POLICE INVESTIGATIONS 101
LESSONS FROM SHAKESPEARE’S PERICLES, PRINCE OF TYRE
Gilles Renaud | Ontario Court Of Justice (Retired)
INTRODUCTION
In this article, I document the various elements of guidance and instruction from Shakespeare’s play Pericles, Prince of Tyre that may result in enhanced excellence in investigative work. Briefly stated, 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:
1) We are not capable of assessing accurately what thoughts a person may be entertaining by means of their facial expression, and
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 – elements of this form of evidence
Blush
PERICLES. … those men
Blush not in actions blacker than the night … [1-i]
PERICLES. … If he suspect I may dishonour him:
And what may make him blush in being known … [1-ii]
BOULT.
O, take her home, mistress, take her home: these blushes of hers must be quenched with some present practice. [4-ii]
Brow
PERICLES. … Helicanus, thou
Hast moved us: what seest thou in our looks?
HELICANUS. An angry brow, dread lord. [1-ii]
Cheeks
PERICLES.
[Emotions] Drew sleep out of mine eyes, blood from
my cheeks … [1-ii]
Eyes
PERICLES. … The sad companion, dull-eyed melancholy … [1-ii]
Face
PERICLES. … Her face the book of praises, where is read
Nothing but … [1-i]
PERICLES.
If there be such a dart in princes’ frowns,
How durst thy tongue move anger to our face? [1-ii]
Looks
GOWER - … grim looks do testify. [1-opening words]
PERICLES. … Helicanus, thou
Hast moved us: what seest thou in our looks?
HELICANUS. An angry brow, dread lord. [1-ii]
MARINA. … and your looks foreshow
You have a gentle heart … [4-i]
Paleness
GOWER … If this be true, which makes me pale to read it? … [1-i]
Sorrow
HELICANUS.
… And doubting lest that he had err’d or sinn’d,
To show his sorrow … [1-iii]
Interviewing witnesses and potential accused – lessons from the play
Interviewing – full and complete account is required
Consider the following:
CERIMON.
I will, my lord.
Beseech you, first go with me to my house,
Where shall be shown you all was found with her;
How she came placed here in the temple;
No needful thing omitted. [5-iii]
Interviewing – haste in responding – the errors inherent in
Investigators ought not to seek responses offered in haste unless the circumstances are such that delay may bring about loss of life or injury or the furtherance of the offence as in a kidnapping or just completed offence followed by flight, etc. In most cases, haste brings about poorly thought out responses to questions. Avoid what is illustrated below:
CLEON.
… Speak out thy sorrows which thou bring’st in haste … [1-iv]
Interviewing – time limits to respond to questions
In general, there ought to be no time limits assigned to a potential witness during which a statement must be produced. Such situations lead to grievances at trial to the effect that potentially helpful information that would have supported the defence was dismissed or not heard at all. In the absence of an obvious attempt to pervert the course of justice, a slow response to questioning is of no moment, to be seen as evidence of anxiety over so unnerving a situation, Consider what ought not to be attempted:
ANTIOCHUS.
… Your time’s expired:
Either expound now, or receive your sentence. [1-i]
Interviewing – vague responses call for clarifying questions
You must pursue any vague responses in order that the prosecutor who ends up assigned with the file, if a prosecution ensues, enjoys a full understanding of the potential value of the witness. Indeed, a clarification may result in a decision to charge or not a suspect and that may be decisive in the ultimate review whether justice was achieved in that investigation. In this context, I note what follows:
FIRST FISHERMAN.
Hark you, sir, do you know where ye are?
PERICLES.
Not well. [2-i]
The next question, in modern language, is always welcome: “FIRST FISHERMAN. What mean you sir?” [2-i] A “twin” example follows: “MARINA.
What mean you?” [4-i]
Judgment that investigators must possess – lessons from the play
Judgment – acting ability, potential witnesses possess the ability to dupe investigators
In this vein, note these two references:
PERICLES. …
Few love to hear the sins they love to act … [1-i
SIMONIDES.
… Soft! here he comes: I must dissemble it. [2-v]
Judgment – agreeing with others does not mean all are correct
In many hierarchical situations, the most junior person is heard to advance their opinion first so that they are not understood to have agreed with a superior as is often case if the most senior person speaks first. In any event, it is never pleasant to be the only person who states “no” when all others vote “yes”, but it is your duty to state why you believe the others are mistaken. In this vein, noteworthy is what follows: “SIMONIDES … your choice agrees with mine …” [2-v] As noted in the title, having others agree with you is not the proof of a correct conclusion.
Judgment – “cover-up” crimes – be mindful of the danger that those already guilty will commit other crimes to avoid detection
Consider this passage in that light:
ANTIOCHUS.
He hath found the meaning,
For which we mean to have his head.
He must not live to trumpet forth my infamy,
Nor tell the world Antiochus doth sin
In such a loathed manner;
And therefore instantly this prince must die;
For by his fall my honour must keep high … [1-i]
Judgment – flattery – beware of
Flatterers tend to distort your better judgment and certain potential witnesses are quite skilled at this in order to avoid becoming accused. Exercise caution:
HELICANUS.
Peace, peace, and give experience tongue.
They do abuse the king that flatter him:
For flattery is the bellows blows up sin;
The thing the which is flatter’d, but a spark,
To which that spark gives heat and stronger glowing:
Whereas reproof, obedient and in order,
Fits kings, as they are men, for they may err.
When Signior Sooth here does proclaim peace,
He flatters you, makes war upon your life … [1-ii] [Emphasis added]
As noted, even Kings may err, and to form a team that includes members fearful of pointing out “inconvenient truths”, at best, is not true team-building, within the confines of a respectful, top-driven, orders to be followed hierarchy. In the same vein, it is hoped that investigators will be at liberty to report the same concerns to those whom they follow within a command structure. A number of Commissions of Inquiry have reported that wrongful convictions might have been avoided had junior officers been encouraged to speak when things seemed “not right” at the investigative level.
A little later, Shakespeare wrote:
PERICLES.
… thou art no flatterer:
I thank thee for it; and heaven forbid
That kings should let their ears hear their faults hid!
Fit counsellor and servant for a prince,
Who by thy wisdom makest a prince thy servant,
What wouldst thou have me do? [1-ii]
Judgment – flight - by those who are innocent?
In the world of fiction, at the very least, only innocent persons flee from a potential investigation, often to seek proof of their innocence. In the real world of police investigations, the fact is that on occasion, flight is seen as indicative of a guilty mind when this is not a universal truth. Indeed, in the case of much circumstantial evidence, it is not probative of guilt standing without more. Consider:
PERICLES.
Thou speak’st like a physician, Helicanus,
That ministers a potion unto me
That thou wouldst tremble to receive thyself.
Attend me, then: I went to Antioch,
Where, as thou know’st, against the face of death,
I sought the purchase of a glorious beauty,
From whence an issue I might propagate,
Are arms to princes, and bring joys to subjects.
Her face was to mine eye beyond all wonder;
The rest—hark in thine ear—as black as incest,
Which by my knowledge found, the sinful father
Seem’d not to strike, but smooth: but thou know’st this,
’Tis time to fear when tyrants seems to kiss.
Which fear so grew in me I hither fled,
Under the covering of a careful night,
Who seem’d my good protector … [1-ii] [Emphasis added]
Judgment – human nature – love of family and distorting facts
I do not doubt that the quote found below is accurate to the extent that is describes the devotion of many spouses (and no doubt of parents) to each other (and to their children). Acts of heroism in times of war, natural disasters, etc. are common enough and investigators must be careful not to assign undue weight to the statements of loved ones in situations in which their love towards potential suspects might overwhelm their better judgment. Thus:
CLEON.
… So sharp are hunger’s teeth, that man and wife
Draw lots who first shall die to lengthen life … [1-iv]
Judgment – judge not a book by its cover
This well known saying applies to your work and you should avoid granting too much weight to the words of the apparently sophisticated potential witnesses and too little to those who appear to be fundamental, if not blunted, in their development. I recall well that as an Assistant Crown Attorney, I called to the stand a young high school student who seemed unsophisticated and quite uninterested in what was going on in Court, with the hope that he could repeat in Court what he told the investigator, about seeing a car leave the driveway where a break-in had occurred. If I could get this information, I could attempt to link the car that was stopped by the police not far away, with the accused at the wheel. I only asked the most basic of questions, having totally misjudged this “Rainmain” kind of person. Thankfully, the defence lawyer did me a favour by trying to confuse the young witness by means of questions showing that there were cars leaving that house all the time. This provided this “genius” with the opportunity to recite the plate information from the car, as well as the make and model. When asked by the accused’s lawyer why he did not say this to the police, he stated: “No one asked me.” In this context, I note:
FIRST LORD.
He had need mean better than his outward show
Can any way speak in his just commend;
For by his rusty outside he appears
To have practised more the whipstock than the lance.
[2-ii] [Emphasis added]
Later on, we read:
SIMONIDES.
Opinion’s but a fool, that makes us scan
The outward habit by the inward man … [2-ii]
Judgment – oath – of what value in the ultimate analysis?
Consider this interesting illustration of the relative strength of oaths:
PERICLES.
… I’ll take thy word for faith, not ask thine oath:
Who shuns not to break one will sure crack both … [1-ii]
Judgment – “pride cometh before the fall”
Investigators must understand that many witnesses are more concerned with avoiding injury to their good name than in advancing justice, or are convinced of the righteousness of their actions and incapable of introspection. In the result, their statements may be less than reliable. Thus:
CLEON.
O Dionyza,
Who wanteth food, and will not say he wants it,
Or can conceal his hunger till he famish?
Our tongues and sorrows do sound deep
Our woes into the air; our eyes do weep … [1-iv]
And later:
CLEON.
… All poverty was scorn’d, and pride so great,
The name of help grew odious to repeat. [1-iv]
Judgment – reliability of would-be witnesses is always relevant
Investigators may not limit their analysis to the honesty or the sincerity of witnesses. They must also be quite concerned with their reliability, the best example being the merits of identification evidence. In this context, note that what is said by Gower before Act 3, scene i, makes plain that persons who hear may not have heard fully, or fairly understood, what was said: “… Conveniently the rest convey [communicate]; Which might not what by me is told. In your imagination hold …” [in the sense of retain in your memory].
Judgment – supporting information
One always wishes evidence to be supported. Thus:
PERICLES.
… For truth can never be confirm’d enough,
Though doubts did ever sleep. [5-i]
Judgment – trust – can anyone be trusted?
Investigators must make many such decisions in all manner of investigations and they ought to consider the wisdom of consulting their peers and those with greater experience in terms of the issue(s) in play. There are potential witnesses who seek to deceive and there are those whose potential evidence is unreliable, but without malice or design. Thus:
CLEON.
Thou speak’st like him’s untutor’d to repeat:
Who makes the fairest show means most deceit … [1-iv]
As in the case so many elements of human nature, one cannot judge by means of absolute statements in the sense of “never – always believe relatives, friends, bowlers, Maple Leaf fans …” It is always a question of judgment based on the information at your disposal.
Judgment – truth is stranger than fiction
This further illustration may be useful:
MARINA.
If I should tell my history, it would seem
Like lies disdain’d in the reporting. [5-i]
Professionalism that investigators must display – lessons from this play
Professionalism – advice, always seek the counsel of others
It is never wise, and seldom useful, to disdain the counsel of more experienced colleagues. As we read at the start of the play: “ANTIOCHUS. Scorning advice … PERICLES Like a bold champion, I assume the lists, Nor ask advice of any other thought …” [1-i]
Professionalism – CCTV observation of innocent behaviour
Shakespeare appears to have anticipated the current situation in which all of our outdoor actions may be viewed and recorded, a development that fosters the potential for the police to protect the community but not without some dangers to the privacy interests of all, a reality that police officers must consider. Thus:
PERICLES … O you powers
That give heaven countless eyes to view men’s acts,
Why cloud they not their sights perpetually … [1-i]
Professionalism – “courtesy to cover sin”
Investigators must always be mindful of the dangers that are found when they, or those under their authority, appear to act as do hypocrites, such as those who smoke in their vehicles or other banned areas to immediately remonstrate with others who engage in the same conduct. Worse yet, they do so in an exaggerated fashion, to appear to have undertaken their tasks without hint of prejudice or bias.
PERICLES.
How courtesy would seem to cover sin,
When what is done is like an hypocrite … [1-i]
Professionalism – crimes engenders crime
Investigators must consider the degree by which misconduct fosters greater misconduct, in accordance with the modern expression of “policing broken windows. Consider:
PERICLES.
… One sin, I know, another doth provoke;
Murder’s as near to lust as flame to smoke:
Poison and treason are the hands of sin … [1-i]
Professionalism – defend the community is a vocation
There is no greater calling than to be tasked with the defence of society at large and you hold the front lines of this essential vocation. The play offers this illustration:
THAISA.
… The word, Lux tua vita mihi.
SIMONIDES.
He loves you well that holds his life of you. [2-ii]
Professionalism – grief – how to best assist those wrestling with
I confess that I have never known how best to address those who are struggling with grief. On many occasions in my 40-year career involving criminal cases, I have seen experienced and wise judges, lawyers and police officers inform those who have suffered great loss that they cannot begin to understand the depth of their sorrow. Often, they added: “I regret that these proceedings will only add to your suffering and will not return your loved one to you [or to health …] but no one will take for granted your loss etc.” In this context, note the following:
CLEON.
My Dionyza, shall we rest us here,
And by relating tales of others’ griefs,
See if ’twill teach us to forget our own?
DIONYZA.
That were to blow at fire in hope to quench it;
For who digs hills because they do aspire
Throws down one mountain to cast up a higher.
O my distressed lord, even such our griefs are;
Here they’re but felt, and seen with mischief’s eyes,
But like to groves, being topp’d, they higher rise. [1-iv]
Professionalism – harms come in waves
The modern reality is the fear that a first incident, that may appear to be innocent in nature such as a gas explosion or an accidental collision involving a plane or vehicle in a crowded place, leads to the presence of first responders and then a second incident follows. The resulting explosion or attack reveals the terrorist nature of the entire set of events. The play refers to this type of concern as follows:
CLEON.
… One sorrow never comes but brings an heir,
That may succeed as his inheritor;
And so in ours: some neighbouring nation,
Taking advantage of our misery,
That stuff’d the hollow vessels with their power,
To beat us down, the which are down already;
And make a conquest … [1-iv]
Professionalism – “keep good alive” is an excellent description
Investigators are devoted to achieving the modern version of the task described in archaic language, without the capital violence, it goes without saying. Thus:
GOWER.
Good Helicane …
... for though he strive
To killen bad, keep good alive … [2-i] [Emphasis added]
Professionalism – listen and accept all sources of information
There is no group within society that cannot contribute to the store of knowledge that investigators may amass as to what is taking place on the street level and many groups are able to analyze the many “big pictures” and their contributions ought to be sought. In this context, consider what follows:
PERICLES.
[Aside.] How from the finny subject of the sea
These fishers tell the infirmities of men;
And from their watery empire recollect
All that may men approve or men detect! …
Professionalism - patience – allowing full reports to be made
Consider this example:
HELICANUS.
To bear with patience
Such griefs as you yourself do lay upon yourself. [1-ii]
Professionalism – protecting victims and would-be victims – reminding them of potential dangers
It is suggested, with the aid of the illustration found below, that would-be victims and those who have already suffered, might become somewhat lax in following your safety recommendations by reason of the common psychology of “too soon forgetting the past”. You must respond by reminding them of the merits of prudence and her cousin, vigilance. Hence:
PERICLES. …
Then it is thus: the passions of the mind,
That have their first conception by misdread,
Have after-nourishment and life by care;
And what was first but fear what might be done,
Grows elder now and cares it be not done … [1-ii]
Professionalism – repeating terrible words, or actions, without a viable purpose, is to be avoided
On occasion, one reads of a sports star or entertainer who is said by the police to have uttered the words “…” and that these comments, though vile or disrespectful, did not amount to a hate crime or other offence. The result is teaching new slurs to those who did not know of them and in repeating to others insults of the worst nature that might have been forgotten. If no crime is committed, ought the words be repeated? In this context, note:
PERICLES.
… Who has a book of all that monarchs do,
He’s more secure to keep it shut than shown:
For vice repeated is like the wandering wind,
Blows dust in others’ eyes, to spread itself …
[1-i] [Emphasis added]
Professionalism – respect is to be earned each day, each case
Investigators must always earn their laurels and you must strive to continue to excel. As a young judge, I was told I had to be perfect on my first day and to improve thereafter! In this context, allow me to quote the following:
SIMONIDES.
It’s fit it should be so; for princes are
A model, which heaven makes like to itself:
As jewels lose their glory if neglected,
So princes their renowns if not respected … [2-ii]
Professionalism – search and seizure described by Shakespeare
It is not without interest to reproduce the lines that follow, found before scene I of Act 3 and said by Gower:
… Of Pericles the careful search,
By the four opposing coigns [corners]
Which the world together joins,
Is made with all due diligence …
Professionalism – social rank is irrelevant to justice
Investigators must seek out the truth in respect to allegations of wrongdoing without favour or concern for the so-called standing of those to be interviewed and potentially charged. In this context, note what follows:
SECOND FISHERMAN.
Help, master, help! here’s a fish hangs in the net, like a poor man’s right in the law; ’twill hardly come out. … [2-i]
Professionalism – “stake out” – a feline-based illustration
I know of no legal judgement that best explains and expresses what police investigators describe when they “engage in surveillance” of a person or place: “GOWER … The cat, with [eyes] of burning coal, Now couches fore the mouse’s hole …” [3-i]
Professionalism – subjective nature of your interpretations of the acts of those you investigate
The quote that follows must be understood, for our instructional purposes, as referencing police and their authority to apply the laws. The danger is that too subjective a view is taken of laws that permit wide discretion, to bring about unfair application of the law’s net, so to speak, that harms certain groups for no objective reason. And, as well, that the police will not investigate fairly their colleagues. Thus:
PERICLES.
… Kind are earth’s gods; in vice their law’s their will;
And if Jove stray, who dares say Jove doth ill? … [1-i]
Professionalism – “telling the Emperor he is naked!”
You require that those who report to you do so in neutral, objective terms and if they believe you are pursuing a foolish path, you should be receptive to all manner of information and advice, including the ultimate mutual courage to state (and consider) the famous words penned by Hans Christian Anderson. In this context, please note:
HELICANUS.
… For flattery is the bellows blows up sin;
The thing the which is flatter’d, but a spark,
To which that spark gives heat and stronger glowing:
Whereas reproof, obedient and in order,
Fits kings, as they are men, for they may err. … [1-ii]
Noteworthy as well is this quote:
HELICANUS.
Well, my lord, since you have given me leave to speak,
Freely will I speak. … [1-ii]
Professionalism – “thanks be to the police!”
It will always be gratifying to receive heart-felt thanks for your dedication to justice but let not the seeming absence of outward manifestations of gratitude jade your view of your vital tasks. Some are stoics, some cannot overcome their grief no matter your best efforts at succeeding in having the culprit tried and convicted etc. See this quote at the end of the First Act, at scene iv:
CLEON.
The which when any shall not gratify,
Or pay you with unthankfulness in thought …
Refer as well to this quote: “THAISA. My recompense is thanks, that’s all …” [3-iv]
Professionalism – victim blaming – to be eliminated from your thoughts and practices
The play begins at Act 1 with a description by Gower of the terrible crime of incest committed by the King in which his female child victim is referenced as being complicit in this offence, if not the instigating party! This vile attitude of blaming the victim to any degree is to be denounced! The opening lines include these remarks that require the strongest condemnation, and no element of this perversion of thought or action in which the blameless are criticized must infect your investigations:
Bad child; worse father! to entice his own
To evil should be done by none:
But custom what they did begin
Was with long use account’d no sin.
Professionalism – who will police the police?
Refer to “Professionalism – subjective nature of your interpretations of the acts of those you investigate”.
Conclusion
It is fitting to end by quoting from Act 2, scene I, wherein the First Fisherman explains how fish “survive” by stating: “Why, as men do a-land; the great ones eat up the little ones …” and it is part of your duty to protect all of the vulnerable individuals within your area of responsibility. In this context, consider how Pericles lived by the standard described next, and the police stand for the “you” reference below:
SIMONIDES.
A pretty moral;
From the dejected state wherein he is,
He hopes by you his fortunes yet may flourish. [2-ii]