reasoned basis for belief
The example that follows explains the scenario that will be confronted by investigators and reinforces the need for caution prior to accepting (or rejecting) information that is received.
Celia. No, thy words are too precious to be cast away upon curs; throw some of them at me; come, lame me with reasons.
Rosalind. Then there were two cousins laid up; when the one should be lamed with reasons and the other mad without any.
As You Like It, Act 1, sc. iii, l. 3-9.
In this context, allow me to quote from Julius Caesar at line 203 of Act 4, sc. ii: “Brutus. Good reasons must of force give place to better.”
Judgment: Human nature – subjective tastes versus objective judgments
The wise investigator will not assign too much weight to purely subjective opinions such as “Will the Leafs ever win the Cup?” versus objective information. In this context, the example that follows illustrates that neither opinion as to the quality of the pancakes or the mustard can show either witness to be a strong or weak person when called upon to testify as to important information. Thus: “Touchstone. Of a certain knight that swore by his honour they were good pancakes and swore by his honour the mustard was naught: now I'll stand to it, the pancakes were naught and the mustard was good, and yet was not the knight forsworn.” As You Like It, Act 1, sc. ii, l. 59-65.
Judgment: Human nature – wit versus foolishness
Consider this quote: “Celia. … Though Nature hath given us wit to flout at Fortune, hath not Fortune sent in this fool to cut off the argument?” As You Like It, Act 1, sc. ii, l. 42-45.
Judgment: Human nature – youthful strength versus experienced wisdom
I easily recall conversations with now retired investigators who questioned the wisdom they displayed in their younger days in choosing to “take down the door” as opposed to engaging in a more cerebral tactic that was long on achieving success and short on infirmary stays and workers’ compensation forms. Consider this illustration: “Orlando. [bows] No, fair princess: he is the general challenger. I come but in, as others so, to try with him the strength of my youth.” As You Like It, Act 1, sc. ii, l. 160-162.
Subsequently, Celia states:
Celia.
O, that's a brave man! he writes brave verses,
speaks brave words, swears brave oaths and breaks
them bravely, quite traverse, athwart the heart of
his lover; as a puisny tilter, that spurs his horse
but on one side, breaks his staff like a noble
goose: but all's brave that youth mounts and folly
guides. Who comes here? [Emphasis added]
As You Like It, Act 3, sc. iv, l. 38-43.
Judgment – Misconstruing the information that the witness had a chance to perceive
This brief example serves to demonstrate to investigators the need to take care in ensuring that the scenario provided by the witness rests upon a solid foundation. Hence: “Le Beau. … he misconstrues all that you have done…” As You Like It, Act 1, sc. ii, l. 253.
Judgment – More that is said, less that it makes sense!
Touchstone
Truly, shepherd, in respect of itself, it is a good
life, but in respect that it is a shepherd's life,
it is naught. In respect that it is solitary, I
like it very well; but in respect that it is
private, it is a very vile life…
As You Like It, Act 3, sc. ii, l. 12-16.
In other words, the second sentence negates whatever the first one stated, et ainsi de suite…
Judgment: Reliability of information – persons rely on their senses when they perceive an event, but their heart plays a part in what is said
This dangerous combination of sources of information is well described below. The concern for the investigator is the extent to which the heart, the subjective selection of information if you wish, may distort the objective information possessed by the witness. Thus: “Phebe. I’ll write it straight; The matter’s in my head and in my heart …” Act 3, sc. v, l. 136-138.
Judgment: Reverse way of speaking – say something, to then deny it
Be careful of speaking styles that take back what was just expressed, as shown in the example that follows:
Rosalind.
A lean cheek, which you have not, a blue eye and
sunken, which you have not, an unquestionable
spirit, which you have not, a beard neglected,
which you have not …
As You Like It, Act 3, sc. ii, l. 365-368.
Phebe is also prone to this “positive followed by a negative” manner of speaking. Thus: “… He is not very tall; yet for his years he's tall: His leg is but so so; and yet 'tis well …” [3-v-119] This is another reason why an investigator never wastes time but asking questions about apparently irrelevant information as the insights into how a person thinks, and speaks, may be quite revealing.
Judgment: Role of each person suggested to be involved in equal
The words of Rosalind are quite descriptive:
There were none principal; they were all like one
another as half-pence are, every one fault seeming
monstrous till his fellow fault came to match it.
As You Like It, Act 3, sc. ii, l. 346-350.
Judgment – Speeches with fine words, be careful of those capable of
Phebe stated at Act 3, sc. v. l. 110-114:
Think not I love him, though I ask for him:
'Tis but a peevish boy; yet he talks well;
But what care I for words? yet words do well
When he that speaks them pleases those that hear …
Judgment – Subjective nature of a third party’s views or decision making
The passage that follows is impressive in that it explains clearly the wisdom of placing yourselves in the shoes of the person you are trying to investigate – how do they view the world and their actions within it? Thus:
Corin.
Not a whit, Touchstone: those that are good manners
at the court are as ridiculous in the country as the
behavior of the country is most mockable at the
court. You told me you salute not at the court, but
you kiss your hands: that courtesy would be
uncleanly, if courtiers were shepherds.
As You Like It, Act 3, sc. ii, l. 43-49.
Consider also this phrase: “Rosalind. With a thief [going] to the gallows, for though he go as softly as foot can fall, he thinks himself too soon there.” See As You Like It, Act 3, sc. ii, l. 323-325. I think I would be of the same mind that no matter how slowly we move forward, I would hold the subjective view that I am being rushed.
Judgment: Time, subjective perceptions of time
Rosalind suggests that it is difficult as a rule to perceive time accurately. Thus: “With lawyers in the vacation, for they sleep between term and term and then they perceive not how Time moves.” As You Like It, Act 3, sc. ii, l. 326-329.
Judgment – Trust in words
Consider what Duke Frederick stated: “Thus do all traitors: If their purgation did consist in words, They are as innocent as grace itself: Let it suffice thee that I trust thee not.” As You Like It, Act 1, sc. iii, l. 54-57.
Judgment – Waste of resources
The prudent investigator will be mindful that there is little room for wastes resources, as made plain in the example that follows:
Orlando.
… But … thou prunest a rotten tree,
That cannot so much as a blossom yield
In lieu of all thy pains and husbandry …
As You Like It, Act 2, sc. iii, l. 64.
Judgment – Weed your judgments!
That is the advice provided by Jaques at Act 2, sc. vii, l. 44-50:
It is my only suit;
Provided that you weed your better judgments
Of all opinion that grows rank in them …
As You Like It, Act 2, sc. vii, l. 44-47.
Judgment: Wisdom, has witness demonstrated it by confession to lacking wit?
The example that follows suffices to illustrate this point:
Touchstone.
Why, thou sayest well. I do now remember a saying,
'The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man
knows himself to be a fool.' …
As You Like It, Act 5, sc. i, l. 29-32.
Professionalism in investigations
Professionalism – Civility
This single example suffices to illustrate the importance of this issue:
Duke Senior.
Art thou thus bolden'd, man, by thy distress,
Or else a rude despiser of good manners,
That in civility thou seem'st so empty?
As You Like It, Act 2, sc. vii, l. 90-92.
Professionalism – Continuing education
Consider these valuable remarks:
Jaques
To him will I : out of these convertites
There is much matter to be heard and learn'd.
As You Like It, Act 5, sc. iv, l. 181-183.
Professionalism – Experience
Although this seems trite, I do wish to emphasize what Jaques stated as it applies to your entire career: “Yes, I have gained my experience.” As You Like It, Act 4, sc. i, l. 25.
Professionalism – Expertise acquired by means of great experience
Investigators must always be mindful that they may be successful in enlisting the services of “lay experts” in respect to several investigations based on the practical experience of the persons they consult, as opposed to academic achievements. These may include such areas as firearms, paints, and the mechanical issues including whether a certain tire might have produced a certain tire track, a la My Cousin Vinny. As for Shakespeare, this play provides the following example at 1-i-154: “Oliver. … Yet he's gentle, never schooled and yet learned …”
Professionalism – Gendered elements in your analysis are to be avoided
Rosalind expresses a gendered opinion of the capacities of women but the true professional will analyze information objectively, asking if this woman or man, to name but two descriptors, is capable of deceit. Thus:
… that is one of the
points in the which women still give the lie to
their consciences. …
As You Like It, Act 3, sc. ii, l. 379-382.
Consider this excerpt as well: “Rosalind. … and certainly a woman's thought
runs before her actions.” As You Like It, Act 4, sc. i, l. 133-137. Again, the only true question you must ask is whether this woman acted in that fashion such that her testimony is not reliable in the precise circumstances at hand.
Further, I suggest that this next example is also uninformed and leads to a flawed analysis. If the credit or reliability of a witness is to be weighed and assessed correctly, the investigator turns their faculties to the precise actions of this person in context:
Rosalind.
… No, no, Orlando;
men are April when they woo, December when they wed:
maids are May when they are maids, but the sky
changes when they are wives. …
As You Like It, Act 4, sc. i, l. 140-144.
Finally, consider this excerpt from the male perspective:
“Oliver.
Be of good cheer, youth: you a man! you lack a
man's heart.
As You Like It, Act 4, sc. iii, l. 164-165.
Professionalism – Public good is what you seek
Consider this passage: “Duke Senior. … and good in everything.” As You Like It, Act 2, sc. i, l. 16.
Professionalism – Respect for the law
An investigator can never follow the example set out below:
Duke Frederick.
Send to his brother; fetch that gallant hither;
If he be absent, bring his brother to me;
I'll make him find him: do this suddenly,
And let not search and inquisition quail
To bring again these foolish runaways.
As You Like It, Act 2, sc. ii, l. 16-21.
Professionalism – Rolling with the punches
The excerpt that I have set out below “captures” well what might be the essence of your philosophy as a public servant seeking to help victims of crime:
Amiens.
Happy is your grace,
That can translate the stubbornness of fortune
Into so quiet and so sweet a style.
As You Like It, Act 2, sc. i, l. 17-20.
Professionalism: Time, take a considered, long-term perspective
Rosalind reminds us that things we thought were fundamental to criminal justice at one time, such as the need to see the “accusing” witness testify in the courtroom, even if they were vulnerable children, may not pass the test of time, so to speak. Thus: “Well, Time is the old justice that examines all such offenders, and let Time try [in the sense of judge].” As You Like It, Act 4, sc. i, l. 194-195. Test of time
Professionalism: Victim blaming
It is quite essential to the proper administration of justice that the investigators be ever vigilant to avoid any element of victim blaming. Consider this phrase in that context:
Rosalind.
Alas, what danger will it be to us,
Maids as we are, to travel forth so far!
Beauty provoketh thieves sooner than gold.
As You Like It, Act 1, sc. iii, l. 107-110.
CONCLUSIONS
This play is vitally important to those who must understand human nature and the evolution of humankind throughout their lives. To fully understand the psychology of persons who speak of their knowledge of a criminal act, and that of those suspected of having committed the acts, it is useful to read literature as noted at the outset and this play is chock full of insights on human beings as multi-faceted beings.
[1] 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.
[2] See "A List of One Hundred Legal Novel" (1922), 17 III. L. Rev. 26, at p. 31.
[3] 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.