POLICE INVESTIGATIONS 101
LESSONS FROM SHAKESPEARE’S Henry the Sixth (Part 2)
Gilles Renaud | Ontario Court Of Justice (Retired)
INTRODUCTION
In this article, I document the various elements of guidance and instruction from the play Henry the Sixth (Part 2) that may result in enhanced excellence in investigative work.
By way of full introduction, and to respect limitation of space, I invite the reader to review the opening pages to the prior contribution of the same nature, based on Shakespeare’s play The Taming of the Shrew. I need only add that the discussion is organized along broad, thematic lines involving demeanour evidence, interviewing skills, judgment and professionalism in investigations.
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
The works of Shakespeare contain multiple examples of the dangers associated with demeanour evidence, a very controversial form of "testimony", and a subject that I have discussed critically in extra-judicial writings. Perhaps the best known of these examples is found in Act I, scene IV, of Macbeth: "Duncan: There's no art To find the mind's construction in the face." The companion reference that is best suited to underscore this point is set down in Act I, scene VII: "Macbeth ... Away, and mock the time with fairest show: False face must hide what the false heart doth know." I note as well how apposite is the passage that follows on the issue whether witnesses may be adept at feigning emotions: "... Let's not consort with them: To show an unfelt sorrow is an office Which the false man does easy." Refer to Act II, scene III of Macbeth.
In essence, Shakespeare teaches us two things:
o 1) We are not capable of assessing accurately what thoughts a person may be entertaining by means of their facial expression, and
o
o 2) A person is capable of assuming a "facial guise" that may well trick and deceive the observer.
In addition, both points are mutually reinforcing in the sense that the capacity that we all enjoy to adopt a "false face" only serves to exacerbate the general inability to discern "the mind's construction". In sum, the thoughts of a third party, a witness for our purposes, may not be judged fully and fairly based on their demeanour.
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 – non-verbal communication
Having introduced fully the subject of demeanour, we now review the guidance from this play.
The elements of demeanour evidence
Blush
ELEANOR.
… To every idle rascal follower.
But be thou mild and blush not at my shame … [2-iv]
…
GLOUCESTER.
Well, Suffolk, thou shalt not see me blush,
Nor change my countenance for this arrest. … [3-i]
Brows
ELEANOR.
… Why doth the great Duke Humphrey knit his brows,
As frowning at the favours of the world? … [1-ii]
…
QUEEN MARGARET.
… But meet him now, and be it in the morn
When everyone will give the time of day,
He knits his brow and shows an angry eye … [3-i]
…
GLOUCESTER.
… Beaufort’s red sparkling eyes blab his heart’s malice,
And Suffolk’s cloudy brow his stormy hate … [3-i]
…
YORK.
… That gold must round engirt these brows of mine,
Whose smile and frown, like to Achilles’ spear,
Is able with the change to kill and cure. … [5-i]
Countenance
QUEEN MARGARET.
Can you not see, or will ye not observe
The strangeness of his altered countenance? [3-i]
Drooping
ELEANOR.
Why droops my lord, like over-ripened corn … [1-ii]
Eyes
ELEANOR.
… Why are thine eyes fixed to the sullen earth,
Gazing on that which seems to dim thy sight?
What seest thou there? … [1-ii]
…
GLOUCESTER.
… Beaufort’s red sparkling eyes blab his heart’s malice,
And Suffolk’s cloudy brow his stormy hate … [3-i]
…
IDEN.
… Oppose thy steadfast-gazing eyes to mine,
See if thou canst outface me with thy looks … [4-x]
Face
GLOUCESTER.
… Proud prelate, in thy face
I see thy fury. … [1-i]
…
KING HENRY.
… Ah, uncle Humphrey, in thy face I see
The map of honour, truth, and loyalty … [3-1]
Frowning
ELEANOR.
… Why doth the great Duke Humphrey knit his brows,
As frowning at the favours of the world? … [1-ii]
Looks
GLOUCESTER.
… The abject people gazing on thy face
With envious looks, laughing at thy shame … [2-iv]
…
YORK.
I thank thee, Clifford. Say, what news with thee?
Nay, do not fright us with an angry look. [5-i]
Pallour
YORK.
… Let pale-faced fear keep with the mean-born man [3-i]
Sighs
QUEEN MARGARET.
… I would be blind with weeping, sick with groans,
Look pale as primrose with blood-drinking sighs … [3-ii]
Trembling
KING HENRY.
… How now? Why look’st thou pale? Why tremblest thou?
Where is our uncle? What’s the matter, Suffolk? [3-ii]
Interviewing witnesses – instruction from this play
Interviewing skills – confession – sounds true
If one ignores for an instant that the person who confessed was beaten to do so, it remains a fact that his wife spontaneously added: “Alas, sir, we did it for pure need.” [2-i]
Interviewing skills – explanations, you may ask witness for
Consider this example:
KING HENRY.
What mean’st thou, Suffolk? Tell me, what are these? [1-iii]
Interviewing skills – interruption by police officer when witness displays anger
The quote that follows arises after Gloucester has spoken at length, and with growing negative emotion:
CARDINAL.
My Lord of Gloucester, now ye grow too hot … [1-i]
In most cases, the police investigator is better served by allowing a witness whose is speaking without due reserve to continue to do so, as they might disclose both damaging and abundant information.
Interviewing skills – interruption by witness in speaking
On occasion, a great deal may be gleaned from the manner in which a witness responds to questions, notably when there is interruption that may signal that the witness is caught short and is scrambling for a response. Consider:
GLOUCESTER.
Pardon me, gracious lord.
Some sudden qualm hath struck me at the heart … [1-i]
Interviewing skills – opportunity for witness to defend accusations
It is not unheard of that a witness will seek the opportunity to respond to accusations en pleine connaissance that they need not respond at all.
SUFFOLK.
Please it your majesty, this is the man
That doth accuse his master of high treason.
His words were these: that Richard, Duke of York
Was rightful heir unto the English crown,
And that your majesty was an usurper.
KING HENRY.
Say, man, were these thy words?
HORNER.
An ’t shall please your majesty, I never said nor thought any such matter. God is my witness, I am falsely accused by the villain. [1-iii]
Note as well what Gloucester states immediately upon being informed that he is arrested for treason:
GLOUCESTER.
Is it but thought so? What are they that think it?
I never robbed the soldiers of their pay,
Nor ever had one penny bribe from France.
So help me God, as I have watched the night,
Ay, night by night, in studying good for England!
That doit that e’er I wrested from the King,
Or any groat I hoarded to my use,
Be brought against me at my trial day!
No, many a pound of mine own proper store,
Because I would not tax the needy commons,
Have I dispursed to the garrisons
And never asked for restitution.
CARDINAL.
It serves you well, my lord, to say so much. [3-i]
Whether the Cardinal is being facetious is not relevant – his thought that an accused is well served to explain fully their circumstances is worthy of being underscored.
Interviewing skills – overcoming the silence of conspirators
It is often a challenge to have to overcome the natural inclination of criminal confederates to keep their crimes hidden. Thus:
HUME.
… But, how now, Sir John Hume!
Seal up your lips, and give no words but mum;
The business asketh silent secrecy … [1-ii]
Interviewing skills – perception, note the emotions of witnesses
You are always well served to pay attention to these elements even though it will be visible on the tape of the interview as you may be able to exploit the emotion on display, and vary the course of the interview you intended to follow:
YORK.
[Aside.] Scarce can I speak, my choler is so great.
O, I could hew up rocks and fight with flint,
I am so angry at these abject terms […] [5-i]
Interviewing skills – record all of the words of a speaker electronically if a full audio-video is not possible
The best practice, in the absence of a full audio-videotape, is to write all of the speaker’s words as they are spoken and recoded by audiotape, for fear that the recording is lost or compromised. Consider:
SPIRIT.
The duke yet lives that Henry shall depose,
But him outlive and die a violent death.
[As the Spirit speaks, Southwell writes the answer.] [1-iv]
Interviewing skills – torture, leading to confession
The quote that follows makes plain why violence will render inadmissible as unreliable confessions:
CARDINAL.
… O, torture me no more! I will confess. … [3-iii]
Interviewing skills – transcripts must record exclamations or interrogations if the speaker is not recorded
Care must be taken in cases in which the speaker’s words and actions are not fully audio-taped. Thus, in the example that follows, take care to record the “!” if one was expressed but provide details to support your opinion.
ELEANOR.
Against her will! Good King, look to ’t in time … [1-iii]
Interviewing skills – seeking precise information as to what is stated
An interviewer is not only able to seek precise information as to what a witness stated at the police station or the “scene of the crime”, but is encouraged to do so. Thus:
CARDINAL.
Nephew, what means this passionate discourse … [1-i]
Judgment in investigations – instruction from this play
Judgment – absolute statements, be careful of accepting fully
Some restraint is required when you are called upon to evaluate absolute statements such as the one set out below:
WARWICK.
That can I witness, and a fouler fact
Did never traitor in the land commit. [1-iii]
Judgment – circumstantial evidence, be careful not to assign undue weight to
Investigators do well to be careful in not investing too much importance to circumstantial information, though they ought not to ignore any information. Consider the examples that follow, including the danger of a patsy being framed:
SUFFOLK.
… Did instigate the bedlam brain-sick Duchess
By wicked means to frame our sovereign’s fall.
Smooth runs the water where the brook is deep,
And in his simple show he harbours treason.
The fox barks not when he would steal the lamb.
No, no, my sovereign, Gloucester is a man
Unsounded yet and full of deep deceit. [3-1] [Underlining added]
Later on, we read a passage that I have heard quoted in court and argued before other judges to support the submission that circumstantial evidence is often lacking in value:
WARWICK.
Who finds the heifer dead and bleeding fresh
And sees fast by a butcher with an axe,
But will suspect ’twas he that made the slaughter?
Who finds the partridge in the puttock’s nest
But may imagine how the bird was dead,
Although the kite soar with unbloodied beak?
Even so suspicious is this tragedy. [3-ii]
Judgment – conscience, as a guide to investigations?
One must question the wisdom of one’s conscience as a guide to fact finding in an investigation:
KING HENRY.
My Lord of Gloucester, ’tis my special hope
That you will clear yourself from all suspense.
My conscience tells me you are innocent. [3-i]
Judgment – conviction as to belief in what is stated, does the witness demonstrate any such
Act 4, scene viii, illustrates fully how a person may vacillate between two poles, and this situation occurs at the scene of a crime or a police station when a witness is asked if they are convinced of their description. For example, who first struck out with force as between two persons involved in a violent act. In this context, the sentence set out next is apt: “CADE.
Was ever feather so lightly blown to and fro …”
Judgment – deliberate upon difficult questions
It is never wise to decide hastily. Take all the time you have at hand prior to reaching any conclusions and take longer in proportion to the importance of the issues.
ELEANOR.
It is enough, I’ll think upon the questions. [1-ii]
Judgment – denial, especially an immediate one, must be given weight
Consider how Gloucester reacts calmly to being charged with treason, when there was no time for preparation:
GLOUCESTER.
Well, Suffolk, thou shalt not see me blush,
Nor change my countenance for this arrest.
A heart unspotted is not easily daunted.
The purest spring is not so free from mud
As I am clear from treason to my sovereign.
Who can accuse me? Wherein am I guilty? [3-i]
Judgment – duplicity in the words and actions of others
Investigators must beware of the duplicitous pursuits of witnesses and potential accused persons:
YORK.
… And make a show of love to proud Duke Humphrey,
And when I spy advantage, claim the crown … [1-i]
Consider as well the two quotes that follow:
GLOUCESTER.
… hide such malice.
With such holiness can you do it? [2-i]
…
YORK.
… Whom have we here? Buckingham, to disturb me?
The King hath sent him, sure. I must dissemble. [5-i]
Judgment – examine all of the potential witnesses to an event
Fairness requires a full inquiry into all sides of an account. Thus:
HORNER.
Alas, my lord, hang me if ever I spake the words. My accuser is my prentice; and when I did correct him for his fault the other day, he did vow upon his knees he would be even with me. I have good witness of this, therefore I beseech your majesty, do not cast away an honest man for a villain’s accusation. [1-iii]
Judgement – flattery – beware of
The successful investigator is always vigilant lest they be unduly influenced by this form of distortion of fact:
CARDINAL.
… I fear me, lords, for all this flattering gloss,
He will be found a dangerous Protector. [1-i]
Judgment – forensic evidence of a violence death – judge the quality of the information
Lessons from many trials and public inquiries, notably that involving Dr. Charles Smith, the disgraced pathologist, establish clearly that police investigators ought to be very careful prior to accepting that a body displays signs of trauma arising from a crime, as opposed to signs of some event bringing about death. In the example that follows, have we proof of a crime, of a suicide, of illness, or of trauma associated with an accident?
WARWICK.
See how the blood is settled in his face.
Oft have I seen a timely-parted ghost,
Of ashy semblance, meagre, pale, and bloodless,
Being all descended to the labouring heart,
Who, in the conflict that it holds with death,
Attracts the same for aidance ’gainst the enemy,
Which with the heart there cools and ne’er returneth
To blush and beautify the cheek again.
But see, his face is black and full of blood,
His eyeballs further out than when he lived,
Staring full ghastly like a strangled man;
His hair upreared, his nostrils stretched with struggling,
His hands abroad displayed, as one that grasped
And tugged for life and was by strength subdued.
Look, on the sheets his hair, you see, is sticking;
His well-proportioned beard made rough and rugged,
Like to the summer’s corn by tempest lodged.
It cannot be but he was murdered here;
The least of all these signs were probable. [3-ii]
Judgment – habit – consider if the pattern of conduct fits
Investigators will examine if and to what extent a factual situation is in keeping with the typical fashion that a person acts:
KING HENRY.
I muse my Lord of Gloucester is not come.
’Tis not his wont [habit] to be the hindmost man,
Whate’er occasion keeps him from us now. [3-1]
Judgment – hesitation by witness prior to responding
As is evident in the example that follows, at times witnesses act in this fashion to give them time to dissemble. In this citation, the first words not reproduce show his anger, that he must hide.
YORK.
… But I must make fair weather yet awhile,
Till Henry be more weak and I more strong.—
Buckingham, I prithee, pardon me,
That I have given no answer all this while;
My mind was troubled with deep melancholy. … [5-i]
Judgment – human nature – words said in jest
It is always a vexing question to judge whether words that are quite extreme in scope were spoken in jest. Consider this passage:
SUFFOLK.
Not resolute, except so much were done,
For things are often spoke and seldom meant;
But that my heart accordeth with my tongue,
Seeing the deed is meritorious ... [3-i]
Judgment – human nature – beliefs without foundation
An investigator must always be wary that certain witnesses may be influenced by nonsensical beliefs or prejudices, such as below:
BEVIS.
Thou hast hit it; for there’s no better sign of a brave mind than a hard hand. [4-ii]
Judgment – identification of person, be careful
Identification evidence is fraught with dangers associated with errors of recognition, and this difficulty is made more acute when persons are wearing disguises. Thus:
SUFFOLK.
Ay, but these rags are no part of the Duke.
Jove sometime went disguised, and why not I? [4-i]
Judgment – listen closely to what witnesses expresses
On occasion, a witness will describe in few words, at the outset, what is then recited at great length, and which may not be as self-evident by reason of circumlocution:
GLOUCESTER. …
Brave peers of England …
To you Duke Humphrey must unload his grief … [1-i]
Judgment – living beyond one’s means – probative value of
At tmes, investigators will be quite interested in information that may signal that a suspect is living beyond their known means. Thus:
GLOUCESTER.
… Hath given the duchy of Anjou and Maine
Unto the poor King Reignier, whose large style
Agrees not with the leanness of his purse. [1-i]
Judgment – negative elements, there are always some spots
The passage that follows makes plain that no one is without fault
GLOUCESTER.
… A heart unspotted is not easily daunted.
The purest spring is not so free from mud … [3-i]
Judgment – profit, who will gain advantage from a situation?
The classic detective novel asks the questions “Cherchez l’argent; cherchez la femme”. In this context, you must consider who might profit if suspicion falls upon this or that person for a precise offence.
QUEEN MARGARET.
... First note that he is near you in descent,
And should you fall, he is the next will mount. [3-i]
Judgment – reversing the proposition –
Detectives do well to examine both sides of a question, if not all three, but be careful not to do so with such determination that you end up having no sound basis for any conclusion. In the passage below, the example is stated to the effect that meekness hides evil intentions. Taken to an extreme, no objective information is of any value.
QUEEN MARGARET.
Ah, what’s more dangerous than this fond affiance?
Seems he a dove? His feathers are but borrowed,
For he’s disposed as the hateful raven.
Is he a lamb? His skin is surely lent him,
For he’s inclined as is the ravenous wolves.
Who cannot steal a shape that means deceit?
Take heed, my lord; the welfare of us all
Hangs on the cutting short that fraudful man. [3-1] [Emphasis added]
Judgment – setting out concerns without obtaining confirmation
It is often without purpose for an investigator to set out their views as to a factual situation or state of mind of a witness unless an attempt is made to have the witness confirm the suggestion. Consider this example:
GLOUCESTER.
My Lord of Winchester, I know your mind.
’Tis not my speeches that you do mislike,
But ’tis my presence that doth trouble ye.
Rancour will out. … [1-i]
Judgment – social status has no relevance to your assessment of the wisdom or folly of the words spoken
Consider this example:
STAFFORD.
And will you credit this base drudge’s words,
That speaks he knows not what? [4-ii]
Judgment – speech, talent in expressing oneself
Investigators ought not to assign undue weight to words based on the skill in expressing himself or herself shown by the witness, as opposed to the quality or value of the communication. For example:
KING HENRY.
Her sight did ravish, but her grace in speech … [1-i]
Consider as well these words:
CARDINAL.
… Look to it, lords. Let not his smoothing words
Bewitch your hearts; be wise and circumspect … [1-i]
Judgment – thoroughness of your search, to ensure a sound conclusion
Note the underlined words:
KING HENRY.
… Tomorrow toward London back again,
To look into this business thoroughly,
And call these foul offenders to their answers,
And poise the cause in Justice’ equal scales,
Whose beam stands sure, whose rightful cause prevails. [2-i]
Professionalism in investigations – instruction from this play
Professionalism – ambition
Investigators must never consider a person’s tragedy as being the springboard to publicity or advancement. In this light, consider:
GLOUCESTER.
O Nell, sweet Nell, if thou dost love thy lord,
Banish the canker of ambitious thoughts. … [1-i]
Note as well:
CADE.
Fie on ambitions! … [4-x]
That said, you are perfectly entitled to have professional ambitions, of course, but not expressed in a way that is hurtful or demeaning to victim of crime.
Professionalism – book, work by the
I am not qualified to say when one should follow the book, so to speak, and when one should be attempting a bold innovation, but I do know that slavish following of the policies may lead to disaster. Consider the precedents involving handcuffing to the back of all under arrest who are brought to the station leading to this being done to quite elderly and frail persons suffering from some kind of dementia who are not going to be prosecuted for shoplifting given their obviously confused state.
YORK.
… Whose bookish rule … [1-i]
Professionalism – delays - suffer none given the importance of your work
You should always follow the example taken from the passage that follows:
CARDINAL.
This weighty business will not brook delay;
I’ll to the Duke of Suffolk presently. [1-i]
Professionalism – demonstrate, if you can, the error of other’s thinking on a subject
QUEEN MARGARET.
... Reprove my allegation if you can,
Or else conclude my words effectual. [3-i]
Professionalism – emotions that might harm your judgment
Note this sound illustration:
CLIFFORD.
Take heed, lest by your heat you burn yourselves. [5-i]
Professionalism – emotional reaction to the plight of suspects
Think upon the difficulties associated with the conduct shown in this quote:
GLOUCESTER.
Why, ’tis well known that, whiles I was Protector,
Pity was all the fault that was in me;
For I should melt at an offender’s tears,
And lowly words were ransom for their fault.
Unless it were a bloody murderer,
Or foul felonious thief that fleeced poor passengers,
I never gave them condign punishment.
Murder indeed, that bloody sin, I tortured
Above the felon or what trespass else. [3-i] [Emphasis added]
Professionalism – evidence is not to be “created” in order to achieve a worthy purpose
Consider the example that follows, as it illustrated how easily one may cloud the issue by invention. Indeed, once you beat the dog, others assume it was justified:
GLOUCESTER.
… The ancient proverb will be well effected:
“A staff is quickly found to beat a dog.” [3-i]
Professionalism – from the frying pan into the fire!
The quote that follows is useful in reminding investigators that their duty to their subordinates must always be foremost in their thinking and to never expose any police officer, or member of the public, to danger unless this situation cannot be avoided and that greater danger is brought about should they decide on a different course of action. Thus:
KING HENRY.
Thus stands my state, ’twixt Cade and York distressed,
Like to a ship that, having scaped a tempest,
Is straightway calmed and boarded with a pirate. … [4-ic]
Professionalism – full answer and defence
Investigators must not seek to limit unduly the attempt made by would-be accused to defend themselves.
CARDINAL.
My liege, his railing is intolerable.
If those that care to keep your royal person
From treason’s secret knife and traitor’s rage
Be thus upbraided, chid, and rated at,
And the offender granted scope of speech,
’Twill make them cool in zeal unto your grace. [3-i]
[Emphasis added]
Professionalism – function is to obtain correct information and not to brag about one’s talent in divination
The example that follows illustrates well what is not part of the investigator’s function:
GLOUCESTER.
… Lordings, farewell; and say, when I am gone,
I prophesied France will be lost ere long. [1-i]
Professionalism – justify a penalty
Investigators do not carry out sentences, of course, but if they are called upon to engage in any conduct involving any form of deprivation, justification must be found. Thus:
BUCKINGHAM.
Thy cruelty in execution
Upon offenders hath exceeded law,
And left thee to the mercy of the law. [1-iii]
Professionalism – justify any arrest – must ascertain reasons
It is often the case that during an emerging crisis one receives an order to detain or arrest someone with no apparent explanation, and justification must be obtained once the first safe opportunity is at hand. But, in circumstances of relative calm, as in the example below, justification must be offered, or sought by you, before any further steps are undertaken.
SUFFOLK … Take this fellow in, and send for his master with a pursuivant presently.—We’ll hear more of your matter before the King. [1-iii]
Professionalism – language
The passage that follows is rather important:
SALISBURY.
… Oft have I seen the haughty Cardinal
… Swear like a ruffian and demean himself
Unlike the ruler of a commonweal … [1-i]
Professionalism – patience
Investigators, and other professionals, do well to exercise patience. Thus:
ELEANOR.
Well said, my masters; and welcome all. To this gear, the sooner the better.
BOLINGBROKE.
Patience, good lady; wizards know their times … [1-iv]
Professionalism – pity, what is the place of pity?
This is a very difficult issue as there is no room for pity in deciding who may be guilty of a crime, but there is play for that emotion in deciding if a diversion or form of caution is available. Consider what follows:
QUEEN MARGARET.
Free lords, cold snow melts with the sun’s hot beams.
Henry my lord is cold in great affairs,
Too full of foolish pity; and Gloucester’s show [3-1]
In the same vein, consider the role that our state as sinners might play in investigations:
KING HENRY.
Forbear to judge, for we are sinners all.
Close up his eyes, and draw the curtain close,
And let us all to meditation. [3-iii]
Professionalism – pride, the danger of
The old saying is to the effect that when the Gods seek t destroy us, first they make us proud!
SOMERSET.
Cousin of Buckingham, though Humphrey’s pride
And greatness of his place be grief to us, [1-i]
…
SALISBURY.
Pride went before; Ambition follows him. … [1-i]
…
WARWICK.
Image of pride, why should I hold my peace? [1-iii]
Professionalism – resolve
The successful investigator is one who works with a purpose and the resolve to overcome obstacles. Thus:
YORK.
Now, York, or never, steel thy fearful thoughts,
And change misdoubt to resolution … [3-i]
Professionalism – self-control
One should never be able to say of you that you acted in a moment of rage of without being in full possession of all of your critical faculties.
CARDINAL.
So, there goes our Protector in a rage … [1-i]
Professionalism – study long and well to succeed
In this light, consider what we read at the start of the play:
GLOUCESTER. …
Studied so long … [1-i]
Professionalism – treachery, repel all thoughts of
A number of high-profile cases over the years have drawn attention to the treachery of those who hacked into or infiltrated protected databases in order to discover information about witnesses or investigations, to obtain payment or to assist family or friends. These acts of treachery are heinous, and are echoed in the passage that follows, though it focuses on a family dynamic and treachery to the Crown:
GLOUCESTER.
Nay, Eleanor, then must I chide outright.
Presumptuous dame, ill-nurtured Eleanor,
… And wilt thou still be hammering treachery
To tumble down thy husband and thyself
From top of honour to disgrace’s feet?
Away from me, and let me hear no more! [1-ii]
Professionalism – victims, respect for their loss, even if property
Consider the example that follows:
YORK.
… Pirates may make cheap pennyworths of their pillage,
… Whileas the silly owner of the goods
Weeps over them, and wrings his hapless hands,
And shakes his head, and trembling stands aloof,
While all is shared and all is borne away … [1-i]
Professionalism – withdraw from a difficult situation to better return to it after reflection
At times, it is best for an investigator to retire from a complex situation in which there is no danger for the public in order to review all of the elements at play, prior to returning to the scene after having re-assessed all of the facts in play. Thus:
KING HENRY.
Why, Buckingham, is the traitor Cade surprised?
Or is he but retired to make him strong? [4-ix]
Professionalism – work while others rest
The example that follows is self-explanatory of the sacrifices expected of you:
YORK.
… Watch thou and wake when others be asleep,
To pry into the secrets of … [1-i]