POLICE INVESTIGATIONS 101

GUIDANCE FROM SHAKESPEARE’S HENRY VI (PART I)

Gilles Renaud | Ontario Court of Justice[1]

INTRODUCTION

In this article, I document the various elements of guidance and instruction from the play Henry VI (Part I) that lead to excellence in investigative work.[2] Most of my comments will be under the general title of “Investigation 101”, inspired by the title of most first-year survey courses in any number of fields of study, often the most valuable of all my classes in my experience.

Investigators succeed by asking sound and searching questions and my topic might lead to the query: why read a play from centuries ago to become a better police officer today? In response, I quote from Dean John Wigmore, a leading law professor and writer on evidence: "The lawyer must know human nature. He [or she] must deal understandingly with its types and motives. These he [or she] cannot all find close around ... For this learning he [or she] must go to fiction which is the gallery of life's portraits.”[3] If this proposition is sound, and surely it is, then detectives are in the same situation as lawyers, for they also must understand humanity, flawed and at times violent and or scheming, and why not turn to fiction to accomplish this objective?[4]

I have organized my thoughts along thematic lines 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

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

Consider this first example: “PLANTAGENET Meantime your cheeks do counterfeit our roses; For pale they look with fear, as witnessing The truth on our side.” Refer to Henry VI (Part 1), Act 2, sc. iv, l. 62-65. In effect, we imagine you as the investigator are speaking and that you are stating to the person you are interviewing: “your words and your demeanour are fighting each other as what you say is denied by your pale cheeks and fearful expression. In short, your face shows that you are caught in a lie!”

A further useful example follows of the appearance of the witness as a form of “lie-detector”.

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.

Henry VI (Part 1), Act 2, sc. iv, l. 64-67.

Demeanour – aspect – as opposed to looks or appearance

“COUNTESS OF AUVERGNE … A second Hector, for his grim aspect … Henry VI (Part 1), Act 2, sc. iii, l. 2.” I suspect that “aspect”, “countenance”, “looks” are synonyms but it is difficult at times to be certain. I treat them in a separate fashion, as a result, and suggest that all these elements of demeanour must be assessed to judge if the words spoken align with the manner of the witness speaking. In other words, is the language resorted to the same as the non-verbal language?

Demeanour – countenance in general as part of demeanour

I confess that I am never confident that I can distinguish between looks and countenance. Assuming there is a difference, investigators must be careful to ensure that their appearance, as opposed to their look at any previse time, does not suggest threats or menaces to the person being interviewed. In this context, consider the example that follows: “TALBOT. … My grisly countenance made others fly … Henry VI (Part 1), Act 1, sc. iv, l. 46.”

For my analytical purposes, I group “frowns” under this heading. Thus, “TALBOT. … But, if you frown upon this proffer'd peace …”, at 4-i-9.

Demeanour – looks in general as part of demeanour

Assuming there is a difference with the notion of appearance, a first example is taken from Act 1, sc. ii, l. 47 of this play: “BASTARD OF ORLEANS Methinks your looks are sad, your cheer appall'd …” This conclusion that is open to you as an investigator upon your assessment of the entire presentation of the witness, as opposed to the eyes, the hands, etc., may lead you to postpone the interview or to call in aid a support person, or to adopt another decision to respond to this situation. A further example follows: “JOAN OF ARC. … For Talbot means no goodness by his looks …” Act 3, sc. ii, l. 72.

I now turn to the tricky example of confusion, as illustrated by this example: “TALBOT. … You may behold confusion of your foes.” See the play at Act 4, sc. i, l. 76. The tricky part for investigators who are not able to record the interview with good quality equipment featuring a close view of the face of the person interviewed is to be able to demonstrate that although the witness stated “yes”, the confused look on their face made it obvious that their response is less than worthy of belief. It might be useful to ask the direct question: “You seem confused by this question [or topic], do you wish me to go over it [or, do you want to explain it in your own words?]”

Lastly, note this example: “KING HENRY VI … If they perceive dissension in our looks …” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 4, sc. i, l. 138.

Demeanour – Acting, one may easily adapt a look, etc.

Consider the example that follows as illustrating how one may assume a guise, such as stern looks and “soft and innocent” looks, just as easily. Refer to Act 1, sc. ii, l. 62 of Henry VI (Part 1): “CHARLES … Question her proudly; let thy looks be stern …”

Demeanour – Grey’s Anatomy version of

Brows -

“WARWICK … As by his smoothed brows it doth appear: Why look you still so stern and tragical?” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 3, sc. i, l. 124-125. Consider as well: “YORK … See, how [she] doth bend her brows …” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 5, sc. ii, l. 34.

Cheeks -

“BASSET. … Did represent my master's blushing cheeks, When stubbornly he did repugn the truth.” 4-i-95.

Eyes -

“GLOSTER … His sparkling eyes, replete with wrathful fire … “ Henry VI (Part 1), Act 1, sc. i, l. 12.

Of course, eyes may embrace “sighs and tears”. For example, “… My sighs and tears and will not once relent? … “ Henry VI (Part 1), Act 3, sc. i, l. 108.

Head -

“TALBOT… Rouen hangs her head for grief …” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 3, sc. ii, l. 124.

Demeanour – roaring testimony – be mindful that a transcript does not set out the sounds of the witness

“BISHOP OF WINCHESTER … And makes him roar these accusations forth …” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 3, sc. i, l. 39.

Interviewing skills and techniques

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

Interviewing skills – beware of “rote replies”

Consider this excellent illustration: “First Warder [Within] The Lord protect him! so we answer him: We do no otherwise than we are will'd.” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 1, sc. iii, l. 9-10. If this passage is meant to convey the thought that this person, if interviewed, would only say in reply what they have been told to state, then the responses are worthless. It is a constant source of analysis by the police investigators as they move forward with any file. Are the witnesses responding falsely by reason of a bias resulting from family, business, religious, political, or other reasons? In this vein, note that the King states at Act 5, sc. i, l. 45 that “In argument and proof of which contract, Bear her this jewel, pledge of my affection …” In such cases, you must be vigilant not to overlook “amorous” biases.

Interviewing skills – communication difficult due to language barrier, etc.

On occasion, the person sought to be interviewed is struggling with some issue that prevents full communication, and some may be overcome as in the case of a language barrier but some others, shyness, pose other challenges. You must identify and overcome any such obstacles. Consider “RICHARD PLANTAGENET Since you are tongue-tied …” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 2, sc. iv, l. 25-30. The full passage explains that there are always

Interviewing skills – compound questions to be avoided

An example of such a question is found in this play, at 1-i-68: “EXETER How were they lost? what treachery was used?” The danger is that the witness will be misunderstood if the response is a single one that might apply to both elements. Of course, a reply such as “I don’t know” may fairly apply to both questions. The better practice is to ask brief and “one-theme at a time” questions.

Interviewing skills – disclosure by witness who has not received disclosure

Joan of Arc stated in Henry VI (Part 1), 1-ii-87: “… Ask me what question thou canst possible, And I will answer unpremeditated …” For present purposes, there are situations in which investigators prepare to meet a suspect, not merely a potential witness, and the person to be interviewed is asked questions about distant events without any forewarning. Leaving aside whether this is fair, there are cases in which the person interviewed insists on responding even though they have not had any time to marshal their thoughts, and memories, so to speak, as they are quite comfortable in stating “I was never in a car with Joe Blow and I was never involved or a witness to a hit and run…”, by way of example.

Consider as well what follows:

BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

… Do it without invention, suddenly;
As I with sudden and extemporal speech
Purpose to answer what thou canst object.

Henry VI (Part 1), Act 3, sc. i, l. 4-5. ff

In effect, one might assign a great deal of positive credit to a person who provides an apparently convincing account of their actions, etc., when called upon to do with little advance notice.

Interviewing skills – flesh out the details of one-word replies

“SOMERSET. York lies …” This strong response incudes no details; you must obtain them and all available documentation, recordings, etc. See Henry VI (Part 1), Act 4, sc. iv, l.33.

Interviewing skills – foul mouth witnesses

“JOAN OF ARC. I prithee, give me leave to curse awhile.” Recall the scene in Trailor Park Boys where the character asks the judge for permission to smoke and drop a few F-bombs prior to testifying or else he cannot function? The quote from Henry VI (Part 1), Act 5, sc. iii, l. 44, makes plain that some allowances have to be made for certain persons in order that they may assist your work in investigating crimes.

Interviewing skills – get a clear answer

“COUNTESS OF AUVERGNE … Fain would mine eyes be witness with mine ears, To give their censure of these rare reports.” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 2, sc. iii, l. 7-10. I do not know what this means, and I suggest in the strongest terms that the wise investigator will do their utmost to have the witness repeat the response in more precise terms, as required. In the same context, I do not understand what the speaker meant in this passage, and if this was what a witness had said at trial, my duty would compel me to ask the party who called this witness to ask other questions to explain the meaning. Thus,

VERNON

If I my lord, for my opinion bleed,
Opinion shall be surgeon to my hurt
And keep me on the side where still I am.

Henry VI (Part 1), Act 2, sc. iv, l. 50-53.

Interviewing skills – impress the person being interviewed

The successful investigator will, in the words of GLOSTER quoted below, achieve results by impressing greatly the subject of the interview, often by reason of great efforts in preparation. Thus, “… Whom, like a school-boy, you may over-awe.” Reversing he proposition, if you are poorly prepared, you risk being greatly impressed by responses that are false or not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Interviewing skills – leading questions to be avoided

An example of such a question is found in this play, at 1-i-68: “EXETER How were they lost? what treachery was used?” The first element is not leading, but the suggestion of “treachery” being involved is not proper as it cues the witness about the information sought.

Interviewing skills – opinions as opposed to facts

“SALISBURY. Let me have your express opinions …” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 1, sc. iv, l. 65. The distinction may be quite subtle but might be as follows: an expert or someone with special knowledge might be asked for the facts, and then for their opinion. For example, a carpenter might state that the supporting tablet was ¼ of an inch in thickness and held 26 bricks each weight two pounds, to then be asked if there was any danger of collapse, in their opinion. What matters is to distinguish between facts and opinions and not to seek an opinion from a factual witness, and to address fully non-factual comments that are only opinions, such as “He was out of his mind at the time…”

Interviewing skills – preparation leads to success

“The words stated by Messenger in Henry VI (Part 1), Act 1, sc. i, l. 75: “… By guileful fair words peace may be obtain'd…”, do not necessarily apply to your work in interviewing witnesses, including potential defendants, but the theme behind that thought applies to all investigative work. That is to say that you enjoy success in amassing information pointing to those who are guilty, and away from those who are not, by means of intelligence, preparation, and a form of guile, when required. As for the reference to peace, when crime is solved and an offender punished, a measure of peace is restored to the community.

In the same vein, involving guile, note is taken of this passage: “Joan of Arc. Reignier, is't thou that thinkest to beguile me?” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 1, sc. ii, l. 65-67. Persons being interviewed may be quite careful with the information they wish to disclose.

Interviewing skills – questioning at large

In my estimation, there is no objection in principle to an investigator speaking to a large group of persons asking them to come forward with information. This is seen in Ms. Louise Penn’s prize-winning first novel, Still Life, that I have read in translation [En plein coeur, Flammarion Quebec, 2010. The example Shakespeare provides is found at 2-iv-1: “RICHARD PLANTAGENET Great lords and gentlemen, what means this silence? Dare no man answer in a case of truth?” What may not be attempted is to say to a group, let us say of young persons, if someone does not take responsibility, everyone will be charged! That is an unlawful inducement.

Interviewing skills – scorn towards the subject matter

“TALBOT. With scoffs and scorns and contumelious taunts. Henry VI (Part 1), Act 1, sc. iv, l. 38-39.” Consider how you may take advantage of a person who sneers at the process of being asked for information. If you simply terminate the interview as soon as they demonstrate a lack of interest, the Crown will have nothing with which to counter any lengthy and contrary information at trial – far better to record all the negative comments or the repeated affirmations that “I know nothing!”, à la Sgt. Schultz of Hogan’s Heroes fame.

Interviewing skills – self-represented suspects or accused

As illustrated in the example that follows, an adult who has been fully informed of their right to silence and right to counsel and who suffers under no mental challenges that you are able to discern is perfectly at liberty to speak to you as they see fit. Thus: “SUFFOLK. … And yet, methinks, I could be well content To be mine own attorney in this case…” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 5, sc. iii, l. 164-165.

Interviewing skills – stern approach to the witness

Consider whether you wish to adopt the suggestion contained in the words that follow, found at Act 1, sc. ii, l. 62 of Henry VI (Part 1): “CHARLES … Question her proudly; let thy looks be stern: By this means shall we sound what skill she hath.”

This may be a sound approach when interviewing a potential police officer who claims skills in a language or a skill; I hesitate to recommend it for interviewing vulnerable individuals such as children and those suffering from mental illness. Your face on the screen demonstrating a stern look may well lead to a negative conclusion.

Interviewing skills – “Sweet talking the witness…”

“JOAN OF ARC. … Then thus it must be; this doth Joan devise:
By fair persuasions mix'd with sugar'd words.” This passage, from the play at 3-iii-16, describes what you may do without running afoul of the prohibitions against inducements in securing a confession. In the same vein, note these passages: “CHARLES. Speak … and enchant him with thy words.” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 3, sc. iii, l. 40, and “BURGUNDY. Either she hath bewitch'd me with her words, Or nature makes me suddenly relent. Henry VI (Part 1), Act 3, sc. iii, l. 58-59.”

Interviewing skills – Talk without much purpose

GLOSTER

Confirm it so! Confounded be your strife!
And perish ye, with your audacious prate!
Presumptuous vassals, are you not ashamed
With this immodest clamorous outrage …

Henry VI (Part 1), Act 4, sc. i, l. 124-128.

Note that “prate” means foolish or tedious talk. This passage illustrates that witnesses in your office may well not be focused, or able to, on your questions but if you consider the person to possess information of value, you must ignore the useless and mine for the valuable information. In some instances, taking careful note of the useless may result in ensuring that the witness is not called by the defence later and in a position to provide focused information – if they possess information, why was it not disclosed to the investigator is the question at the heart of the Court’s thinking.

Interviewing skills – threat of violence to the person to be interviewed

“GLOSTER. … I mean to tug it and to cuff you soundly …” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 1, sc. iii, l. 49-50. This example of a threats to the interviewee suffices to render the statement involuntary and not admissible. Along the same lines, we read: “BISHOP OF WINCHESTER Abominable Gloucester, guard thy head; For I intend to have it ere long.” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 1, sc. iii, l. 86-87. And, finally, “COUNTESS OF AUVERGNE Laughest thou, wretch? thy mirth shall turn to moan.” 2-iii-44.

Interviewing skills – Truth telling policy

Note this quotation: “ALENCON. To say the truth, it is your policy …” I might be wary of such a self-proclaimed sainted status. See Henry VI (Part 1), Act 5, sc. iv, l. 99.

Interviewing skills – waiting to interview the witness even though you are available and prepared

Henry VI (Part 1) includes this passage, spoken by Reignier: “… And he may well in fretting spend his gall…” See Act 1, sc. ii, l. 15. I am not addressing the notion of having a potential witness “sweat” a little before being interviewed as this may be counter-productive – the honest, law-abiding citizen wishing to help the constabulary may become annoyed at being taken for granted. This comment is directed at the potential or actual suspect who may become more cooperative after having had some time to think over their predicament. And, incidentally, who may shed some gall in the interim whether gall refers to bitterness or insolence.

Interviewing skills – Who asks the questions, you or the person interviewed?

No longer being the lawyer who cross-examines witnesses, I confess that I enjoy seeing witnesses who answer questions from prosecutors or defence counsel by asking their own questions. Invariably, the successful lawyer is the one who responds: “The rules do not allow me to answer your question as the rules require you as the witness to inform the court of what you know about this situation.” In your office, or at the scene of the crime or other place of interview, the people you interview may also wish to ask you questions. In my opinion, you would be doing yourself some prejudice to merely respond as I just illustrated as the situation outside of court is more fluid. Well-meaning and honest witnesses may have genuine concerns. One of the most significant concerns arises when the witness is a victim and asks if there must be a charge, thinking that they must be pay for the prosecution. This fear may explain why they do not wish to “press charges” to echo the American TV phrase.

The example below illustrates some of the concerns I am discussing, and makes plain the wisdom of explaining to persons that you must obtain information and you will then explain the process and answer questions in light of what you are told.

KING HENRY VI

What is that wrong whereof you both complain?
First let me know, and then I'll answer you.

Henry VI (Part 1), Act 4, sc. i, l. 87.

Interviewing skills – “Yes or no replies”

In the same way that the lawyers in a criminal trial cannot compel any witness to respond by a yes or no answer, you cannot compel a witness in your office to say yes or no. Hence, “TALBOT. … Or whether that such cowards ought to wear This ornament of knighthood, yea or no.” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 4, sc. i, l. 28-28.

Judgment

Judgment – assessing the merits of information received – in general

In the section of this paper addressing interviewing skills, attention was drawn to how best to obtain formation that is hoped to be reliable. In effect, to identify best practices with a view to gaining solid data. In the section devoted to judgment, one seeks to ascertain whether the information mined is gold or useless glitter, so to speak. In that vein, consider this passage from what the Bastard of Orleans stated: “… Believe my words, For they are certain and unfallible.” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 1, sc. ii, l. 57-58. As for me, I do not know why anyone would accept such a proclamation at face value!

In the same context, consider this further example:

BURGUNDY

Myself, as far as I could well discern
For smoke and dusky vapours of the night,
Am sure I scared the Dauphin and his trull …

Henry VI (Part 1), Act 2, sc. ii, l. 27-30.

Surely the prudent investigator will study at great length the merits of what the witness has stated as discerned through “smoke and dusty vapours”.

Further yet, consider: “KING HENRY VI … Long since we were resolved of your truth …”, at Act 3, sc. iv, l. 20. Whatever preliminary opinions an investigator may have reached, one must constantly re-assess the wisdom of the preliminary opinions.

Judgment – assessing the merits of information received – specific issues such as poor eyesight

Consider this example: “MORTIMER. … These eyes, like lamps whose wasting oil is spent, Wax dim, as drawing to their exigent … “ Henry VI (Part 1), Act 2, sc. v, l. 8. You must assess whether a witness was able to view what they purport to have seen. Recall in the movie My Cousin Vinny how a witness had poorly prescribed glasses and dirty windows such that she was guessing at what took place outside. This is information from you that the prosecutor must possess.

Judgment – context might be vital!

The lengthy passage that follows illustrates one of the great concerns of investigators, and of the prosecutors, and ultimately of the courts: is the conclusion reached objectively sound? Looked at from another perspective if you change the identify of the suspect (or accused), does the conclusion hold? For example, in a 1966 case in which the young female complainant accused a man of fondling her in public, though few people were present, and no one noticed it seems, the judge dismissed the very notion that the accused, a school principal, could act in this fashion! Today, we dismiss such nonsensical conclusions on the basis that it is not logical or consistent with our experience that certain groups of persons, such as educated persons or teachers, re incapable of wrongdoing. For present purposes, however, it is important to apply the lesson described herein: if you change the identity of the suspect, and it changes your conclusion, then your conclusion was likely flawed. Thus, if you conclude that the touching of the complainant’s backside that occurred on the public bus, for example, when the bus driver applied brakes suddenly, was innocent as the person suspected is a student at an exclusive private school, then you are mistaken if your judgment leads to the possibility that someone who is enrolled in a public school probably is guilty of taking advantage of that situation.

In the example that follows, the young soldier points out that if his father leaves the battlefield, no one will judge him poorly or cowardly as he is a veteran and decorated soldier who must survive to lead his troops again; if he leaves, it will be seen as cowardice as he is young and without battle rewards.

Thus:

JOHN TALBOT

Then let me stay; and, father, do you fly:
Your loss is great, so your regard should be;
My worth unknown, no loss is known in me.
Upon my death the French can little boast;
In yours they will, in you all hopes are lost.
Flight cannot stain the honour you have won;
But mine it will, that no exploit have done:
You fled for vantage, everyone will swear;
But, if I bow, they'll say it was for fear.
There is no hope that ever I will stay,
If the first hour I shrink and run away.
Here on my knee I beg mortality,
Rather than life preserved with infamy.

Henry VI (Part 1), Act 4, sc. v, l. 21-29.

In short, examine if your conclusions depend upon meaningless and prejudicial beliefs, such as the belief that ladies would not bully a person and thus no charges are warranted; but that charges would be proper if the complainant thought it was a young man who struck her!

Judgment – human nature – ambition

See the rubric below, “Judgment – human nature – arrogance”. In addition, consider this passage: “SUFFOLK Go forward and be choked with thy ambition! …” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 2, sc. iv, l. 112.

Judgment – human nature – arrogance

“GLOSTER. … Arrogant Winchester, that haughty prelate,
Whom Henry, our late sovereign, ne'er could brook? See Henry VI (Part 1), Act 1, sc. iii, l. 23-24. This example reminds prudent investigators that they must always take account of any such elements of human nature, as it interferes with the expectation of a full, fair, and frank account in your office (or at the scene) of what took place. The same caution must be exercised in the case of an ambitious person: “BISHOP OF WINCHESTER How now, ambitious Humphry! what means this? Henry VI (Part 1), 1-iii-28.

Judgment – human nature - bias

The prudent investigator always considers the possibility that the persons being interviewed may be subject to a bias, conscious or unconscious, that may result in a slanted perspective, at the very least, as that is one of the meanings of bias. In the example below, the bias arises from the bonds of friendship, but is could be present due to familial ties and equally, might manifest itself because of the lack of friendly or familial ties. “KING HENRY VI. … And what offence it is to flout his friends.” [4-i-75] Finally, consider the classic situation Shakespeare described in Romeo and Juliet in which the Montagues and the Capulets war with each other.

Judgment – human nature - stomach of police officers and those of soldiers

“TALBOT. … Taste of your wine and see what cates you have;
For soldiers' stomachs always serve them well…” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 2, sc. iii, l. 79-80. I selected this element of so-called human nature to make plain that so much of what we believe to be true is based on the weakest of foundations, possibly what Shakespeare wrote four hundred years ago and we keep repeating it without ever testing whether it is correct…

Judgment – human nature - we are illogical creatures

In support of this suggestion, I offer this quote: “BEDFORD No, truly; it is more than manners will: And I have heard it said, unbidden guests Are often welcomest when they are gone.” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 2, sc. ii, l. 56-57.

Judgment – information provided without any thought of a reward

On occasion, investigators will be involved in soliciting information from a person not described as a “confidential source” who wishes to assist and who claims to have no interest in the reward that is available. Proceed with caution is my advice. As for the first type of informant, no extra caution is required as they are both criminals and desirous of gaining some advantage by casting blame upon others. Refer to this example from the play, at 1-ii-115: “Joan of Arc … When I have chased all thy foes from hence,
Then will I think upon a recompense.”

Judgment – Lies, and mor lies, possibly

It is not surprising for anyone associated with the criminal courts that there is a widespread belief that witnesses do not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This belief or prejudice ought not to divert the attention and judgment of the prudent investigator into the belief that everyone is lying about everything! Treat each person and interview as an opportunity to renew your faith in humankind. That said, the passage below illustrates the all-too widespread belief.

GLOSTER

… O monstrous treachery! can this be so,
That in alliance, amity and oaths,
There should be found such false dissembling guile?

Henry VI (Part 1), Act 4, sc. i, l. 62-63.

Judgment – “So help me God”

“GLOSTER. … So help me God, as I dissemble not!” This statement is found in this play at 3-i-140.

Judgment – talking out of both sides of your mouth

Investigators must be very careful that they do not accuse a witness of a criminal act to then ask them for a witness statement without the salutary protections of the caution and rights to counsel. You cannot tell someone they are guilty of the crime you are investigation, to then treat them as a common witness to an event. This situation is illustrated in Henry VI (Part 1), 1-iii-34: “GLOSTER. Stand back, thou manifest conspirator …”

Judgment – investigators find proof, avoid guesswork

Consider this example:

CHARLES … Then how or which way should they first break in?

JOAN LA PUCELLE Question, my lords, no further of the case, How or which way: 'tis sure they found some place But weakly guarded, where the breach was made…

Henry VI (Part 1), Act 2, sc. i, l. 71-74.

The Crown and the community interest depends on you finding where the weakly guarded place was.

Judgment – no one is above the law

This sentiment is best expressed in the passage that follows: “Mayor Fie, lords! that you, being supreme magistrates, Thus contumeliously should break the peace!” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 1, sc. iii, l. 58-59. Your judgment will be called into account if you fail to interview closely every person possessing relevant information, including the members of the local judiciary.

Judgment – oratory may prevail over the truth

“TALBOT. Ne'er trust me then; for when a world of men Could not prevail with all their oratory …” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 2, sc. ii, l. 48. This is an indirect method of suggesting that the advocacy skills of lawyers typically prevail in close factual or legal controversies. Whatever may be the truth of those types of suggestions, the fact remains that investigators who are called upon to testify cannot lose their objectivity when they inwardly think that the lawyers “are twisting the truth”. A related quote follows: “WARWICK My Lord of York, I promise you, the king Prettily, methought, did play the orator.” Act 4, sc. i, l. 175-176.

Judgment – Passions – fear

“JOAN OF ARC. Of all base passions, fear is most accursed…” Investigators do well in not overlooking this element as many of the persons you interview, such as victims of domestic violence, fear further harm at the hands of their abusers. Refer to Henry VI (Part 1), Act 5, sc. ii, l. 18-19.

Judgment – proving the person interviewed was wrong

On occasion, there is nothing to be gained by attempting to show that a witness was wrong or even that they lied about some bit of information that is inconsequential. Consider this example, found in the play at 1-iii-90: “Mayor. … I myself fight not once in forty years…” On the one hand, if the case involves something other than self-defence, what does it matter if they are wrong about a school-yard scrap 30 years before when their evidence should be focused on some fraudulent dealings with car parts? Secondly, the court might conclude that you have spent far too much effort on discrediting a witness on a secondary point and far too little on the direct points in controversy.

Judgment – “Tomato, tomato ….”

The old song is reflected in the words that follow, symbolizing that one cannot judge certain things, no matter how much you apply your best judgment:

WARWICK

Between two hawks, which flies the higher pitch;
Between two dogs, which hath the deeper mouth;
Between two blades, which bears the better temper:
Between two horses, which doth bear him best;
Between two girls, which hath the merriest eye;
I have perhaps some shallow spirit of judgement;
But in these nice sharp quillets of the law,
Good faith, I am no wiser than a daw.

Henry VI (Part 1), Act 2, sc. iv, l. 14-19.

Judgment – “too good to be true” means be wary of information

An example of this adage is found in Henry VI (Part 1), 1-i-16: “GLOSTER … What should I say? his deeds exceed all speech.”

Professionalism

Professionalism – accepting without visible displeasure a decision of the court that you believe to be wrong

“Lawyer. Unless my study and my books be false, The argument you held was wrong in you …” This example, found at 2-iv-56 of Henry VI (Part 1), illustrates the utmost confidence of a lawyer in the strength of their conclusion. From my perspective, I do not ever give a judgment or decision or ruling unless I am totally convinced that I am correct, it goes without saying, and I believe fully that all professional investigators are motivated by the same pride. And yet, judges will not agree with your testimony from time to time, and you must abide by the decision, subject to an appeal. If it is any comfort, the Supreme Court of Canada often decides cases on a 5-4, 4-3 or 3-2 split, illustrating that very few cases are easy to adjudicate upon.

Professionalism – bad days, we all experience

As I write these words, I have in my mind the transcript I have just read in which a young officer describes his difficulty in recalling events, as he completed a night shift before testifying and has not slept in 30 hours. In brief, we all have days in which we are not functioning at our level best, and this may affect the quality of the testimony you provide. In my view, if you fail to disclose the extent of your circumstances, you risk being criticized for something which is beyond your control. If you describe your difficulty, it will not be seen as making excuses, in my opinion.

Thus, consider what we find at Act 2, sc. v, l. 44-47 of Henry VI (Part 1):

RICHARD PLANTAGENET

… This day, in argument upon a case,
Some words there grew 'twixt Somerset and me;
Among which terms he used his lavish tongue
And did upbraid me with my father's death:
Which obloquy set bars before my tongue,
Else with the like I had requited him …

Professionalism – conducting yourself as an example to others

Consider this example: “JOAN OF ARC. … Take heed, be wary how you place your words; Talk like the vulgar sort of market men …” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 3, sc. ii, l. 3-4. In other words, do not act in a vulgar fashion as you do not command respect when you do so.

Professionalism – Delays, to be avoided

A solid example of why delays that are encountered needlessly potentially bring about negative results is listed next: “REIGNIER Defer no time, delays have dangerous ends …” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 3, sc. ii, l. 33-36.

Professionalism – discover the truth

A further quotation involving Richard Plantagenet follows: “Discover more at large what cause that was, For I am ignorant and cannot guess.” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 2, sc. v, l. 59-60. The question is expressed simply as follows: you must demonstrate a professional attitude in discovering the truth, and exhausting all of your skill in so doing and, in addition, in knowing when enough is enough.

Professionalism – “do as I say, not as I do”

The hypocrisy of those guilty of conducting themselves in this way is well known. Consider “KING HENRY VI … And will not you maintain the thing you teach, But prove a chief offender in the same?” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 3, sc. i, l. 128-129.

Professionalism – not proceeding with a charge as not being in the public interest

“RICHARD PLANTAGENET Tut, tut, here is a mannerly forbearance …” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 2, sc. iv, l. 20. This phrase makes me think of the cases I was involved with as a young lawyer where police officers chose not to charge my client as it was seen as youthful exuberance or stupidity, and often it would have meant that a promising life might be sidetracked, without any corresponding advantage for society. This topic is not addressed under the rubric of judgment as it is rather a question of professionalism to decide to allow a situation to be diverted, as the law permits.

Professionalism – note taking – necessary to possess a full record of what you have obtained during your interviews

The signal importance of this area of investigative work is highlighted in the passage that follows: “PLANTAGENET. … I'll note you in my book of memory …” See Henry VI (Part 1), Act 2, sc. iv, l. 101. In my view so many officers including highly experienced ones, fail to write out exhaustive notes because they were taught that they serve to refresh your memory! That is poor advice that fails to consider the modern reality that your notes are examined by the prosecutor and defence counsel in advance of the trial, and notably on occasion by a judge in the context of a pre-trial that might result in a decision that the case is weak, especially if you have made poor notes. In addition, cases are taking quite a long time to get to Court and there are often new trials ordered after appeals and you might be testifying about a case after a lapse of five years. Do not flatter yourselves to think you will recall anything that is not noted after such a lengthy period.

Professionalism - oratory may prevail over the truth

Professionalism – planning is essential: “if you fail to plan, you plan to fail!”

Consider in this context what follows, found at 4-iv-1.

SOMERSET

It is too late; I cannot send them now:
This expedition was by York and Talbot
Too rashly plotted: all our general force
Might with a sally of the very town
Be buckled with: the over-daring Talbot
Hath sullied all his gloss of former honour
By this unheedful, desperate, wild adventure …

Professionalism – preparation and even more preparation

Consider the merits of the quote that follows, “RICHARD PLANTAGENET. Now, Somerset, where is your argument?”, found at Act 2, sc. iv, l. 59 of this play. Tracking that language so that it fits fully with your work as investigators, you must be prepared for the prosecutor to ask: “… where is your brief and the evidence in support of the charge(s)?” A further relevant passage follows: “BISHOP OF WINCHESTER. Comest thou … With written pamphlets studiously devised …” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 3, sc. i, l. 1-2.

After all, your efforts in investigating are to determine where the truth of the case is to be found. As we read at 4-i-27, “TALBOT ...
Then judge, great lords, if I have done amiss …” In other words, all accused are asking to ascertain if the Court is in possession of admissible but satisfactory evidence.

Professionalism – Seek and accept the advice of others

“KING HENRY VI. When Gloucester says the word, King Henry goes; For friendly counsel cuts off many foes.” These words of advice, found at 3-i-185, seek to explain that you cut off many foes, understood as you avoid problems, by seeking advice from your more experienced colleagues and superiors. Noteworthy as well is this passage: “KING HENRY VI. … But your discretions better can persuade Than I am able to instruct or teach …” See Act 4, sc. i, l. 156 and I interpret the words to mean that at some point, investigators gain sufficient experience that courts and judges (and your superiors) will accept readily your views.

Professionalism – “the law, good, bad, or indifferent”

The modern version of that saying might well be captured by what Suffolk stated at Act 2, sc. iv., l. 7 of the play:

Faith, I have been a truant in the law,
And never yet could frame my will to it;
And therefore frame the law unto my will.

Conclusion

I begin with these words of thought: the police are the servants of the community and are often taken for granted and asked to accomplish a great deal. Thus, “First Sentinel, Sergeant, you shall … Thus are poor servitors, When others sleep upon their quiet beds, Constrain'd to watch in darkness, rain and cold.” Henry VI (Part 1), Act 2, sc. i, l. 2-3.

Consider as well: “Joan of Arc … Glory is like a circle in the water, Which never ceaseth to enlarge itself Till by broad spreading it disperse to nought … Henry VI (Part 1), Act 1, sc. ii, l. 134-135. In other words, the investigators who enjoy their retirements fully, in my experience, are those who knew all along that no one save their families and peers would appreciate fully all the sacrifices they endured. There is no glory save for rare cases in which, at times, there is a cost to the victims by way of additional harmful publicity when your exploits are praised. In few words, I conclude by stating that the respect of your community and the private thanks of victims you have assisted amounts to sufficient glory…

[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 “Henry VI” or to “the play”. As for the citations, Act 2, sc. ii, l. 2 is referenced as 2-ii-2. By and large, only the first line reference is included.

[3] See "A List of One Hundred Legal Novel" (1922), 17 III. L. Rev. 26, at p. 31.

[4] Refer as well to a similar article by Law Professor W.H. Hitchler who published these relevant remarks in "The Reading of Lawyers", (1928) 33 Dick. L. Rev. 1-13, at pp. 12-13: "The Lawyers must know human nature. [They] must deal with types. [They] cannot find all them around... Life is not long enough. The range of [their] acquaintances is not broad enough. For this learning, they must go to fiction. ...” I could easily replace “lawyers” by “police officers” and the meaning remains correct.