POLICE INVESTIGATIONS 101

GUIDANCE FROM SHAKESPEARE’S KING HENRY 6 (PART 3)

Gilles Renaud | Ontario Court of Justice[1]

INTRODUCTION

In this article, I document the various elements of guidance and instruction from the play King Henry VI (Part 3) that lead to excellence in investigative work.[2]

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

I have organized my thoughts along thematic lines embracing demeanour evidence, followed by interviewing techniques and skills that police officers must acquire and hone, judgment in police word including human nature and concluding with the subject of professionalism. Thus, my goal is to assist investigators to excel in their difficult but vital work in bringing offenders to justice and in helping to exonerate those thought to have offended, whether suspects or already accused. My objective is achieved, in part at least, by analyzing this excellent play.

DISCUSSION

Demeanour

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

Consider a first example taken from the earlier 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 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”, also from that earlier play, 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]

Looks: a form of written statement of emotions being experienced

A simple expression of demeanour evidence is found in the passage that follows: “Exeter. Here comes the queen, whose looks betray her anger …” See King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 1, sc. i, l. 214. In effect, imagine that you are interviewing a witness before trial and that as they enter your office, their forehead acts as a form of computer screen setting out what emotions are being experienced at that moment. In this case, the Queen’s anger is made plain by her looks. Consider this example as well: “Rutland. … Ah, gentle Clifford, kill me with thy sword, And not with such a cruel threat'ning look.” See Act 1, sc. iii, l. 16

As an investigator, you must be alert to all the “tells” and “cues” that may signal that what the witness is stating is not sincere such as “I feel fine and am calm at this point to be interviewed” when they are sweating, and their heart is racing. The best “confession” found in the play of one’s ability and desire to trick you in an interview follows:

Gloster

… Why, I can smile, and murther while I smile

And cry 'Content!' to that which grieves my heart,
And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
And frame my face to all occasions… …

King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 3, sc. ii, l. 184-188.

The second-best example follows: “I can add colours to the chameleon, Change shapes with Protheus for advantages, And set the murtherous Machiavel to school…” Act 3, sc. ii, l. 191-194. In the final analysis, one must always be mindful that persons you interview (or whose conduct and appearance captured on video or described by others) are feigning. Thus, “Warwick. So much his friend, ay, his unfeigned friend…” King Henry 6 (Part 3), Act 3, sc. iii, l. 238.

Noteworthy as well are these remarks about looks: “Edward. Now breathe we, lords; good fortune bids us pause, And smooth the frowns of war with peaceful looks.” Act 2, sc. vi, l. 33; “Gloster. The widow likes it not, for she looks very sad.” [3-ii-110]. Finally, do not overlook the reality of witnesses trying to hoodwink you with their looks: “Gloster. … And witch sweet ladies with my words and looks…” [3-ii-150]

Gray’s Anatomy in terms of demeanour

Face – blush

One example is found in Act 1, sc. iv, l. 46: “York. … And, if thou canst for blushing, view this face …” A second, at Act 1, sc. iv, l. 117, “York. … I would assay, proud queen, to make thee blush …”, and a third: “Clarence … And to my brother turn my blushing cheeks …”, at Act 5, sc. i, l. 99. The best one is next: “Oxford. … And not bewray (betray) thy treason with a blush?” [3-iii-97].

Face - brows

This first quote is found in the play at Act 2, sc. ii, l. 20: “Clifford. … Thou smiling while he knit his angry brows …” while this second one appears at Act 3, sc. ii, l. 84: “Gloster. The widow likes him not, she knits her brows.”

Face – cheeks – naturally pale

Often one reads of a witness whose face turned pale during a period of questioning, but the careful investigator will examine the natural pallor, if any, of the witness. Consider King Henry: “The other his pale cheeks, methinks …” Act 2, sc. v, l. 100.

Face – eyes

“Queen Margaret. With fiery eyes, sparkling for very wrath …” See Act 2, sc. v, l. 132.

Face – frowns

Consider this example from the mouth of King Henry 6: “… frowns, words, and threats Shall be the war that [the enemy] means to use.” [Act 1, sc. i, l. 72] This suggests that one can command some elements of one’s outward demeanour. At all events, here are further examples: “York. … Whose frown hath made thee faint and fly ere this.” [Act 1, sc. iv, l. 47]; “King Edward. My love, forbear to fawn upon their frowns …” King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 4, sc. i, l. 75; King Edward: “Bishop, farewell; shield thee from Warwick's frown …” Act 4, sc. v, l. 29.

Face – masked

If you consider that “vizard” refers to a mask, the phrase that York states at 1-iv-115: “But that thy face is, vizard-like, unchanging …” represents a challenge to an investigator during the time if the initial interview(s), and of the judge (and jury) subsequently, as the face will not betray any elements of demeanour. I do not suggest that much credit be assigned to demeanour for reasons stated at length earlier, and in much of my extra-judicial writings on this subject, but I concede that the absence of any element of demeanour, including the eyes, is quite exceptional.

Face – pensive

Consider this example: “King Edward. Now, brother Clarence, how like you our choice That you stand pensive as half malcontent?” In effect, one judges his thoughts based on his pensive face. See Act 4, sc. i, l. 10.

Mouth – sighs

“King Henry. … Her sighs will make a batt'ry in his breast …” See the play at Act 3, sc. i, l. 37. The careful investigator will pay close attention to the sounds that a witness makes in describing events as they may well detract from the seriousness of the interview or signal some degree of exaggeration that is untoward. Consider this passage as well: “Queen Elizabeth. … Lest with my sighs or tears I blast or drown King Edward's fruit, true heir to the English crown. King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 4, sc. iv, l. 25-26.

Voluntary actions and demeanour – taking advantage of …

Demeanour – concluding remarks about the fact that we all judge such “evidence” in our daily lives

Consider this simple example of how common demeanour information in is our day-to-day observations and judgments: “Oxford. I like it well that our fair queen and mistress Smiles at her news while Warwick frowns at his …” King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 3, sc. iii, l. 165-166.

Interviewing skills

Accuracy in the recitation of a prior discussion

The example that follows includes the word “guess” and no capable investigator ought to resort to that expression when seeking out information in an account of what they heard discussed.

King Edward.
Go to, we pardon thee; therefore, in brief,
Tell me their words as near as thou canst guess them.
What answer makes King Lewis unto our letters?

King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 4, sc. i, l. 89.

If this involves a situation in which the witness has notes, they ought to be consulted. The situation that an investigator wishes to encounter is captured by the quote that I have set out next: “Messenger. At my depart these were

his very words …” [Emphasis added] Refer to Act 4, sc. i, l. 93.

Brevity – not necessarily a quality in police questioning

Consider this example of unhelpful brevity: “Warwick. … Short tale to make, we at Saint Alban's met, Our battles join'd, and both sides fiercely fought …” See King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 2, sc. i, l. 120-121. Investigators need far more details.

Compound questions – an example of a proper question

It is typically dangerous for an investigator to ask a compound question, involving at least two elements, at the best of times, such as when the witness is not vulnerable, fully fluent in the language spoken, and not ill at ease even if at a police station. The danger is that when the question is asked “What happened in the dressing room at the end of the game and was Richard there?”, the witness may say “You got it wrong” but only intending to say the mistake involved the dressing room, or the end of the game, or Richard’s presence.” It is much better to ask a lengthy series of quite brief questions.

That being my advice, I hasten to add that some apparently “compounded” questions are not objectionable, such as the one set out by Shakespeare at 1-ii-4: “York. Why, how now, sons and brother! at a strife? What is your quarrel? how began it first?” If there is a quarrel, it began at some point. The better practice remains to avoid any such type of question, and to avoid any additional suggestion of leading.

Confidentiality – speaking freely must be discussed in the context of full disclosure

Interviewing techniques must include an understanding of the limited nature of confidentiality which is limited to informers within the recognized privilege. Thus, it may be wise to avoid, at times, a too far-reaching exploration of secondary issues with a witness as it may lead to embarrassment without any useful information being gained. Consider: “King Edward. … Speak freely what you think.” King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 4, sc. i, l. 26.

Drawing out the contempt of a witness / suspect for others during a pre-trial interview

Although the primary goal of an interview is to obtain direct evidence from a witness as to their knowledge of whatever crime is being investigated, it is often valuable when an investigator draws out from a witness negative views or critical descriptions of others – this may serve to neutralize, in part if not totally, the value of what this interviewee might have to testify to at trial. On the one hand, they have failed to provide information on the events when asked directly to help the authorities, presumably shortly after the commission of the offence when such data might have been critical and hey have shown their bias or contempt of others, on the other hand. Consider this example from the play: “Warwick. Poor Clifford! how I scorn his worthless threats!” [1-i-101]

Explanations for ambiguous statements are essential

The interview you conduct with a witness, especially in a case of a cautioned one, after rights to counsel are provided and acted upon, cannot contain any ambiguities, for obvious reasons. Consider this example, from Act 1, sc. iii, l. 4: “Clifford … Whose father slew my father, he shall die.” On the one hand, we cannot know if the witness is merely stating a neutral fact, that a murderer is to be put to death, or making a death threat. There is no room for ambiguities in investigative work. To the same effect, I do not know how to interpret this quote: “King Henry. … And when the lion fawns upon the lamb The lamb will never cease to follow him.” Act 4, sc. viii, l. 49-50.

Explanations for documents that are ambiguous

Investigators are permitted to request of those they interview to explain what a document means. Thus, you can emulate the words consigned at Act 5, sc. i, l. 81: “Clarence … know you what this means? …”

Facilitating the ease and comfort of the witness

Investigators must be vigilant to ensure that witnesses not be interviewed in situations of such anxiety or grief that the information they provide will be without value, understanding that some situations of urgency compel swift action. Thus, “Queen Margaret. From such a cause as fills mine eyes with tears And stops my tongue, while heart is drown'd in cares.” King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 3, sc. iii, l. 14-15.

Impress upon those interviewed the reality of their situation

King Edward states at Act 4, sc. iii, l. 58: “What fates impose, that men [and women] must needs abide; It boots not to resist both wind and tide.” A more modern version is required to explain to certain persons that their situation is dire or that their last hope of a favorable outcome requires immediate cooperation, et cetera.

Leading questions

Shakespeare provides this question, at 1-ii-4: “York. Why, how now, sons and brother! at a strife? What is your quarrel? how began it first?” I cannot opine if an investigator is asking a leading question by those words as one must judge all prior information provided. It may well be a leading question or merely “a close to the mark” one, and an improper question as being a “compound” one, or not as I have suggested earlier. To avoid all of these risky scenarios, and subsequent criticism later, may I suggest that you stay far from the dividing line and keep to your lane by never asking any but simple, one element question that do not introduce any information not already on the record, save for obvious introductory subjects.

Lies, directing witness not to

Nothing prevents an investigator from telling a person being interviewed to cease lying, so long as it does not amount to a threat. Thus: “Lewis.
Then further, all dissembling set aside Tell me for truth the measure of his love …” King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 3, sc. iii, l. 119-120.

Listening while asking questions – give the impression you know much more than perhaps you might

“Gloster. [Aside.] I hear, yet say not much, but think the more”. King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 4, sc. i, l. 85. In effect, the witness might “open up” more if of the belief that you are already aware of the information. To the same effect is the quote that follows: “King Edward. When we grow stronger, then we'll make our claim; Till then 't is wisdom to conceal our meaning.” King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 4, sc. vii, l. 60.

In suggesting that persons might fear the knowledge you posses, I look to this quotation: “Gloster Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind; The thief doth fear each bush [hides] an officer”. King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 5, sc. vi, l. 11-12.

Listening while asking questions – information sought ought not to be ignored

Act 1, sc. i, l. 121 includes this relevant comment by Warwick: “Plantagenet shall speak first; hear him, lords, And be you silent and attentive …” On occasion, interviews I have considered in trials, whether audio or video-taped, contained excerpts in which the investigator was focused on their next question, and appeared to have missed valuable information. It is a skill to ask questions and to be alert to what is said, without a doubt, but the results you will gain will increase if you are able to count upon an alert “hidden” partner who will monitor the interview and who is focusing fully on what is said, not on the next question.

Oratory skills – be mindful of witnesses who speak well

The passage that follows wherein Edward states: “No; I can better play the orator”, illustrates how easily would be witnesses might maneuver to have the person thought to be best placed to “sway” you as the investigator. You must be wary of glib talkers, whose vocabulary and ease in public speaking might be intended to deflect you from your task. Refer to King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 1, sc. ii, l. 1. That said, never shy away from those potential witnesses who are shy, or scared of speaking in public, as they may well have quite valuable information to provide.

Perhaps the best example is that which follows in which we read of a speaker who avoided providing important information. Hence, “Warwick. Oxford, how haps it in this smooth discourse, You told not how Henry the Sixth hath lost All that which Henry the Fifth had gotten? …” King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 3, sc. iii, l. 87-90.

Two further relevant passages follow:

KING HENRY.
Full well hath Clifford play'd the orator,
Inferring arguments of mighty force.
But, Clifford, tell me, didst thou never hear
That things ill got had ever bad success?

Act 2, sc. ii, l. 44-47

KING HENRY.
… For Warwick is a subtle orator,
And Lewis a prince soon won with moving words.

Act 3, sc. i, l. 34-36

Perjury – be careful not to levy such accusations too lightly

Shakespeare had his character Clarence state: “And there's for twitting me with perjury.” He then had Clarence stab another. See King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 5, sc. v, l. 40. I do not suggest that anyone will react in this fashion, merely that one ought to display restraint prior to accusing others of a crime.

Plain talk – avoid any subtleties

A remarkable example of direct speech, without any weasel words, is seen in 3-ii-67: “King Edward. To tell thee plain, I aim to lie with thee.” No less direct I the reply: “Lady Grey. To tell you plain, I had rather lie in prison.” Plain talk examples include: “Clarence. I mind to tell him plainly what I think.” King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 4, sc. i, l. 8.

Preventing a witness from speaking, especially if advancing information not advancing the case you are “considering”

For an investigator, there is no room for copying what Queen Margaret stated at Act 1, sc. i, l. 256: “Thou hast spoke too much already; get thee gone.” Investigators must always recall the instances of wrongful convictions, and how many were brought about by tunnel vision in that the case seemed to be focused on one precise suspect and the police only wished to receive information moving that theory forward.

Consider these further examples that I selected with a view of defending my ultimate suggestion that no source of information can be ignored, and the witness need not be of royal descent to claim this right.

Richard
I'll prove the contrary if you'll hear me speak.

York.
Thou canst not, son; it is impossible. [1-ii-18]

…

Queen Margaret.
Why, how now, long-tongued Warwick!

dare you speak? [2-ii-106]

…

King Henry. I prithee, give no limits to my tongue;

I am a king, and privileg'd to speak. [2-ii-119]

…

King Edward.
… Answer no more ... King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 3, sc. ii, l. 105.

Qualifiers – ensure you have sought out and noted all

Noteworthy in the message that follows is the qualifier “with disdain”. The careful investigator will convey to the person being interviewed the need for precision in this regard. Consider: “These were her words, utt'red with mild disdain: 'Tell him, in hope he'll prove a widower shortly, I'll wear the willow garland for his sake.'” Both the quotation and the qualifier must be as fully accurate as one’s memory permits if no note was made at the relevant time. See Act 4, sc. i, l. 95.

Quotations – accuracy displayed by use of quote marks

Many forces require this simple but sound safeguard and I know of no reason not to resort to this demonstration of accuracy. Consider: “Messenger. 'Tell him' quoth she 'my mourning weeds are done, And I am ready to put armour on.'” King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 4, sc. i, l. 98. Consider as well:

Messenger.
He, more incens'd against your majesty
Than all the rest, discharg'd me with these words:
'Tell him from me that he hath done me wrong,
And therefore I'll uncrown him ere 't be long.'

King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 4, sc. i, l. 109.

Time to think – you cannot force a witness to respond quickly, as on a game show, but you must assess the time taken to respond

In other words, you cannot insist that a witness responds as Warwick wishes in the example that follows: “… Speak suddenly, my lords, are we all friends?” King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 4, sc. ii, l. 3-4. Witnesses are always at liberty to ponder their responses, and to consult a lawyer if they wish. It is not a form of obstruct justice for a person to say that they wish to obtain legal advice.

Judgment to be shown by investigators

Act early and decisively before situation out of control

This is the lesson taught in the passage that follows: “Clarence. A little fire is quickly trodden out, Which, being suffer’d, rivers cannot quench.” King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 4, sc. viii, l. 7.

Beware of the first element of withdrawal from proper procure, as disaster soon follows…

It is difficult to know fully what measures of discipline are to be “relaxed” in the course of trying investigations, but I have always thought in the sound judgment of the saying that follows: “Gloster [aside] But when the fox hath once got in his nose, He’ll soon find means to make the body follow.” King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 4, sc. vii, l. 24.

Caution in not seeing more than is properly before you

The example in the play is expressed by Clarence who cautions against exaggeration: “… For every cloud engenders not a storm.” See Act 5, sc. iii, l. 14.

Discretion in informing witnesses of the importance of their information

Human nature is such that witnesses are always curious to know if their information is vital and those closely affected by the crime are even more interested in the progress of the investigation. I suggest that you avoid stating anything of the nature of what King Henry did at Act 1, sc. i, l. 164: “O Clifford, how thy words revive my heart!” The neutral witness ought not to receive any hint that their information is important as it may lead to exaggeration when next provided and if they are told that it is of little value, they may likewise inflate it when next questioned. As for interested parties or witnesses associated to the victim(s), I recall a bar owner asking me as the part-time prosecutor (early in my career) how the case “was going” involving persons reportedly guilty of assaulting his door attendant. When I stated that the witnesses called so far were not helpful given their degree of intoxication, he responded “I can get you sober ones if that will help!”.

Thus, it is wise to limit information as to what witnesses have stated, before trial, and to closely conform to witness exclusion orders at trial. That is different from investigators providing “comfort” information such as discussing how many officers are assisting in a search, or the existence of witness assistance programs. In that vein, consider this passage wherein Queen Margaret stated: “Those gracious words revive my drooping
thoughts …” [3-iii-21]

Errors, in initial views, must keep open mind about possible

Consider the example provided by Lady Grey: “Why, then, you mean not as I thought you did.” King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 3, sc. ii, l. 65. One would be foolish to think that every one of our initial views resists second thoughts.

Human nature – parents protect their children, etc.

Although no authority is needed to support the general proposition that parents will do their utmost to shelter their young, and investigators must always be wary of the natural human trait that love may distort the wish and inclination of normal law-abiding citizens to assist the authorities discover lawbreakers, I do propose to quote three passages from the play. In this context, consider firstly this passage from 2-ii-17: “Clifford. The smallest worm will turn, being trodden on, And doves will peck in safeguard of their brood …” And, secondly: “Clifford. … Make war with him that climb'd unto their nest, Offering their own lives in their young's defence? …” See 2-ii-28. Lastly:

KING EDWARD.
Now tell me, madam, do you love your children?

LADY GREY.
Ay, full as dearly as I love myself.

KING EDWARD.
And would you not do much to do them good?

LADY GREY.
To do them good I would sustain some harm.

King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 3, sc. ii, l. 36.

Human nature – fear of the police when have offended

In suggesting that persons might fear the police, I look to this quotation: “Gloster Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind; The thief doth fear each bush [hides] an officer”. King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 5, sc. vi, l. 11-12.

Human nature – time might bring about changed perspectives in the hearts and minds of victims

Investigators must be mindful that the passage of time may result in witnesses adopting a more benign if not altogether favourable perspective of one whose actions might have been expected to result in some acrimony or dislike. Hence:

Queen Margaret

Warwick, these words have turn'd my hate to love;
And I forgive and quite forget old faults… [3-iii-197]

Human nature – woe is me!

It is a fact of life that some persons are more prone to exaggerate their difficulties than are most of their peers, and investigators must take care to assess fairly if the person they are interviewing falls within that category. Consider this example in his context: “King Henry. … Was ever king so griev'd for subjects' woe? Much is your sorrow, mine ten times so much.” Act 2, sc. v, l. 116.

Literary and Biblical allusions to be kept to a minimum

I am mindful of the delicious irony when I suggest that you ought to converse with potential witnesses by means of simple language, as you are then best able to judge their true understanding of what is being discussed. Too often, references that are Euro-centric are misunderstood or serve to create barriers. For example, how many persons truly understand this phrase: “… To say the truth, so Judas kiss'd his Master,
And cried, all hail! when as he meant all harm.” See King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 5, sc. vii, l. 33.

Novel situation – interest and resolve in pursuing

This is what I found Edward to state: “'T is wondrous strange, the like yet never heard of …” Refer to King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 2, sc. i, l. 33. It makes plain that an investigator is entitled to be dubious of a novel statement, but one must exercise correct judgment in pursuing apparently unprecedented statements. Consider the famous dingo case investigation in Australia that led to a murder conviction when, in fact, the child had been taken by an animal, as suggested by the parents who were charged. Reference Under s.433A of the Criminal Code by the Attorney-General for the Northern Territory of Australia of Convictions of Alice Lynne Chamberlain and Michael Leigh Chamberlain No. CA2 of 1988 Courts and Judges – Criminal Law – Statute, [1988] NTSC 64].

Oaths that are not respected

Consider this great example of what you might encounter with your first investigation, consigned at 1-ii-16:

Edward.
But for a kingdom any oath may be broken;
I would break a thousand oaths to reign one year.

I do not suggest that you must treat every witness as a perjurer, far from it, but merely that caution must be at the forefront of your thinking, and the need for caution increases in keeping with the seriousness of the offence or the proximity of the witness to the person being investigated.

That said, I set out other relevant examples drawn from the play. The first is an example of “weasel words” in which a person attempts to justify their lack of integrity by reference to some suggested technicality.

Richard
An oath is of no moment, being not took
Before a true and lawful magistrate … [1-ii-18]

A second type is set out below and involves the sort of justification that “you ought not to be so high and mighty as you have done worse before!” The following dialogue is apposite:

King Henry.
But did you never swear, and break an oath?

2 Keeper.

No, never such an oath; nor will not now. [3-i-72]

Lastly, consider how the reference to “forswear”, meaning to take back one’s sworn statement, has evolved from sin to not a great concern: “Queen Margaret: “Ay, but thou usest to forswear thyself; 'T was sin before, but now 't is charity…” Refer to Act 5, sc. v, l. 75-76.

Patience

Contrary to what Clifford stated, that “Patience is for poltroons …”, patience is often rewarded by impressive results for investigators who hesitate to act until such time as they possess all the available information and have assessed it to its full value. Of course, if there is no time for calm deliberation, then immediate action will be justified. [King Henry 6 (Part 3), Act 1, sc. i, l. 61] and Gloster’s comment at 4-v-18: “Brother, the time and case requireth haste …”

The difference in the two course of actions often rests on a cool head, so to speak, in which one can quickly assess whether there is an opportunity for patient evaluation of the situation. What must be avoided is what is described by Queen Margaret, firstly at 1-iv-90: “Why art thou patient, man? thou shouldst be mad …” and later at 1-i-215: “Who can be patient in such extremes?” Being mad, upset, unable to think coolly, are all situations that successful investigators avoid. I add that the passage that follows could be interpreted favourably as counselling patience, if the paper referenced contained some justification for it:

King Lewis.
What! has your king married the Lady Grey,
And now, to soothe your forgery and his,
Sends me a paper to persuade me patience? …

King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 3, sc. iii, l. 177.

I close by remarking that at times, as stated by King Edward “… haste is needful in this desperate case…” See Act 4, sc. i, l. 126. Refer also to Act 5, sc. i, l. 49: “Gloster … strike now, or else the iron cools.”

React immediately and correctly to developments

As in the situation described by Warwick, at time, “… the case is alter'd …” and your judgment will be tested in terms of how well you recalibrate the orientation of the investigation. Refer to Act 4, sc. iii, l. 33. Noteworthy as well is the phrase that follows: “King Edward. … Though fortune's malice overthrow my state, My mind exceeds the compass of her wheel. King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 4, sc. iii, l. 45.

Reason, not passion, must prevail

“Hastings … I doubt not, I, but we shall soon persuade Both him and all his brothers unto reason.” See Act 4, sc. vii, l. 33.

Reputation of the person you interview and accuse

A thorough investigation should disclose to the prosecution, and thus to the defence, the reputation enjoyed by all those who are accused, and of the principal prosecution witnesses, in fairness. Consider this passage from King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 2, sc. ii, l. 155: “Warwick. … Were he as famous and as bold in war As he is fam'd for mildness, peace, and prayer.” Although an indirect insult, reputation evidence is set out in the quote.

Stressors, investigators seek out what may have led to violence

Many stressors may be investigated to discern a reason for a violent offence, including a perhaps hasty step in establishing a business, or a relationship. This is not to suggest that sudden important steps are going to fail and lead to violent confrontations, far from it, merely that the play illustrates one potential scenario. “Gloster. … Yet hasty marriage seldom proveth well.” King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 4, sc. i, l. 18.

“Talk is cheap” – focus on the results

This suggestion is found in the words of Lady Grey: “'T is better said than done, my gracious lord …” King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 3, sc. ii, l. 89. Consider this in the context of confidential informants promising certain things…

Trust – not an easy thing to regain once lost

Queen Elizabeth stares: “… For trust not him that hath once broken faith …” King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 4, sc. iv, l. 30. The reality is that you may have to trust one, especially an offender, who was untrustworthy before. You must depend upon your best judgment.

Truth is what you seek

The words spoken by Warwick, quoted below, express well your vital task: you do not judge the truth of what your investigation discloses, since you do not possess the means or the mandate to do so, but you vouch implicitly that it is not unworthy of belief, as your duty is to promote what you sincerely believe to be well-founded truth. Thus: “… I cannot judge; but, to conclude with truth …” See Act 2, sc. i, l. 127.

Professionalism

Abuse from the persons whom you investigate

The example that follows is quite instructive of one only of the unpleasant aspects of your career, and for which you must demonstrate stoicism as a badge of your professionalism:

CLIFFORD.
So cowards fight when they can fly no further;

So doves do peck the falcon's piercing talons;

So desperate thieves, all hopeless of their lives,

Breathe out invectives 'gainst the officers. [1-iv-40]

Abuse of the person you are questioning or investigating

Consider “Clarence. As well as Lewis of France, or the Earl of Warwick, Which are so weak of courage and in judgment That they'll take no offence at our abuse.” You are the person who will know if you crossed the line! See King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 4, sc. i, l. 11-14.

Delays in your work

Many of Shakespeare’s plays refer to delay and the law, notably Hamlet’s soliloquy at Act 3, sc. i, l. 74. In this play, King Henry states: “… I have not stopp'd mine ears to their demands Nor posted off their suits with slow delays …” King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 4, sc. viii, l. 39. For present purposes, please consider that any unexplained delays may well result in an adverse conclusion in terms of Charter motions for a stay by reason of delay.

“Excuse making”

We read at Act 2, sc. vi, l. 68, “Warwick. Clifford, devise excuses for thy faults.” I suggest that the true professional investigator will not spend much time devising excuses for lack of success but will invest further energy in hard work. Indeed, if anything, they find courage and renewed energy in the challenge that difficulties pose, as suggested in the passage that follows from King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 3, sc. i, l. 25: “King Henry. Let me embrace thee, sour adversity; For wise men say it is the wisest course.”

“Fuel to the fire” – do not provoke or demean those you arrest

King Edward observed wisely: “… I need not add more fuel to your fire…” King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 5, sc. iv, l. 70. It is suggested that true professionals never add any element of personal glee or wisecracks to the fact of an arrest.

Honour always

Unlike what Warwick states at Act 4, sc. iii, l. 23, “… honour now or never!”, your honour is always a primary fact of your professionalism.

Legal requirements must always be complied with – entering a residence

Investigators and all police officers must reject what is said next by the King: “… By fair or foul means we must enter in …”. King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 4, sc. vii, l. 14-15.

Realism always

King Edward states at Act 4, sc. iii, l. 58: “What fates impose, that men [and women] must needs abide; It boots not to resist both wind and tide.” This is sound advice for those whose case is unraveling. Never blame others or fail to accept responsibility, if it is yours to assume.

Respect for the role of the courts

On occasion, police officers are quoted in the media as saying in effect what is set out below as to the leniency of the courts. I leave it to each officer to judge whether it is professional to criticize judges if they are applying the law.

Clifford.
For what doth cherish weeds but gentle air?
And what makes robbers bold but too much lenity?
King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 2, sc. vi, l. 21.

Rest is your right as an investigator, and only you can demonstrate your need and how the case may suffer otherwise

Police officers do not seek to claim much needed rest far too often, in my experience, citing the needs of the investigation. I can only say that if mistakes occur, your decision to not rest might result in blame… In this regard, I quote: “Warwick. Forspent with toil, as runners with a race, I lay me down a little while to breathe; For strokes receiv'd, and many blows repaid, Have robb'd my strong-knit sinews of their strength, And, spite of spite, needs must I rest awhile.” King Henry 6 (Part 3) Act 2, sc. iii, l. 1. [Emphasis added]

A further quote of interest follows, setting out the ideal situation for investigators:

Right is the only form of might

What King Henry states at Act 2, sc. ii, l. 62 is what all police officers must comply with in every task they undertake: “Edward Plantagenet, arise a knight; And learn this lesson - draw thy sword in right.” In other words, the great rights you possess, including arrest, are only justified by your sacred duty not to act without right being on your side, to use chivalric language.

Victory? The Crown never wins

It is important that investigators not adopt the language of sports or politics respecting winners and … The Crown never wins – it merely satisfies the heavy onus of proof it must discharge. I do not say that you take no satisfaction from your efforts on behalf of justice, far from it, especially in challenging cases, such as when you are “… harder match'd …”, as noted at Act 5, sc. i, l. 70. In the final analysis, your victory is in complying with your oath and in acting as a professional in helping to absolve the innocent and charge the guilty.

Conclusion

I begin my closing remarks by repeating a very famous quote found towards the end of the play, at Act 5, sc. iv, l. 83: “Queen Margaret. … You fight in justice … Be valiant.” It is the best method of proclaiming the importance of your task. In addition, I hasten to add that I disagree with King Henry’s remarks at Act 2, sc. v., l. 20, to the effect that “… what is in this world but grief and woe?” That said, what evil there is must be combatted by police officers and I am hopeful that these quotes and suggestions will assist police investigators in their vitally important work. That said, King Edward promised his soldiers “large pay” [4-vii-87] at the end of their day of duty – for all I know, perhaps these comments will assist you to qualify you for a pay increase…

[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 (3)” or to “the play”. As for the citations, Act 2, sc. ii, l. 2 may be referenced as 2-ii-2.

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

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