POLICE INVESTIGATIONS 101

LESSONS FROM SHAKESPEARE’S ROMEO AND JULIET

Gilles Renaud | Ontario Court Of Justice (Retired)

INTRODUCTION

In this article, I document the various elements of guidance and instruction from the classic play Romeo and Juliet that may result in enhanced excellence in investigative work.

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.”[1] 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?[2]

In this contribution, 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 best achieved, in part at least, by analyzing this excellent play.

DISCUSSION

Demeanour evidence as a guide to investigators

General introduction

Justice O'Halloran cautioned against the fear that a good actor might hoodwink the Court (and His Lordship would have added “the investigator” had he been asked) in Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 (B.C.C.A.), at para. 10. Refer as well to para. 46 of the judgment of Ryan J. A. in R. v. Sue, 2011 B.C.C.A. 91, to demonstrate the ongoing vitality of this judgment:

46 There are a number of cases which caution judges not to rely too heavily on demeanour in determining credibility. As stated by O'Halloran J.A. in the frequently cited case from this Court, Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 at paras. 10 …:

[10] If a trial Judge's finding of credibility is to depend solely on which person he thinks made the better appearance of sincerity in the witness box, we are left with a purely arbitrary finding and justice would then depend upon the best actors in the witness box. On reflection it becomes almost axiomatic that the appearance of telling the truth is but one of the elements that enter into the credibility of the evidence of a witness. Opportunities for knowledge, powers of observation, judgment and memory, ability to describe clearly what he has seen and heard, as well as other factors, combine to produce what is called credibility, and cf. Raymond v. Bosanquet (1919), 50 D.L.R. 560 at p. 566, 59 S.C.R. 452 at p. 460, 17 O.W.N. 295. A witness by his manner may create a very unfavourable impression of his truthfulness upon the trial Judge, and yet the surrounding circumstances in the case may point decisively to the conclusion that he is actually telling the truth. I am not referring to the comparatively infrequent cases in which a witness is caught in a clumsy lie.

Demeanour – body language observed closely to judge if it “matches” the words spoken

Consider a first example taken from another play, King Henry VI (Part1): “Plantagenet. Meantime your cheeks do counterfeit our roses; For pale they look with fear, as witnessing The truth on our side.” Refer to Act 2, sc. iv, l. 62. In effect, I imagine that you as the investigator are speaking, and that you are stating to the person you are interviewing: “your words and your demeanour are fighting each other as what you say is denied by your pale cheeks and fearful expression. In short, your face shows that you are caught in a lie!”

A further useful example follows of the appearance of the witness as a form of “lie-detector”. Refer again to King Henry VI (Part1), at 2-iv-64:

Somerset.

No, Plantagenet,
'Tis not for fear but anger that thy cheeks
Blush for pure shame to counterfeit our roses,
And yet thy tongue will not confess thy error.

Demeanour – What Shakespeare teaches us in Macbeth

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 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 – We all judge the looks of others, on a day-to-day basis, not just investigators

That demeanour is the stuff of day-to-day observations and judgments is supported by the quote that follows: “Polixenes. The king hath on him such a countenance …” See The Winter’s Tale – Act 1, sc. ii, l. 368.

Demeanour - Assuming a look, a countenance, to trick the person being spoken to

Goneril. Put on what weary negligence you please,
You and your fellows. I'd have it come to question.

With these words, at l. 517-518 of Act 1, sc. iii, of King Lear, Goneril invites her servant and his staff to deceive the King, her father, and obviously intends that they do so both by their inaction in following his orders and by their appearance in not showing any interest in their duties. That is the subtle nature of demeanour evidence as it goes hand in hand with words and objective actions such as holding out one’s hand to shake, for example, in a greeting in which a broad smile is visible. At all events, the Lady then states, at Act 1, sc. iii, l. 528-529 of that play: “Goneril. And let his knights have colder looks among you. …” In other words, a person may easily adopt a guise or a look, and demeanour, after all, is a form of communication that can be resorted to at will. The example that follows is in keeping with this line of thought: “Duke of Cornwall. This is some fellow Who, having been prais'd for bluntness, doth affect A saucy roughness …” Refer to Act 2, sc. ii, l. 1165.

Further about one’s ability to assume a certain element of demeanour, in our case involving a witness who seeks falsely to convince the listener, consider the passage that follows as support for this proposition:

Cassius. You are dull, Casca; and those sparks of life

That should be in a Roman you do want,

Or else you use not. You look pale and gaze

And put on fear and cast yourself in wonder,

[Julius Caesar, Act 1, sc. iii, l. 57-60] [Emphasis added]

Demeanour – Changes in manners and demeanour of persons that are being investigated

Refer to the passage found below, from Act 4, sc. ii, l. 13-19 of Julius Caesar, as a useful example:

Brutus. He is not doubted. A word, Lucilius,

Howhe receiv'd you: let me be resolv'd.

Lucilius With courtesy and with respect enough;

But not with such familiar instances,

Nor with such free and friendly conference,

As he hath us'd of old.

A careful investigator will wish to assess closely such elements as it might suggest that the parties thought to be on friendly terms are no longer and this might open fruitful investigative avenues.

Demeanour – Testimony, as a form of

At the outset, consider this example: “Oliver. This was not counterfeit: there is too great testimony in your complexion that it was a passion of earnest.” As You Like It, Act 4, sc. iii, l. 167-169. In other words, an investigator at their office may “read” the face of a witness and conclude how credible and / or reliable are the words spoken.

Demeanour – Multiple elements “on display” at once

Consider this example from our featured As You Like It: “Oliver. … but should I anatomize him to thee as he is, I must blush and weep and thou must look pale and wonder.” [1-i-146]

Demeanour – Acting, putting on the element(s) to convince

Consider this excellent example from As You Like It: “Orlando … I thought that all things had been savage here; And therefore put I on the countenance Of stern commandment. … [2-vii-107] Consider as well: “Phebe … Now counterfeit to swoon; why now fall down…” [3-v-16]

Demeanour - Further dangers of demeanour evidence

Introduction: Investigators must be mindful that a person's thoughts are not always revealed by their looks

I begin by focusing attention on our general inability to read thoughts by means of the facial features of others, by pointing to contrary authority. In effect, I acknowledge that many insist that we are capable of inviting fact finders to "read the thoughts" of others on their face, as did Shakespeare in Macbeth, Act I, scene V: "Your face, my thane, is as a book where men May read strange matters." In fact, Macbeth's features made plain his anxiety. I suggest that the fact that a witness is anxious or stressed may reflect little more than the anxiety associated with being in your office at the police station. It is, after all, a strange place for most individuals. More to he point, that the stress demonstrated by a witness, including the defendant, did not betray fear that the information provided is false and will be rejected, but rather the real concern that true testimony will not be accepted as it should be.

Indeed, is it not a plain truth that how others react to a certain situation is not capable of any universal rule or formula? Take the question of tears. Is the witness-accused breaking down in your office because of a realization that the doors to prison await, although he or she is innocent? In this light, note that in Macbeth, the son of the slain king states that he has not yet had time to weep in sorrow, in light of the circumstances: "... Let 's away; Our tears are not yet brew'd." See Act II, scene III.

A great number of further examples might be offered in attempting to demonstrate to detectives the soundness of the proposition that outward demonstrations of facial demeanour are simply too unreliable as bedrocks for any precise conclusions. I think it best to group these along thematic lines, for ease of consideration, always being mindful that each of these "tells" is easily capable of being feigned. The play Romeo and Juliet will be featured, of course, but other relevant examples will referenced.

The elements of demeanour evidence

Blushing

The opposite of pallour is blushing and thus Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene II, consigns these remarks:

ROMEO

I am too bold, 'tis not to me she speaks:
Two of the fairest stars in all the heaven,
Having some business, do entreat her eyes
To twinkle in their spheres till they return.
What if her eyes were there, they in her head?
The brightness of her cheek would shame those stars.

Subsequently, we read in Romeo and Juliet, also at Act II, scene II:

JULIET

Thou know'st the mask of night is on my face, Else would a maiden blush bepaint my cheek

This theme is also pursued in Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene V:

Nurse

Then hie you hence to Friar Laurence' cell;
There stays a husband to make you a wife:
Now comes the wanton blood up in your cheeks,
They'll be in scarlet straight at any news.

How does an investigator take into account the fact that a witness blushed? The duty of the detective may well be to point to it. Refer to Romeo and Juliet, Act III, scene III.

FRIAR LAURENCE

Holy Saint Francis, what a change is here! Is Rosaline, whom thou didst love so dear, So soon forsaken? young men's love then lies Not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes.

And what of one who looks too sad. As Juliet stated:

Now, good sweet nurse,--O Lord, why look'st thou sad? Though news be sad, yet tell them merrily; If good, thou shamest the music of sweet news By playing it to me with so sour a face.

Investigators must be mindful that witnesses may be seeking to deceive them (and later the courts) by means of their demeanour

Demeanour evidence remains a quite controversial area of fact finding, as evidenced by the lengthy discussion consigned in R. v. M. (T.), 2014 ONCA 854, under the title "3. Did the trial judge err by relying on the appellant's demeanour in the courtroom during the complainants' testimony to reject his evidence?", starting at para. 50, per Laskin J.A.

Consider a quotation from Romeo and Juliet, Act I, scene II. Gregory states: "I will frown as I pass by, and let them take it as they list." This simple phrase makes plain that such badges of demeanour may easily be called in aid by the actor as well as the witness. Indeed, that all badges of demeanour are capable of being perceived by third parties as a result of an effort of will. Further, on the subject of frowning, see Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene II:

JULIET

Then say, Jove laughs. O gentle Romeo, If thou dost love, pronounce it faithfully: Or if thou think'st I am too quickly won, I'll frown and be perverse an say thee nay,

Romeo and Juliet, Act III, scene II, provides a further example: "JULIET O serpent heart, hid with a flowering face!" Reference may also be usefully made to Romeo and Juliet, Act I, scene V, as to the issue of a person's ability to adopt a demeanour that may be useful in practicing a form of deception. Hence:

Capulet

Show a fair presence and put off these frowns, And ill-beseeming semblance for a feast.

Consider also Hamlet, Act III, scene I:

LORD POLONIUS

Read on this book;
That show of such an exercise may colour
Your loneliness. We are oft to blame in this,--
'Tis too much proved--that with devotion's visage
And pious action we do sugar o'er
The devil himself. [Emphasis added]

Further yet, I quote from Hamlet, Act III, scene IV: "... Yea, this solidity and compound mass, With tristful visage, as against the doom, Is thought-sick at the act." Hamlet, Act II, scene II, is also useful on the question of a witness's ability to command facial expressions, potentially to curry favour with the trier of fact. Hence:

HAMLET

... Could force his soul so to his own conce That from her working all his visage wann'd, Tears in his eyes, distraction in's aspect, A broken voice, and his whole function suiting With forms to his conceit? and all for nothing!

Demeanour evidence, as is true of all information submitted to a Court, seeks to assist the trier of fact in determining which party, if any, is true to her oath or, expressed in terms of the criminal law, is there to be found a "guilty mind". In this context, refer to Hamlet, Act I, scene I:

HORATIO

And then it started like a guilty thing Upon a fearful summons. I have heard, The cock, that is the trumpet to the morn, Doth with his lofty and shrill-sounding throat Awake the god of day; and, at his warning, Whether in sea or fire, in earth or air, The extravagant and erring spirit hies To his confine: and of the truth herein This present object made probation.

Hence, if one perceives what might be described as a "brow of woe", as in Hamlet, Act I, scene II, does this materially advance the fact finding enterprise of the Court as influenced by sound detective work? To assist the reader's understanding of the passage, it is set out below:

KING CLAUDIUS

Though yet of Hamlet our dear brother's death The memory be green, and that it us befitted To bear our hearts in grief and our whole kingdom To be contracted in one brow of woe, Yet so far hath discretion fought with nature That we with wisest sorrow think on him,

Along the same lines, what meaning, if any, may be assigned to the presence of an expression on the face of a witness? For example, in Hamlet, Act I, scene II. Shakespeare wrote of one's capacity to "read" the face of another, not unlike the ancient belief that the future was revealed in the entrails of certain birds or animals.

HAMLET

Seems, madam! nay it is; I know not 'seems.'
'Tis not alone my inky cloak, good mother,
Nor customary suits of solemn black,
Nor windy suspiration of forced breath,
No, nor the fruitful river in the eye,
Nor the dejected 'havior of the visage,
Together with all forms, moods, shapes of grief,
That can denote me truly: these indeed seem,
For they are actions that a man might play:
But I have that within which passeth show;
These but the trappings and the suits of woe.

But is it any more reliable than reading entrails, in the ultimate analysis?

Hence, the rub is two-fold: firstly, are we as judges capable of correctly perceiving whatever passed on the face of a third person, such as a frown, to then accurately interpret what it sought to denote or, by way of greater challenge, to hide? If judges cannot, in the relative quiet of the courtroom and later in our chambers, how may we ask that of detectives? I draw to your attention a passage to buttress my concerns, touching upon frowns. As we read at Act I, scene II, of Hamlet:

HORATIO
O, yes, my lord; he wore his beaver up.
HAMLET
What, look'd he frowningly?
HORATIO
A countenance more in sorrow than in anger.

How may we be sure that it was first of all a frown and it if was, whether it denoted sorrow or anger, and if so, how that reveals anything about the person in question that might be said to impeach the testimony being advanced? Investigators always wish to be in a position to convince prosecutors (and judges, eventually) that a witness "confessed" to having been less than frank based upon their countenance, but it is far from evident that this is a skill that mere mortals possess. This power is hinted at in Hamlet, Act II, scene II:

HAMLET

Why, anything, but to the purpose. You were sent for; and there is a kind of confession in your looks which your modesties have not craft enough to colour:

In time, his "friend" does admit that Hamlet's perception was accurate. Of course, Hamlet fervently hoped to obtain a confession from his uncle, as they watched what he considered a re-enactment of the murder of his father:

HAMLET

... Fie upon't! foh! About, my brain! I have heard
That guilty creatures sitting at a play
Have by the very cunning of the scene
Been struck so to the soul that presently
They have proclaim'd their malefactions;
For murder, though it have no tongue, will speak
With most miraculous organ. I'll have these players
Play something like the murder of my father
Before mine uncle: I'll observe his looks;
I'll tent him to the quick: if he but blench,
I know my course.

Refer to Hamlet, Act II, scene II and, as well, to Macbeth, Act III, scene II: "Macbeth: ... Present him eminence, both with eye and tongue: Unsafe the while, that we Must lave our honours in these flattering streams, And make our faces vizards to our hearts, Disguising what they are." Recall as well that in Romeo and Juliet, Act I, scene II. Gregory states: "I will frown as I pass by, and let them take it as they list." What if the outcome is quite disastrous when the judge "takes it as he or she listed"?

Since all badges of demeanour are capable of being perceived by third parties as a result of an effort of will, as noted, or are totally involuntary, are they of any value? I am hopeful that these pages will assist investigators in responding to this vexing question, together with the remarks that follow:

Brows

A direct reference to the brow is contained in Hamlet, Act IV, scene V:

LAERTES

That drop of blood that's calm proclaims me bastard, Cries cuckold to my father, brands the harlot Even here, between the chaste unsmirched brow Of my true mother.

Eyes

Note as well what is expressed in Romeo and Juliet, Act I, scene III, on the subject of "reading the face" by means of the eyes:

LADY CAPULET

What say you? can you love the gentleman?
This night you shall behold him at our feast;
Read o'er the volume of young Paris' face,
And find delight writ there with beauty's pen;
Examine every married lineament,
And see how one another lends content
And what obscured in this fair volume lies
Find written in the margent of his eyes.

In Romeo and Juliet, Act I, scene II, we read:

Romeo

She will not stay the siege of loving terms, Nor bide the encounter of assailing eyes...

That the eyes might lie is not in issue, but when are they a party to such an act, that is the challenge for the investigator, and later for the Court. Hence, consider Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene III:

FRIAR LAURENCE

Holy Saint Francis, what a change is here! Is Rosaline, whom thou didst love so dear, So soon forsaken? young men's love then lies Not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes.

Noteworthy as well is the passage that follow, found in Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene II, on the "language of the eyes":

ROMEO

She speaks yet she says nothing: what of that? Her eye discourses; I will answer it.

Frowns

In Romeo and Juliet, Act I, scene II. Gregory states: "I will frown as I pass by, and let them take it as they list.", in other words, to interpret as they choose, correctly or not. Note as well Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene II:

JULIET

· Then say, Jove laughs. O gentle Romeo, If thou dost love, pronounce it faithfully: Or if thou think'st I am too quickly won, I'll frown and be perverse an say thee nay,

Hand movements

On the question of movements of the hand, recall these words from Hamlet, Act III, scene II:

HAMLET

Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue: but if you mouth it, as many of your players do, I had as lief the town-crier spoke my lines. Nor do not saw the air too much with your hand, thus, but use all gently...

Looks in general

I begin by pointing to a quite broad expression denoting facial features, to then draw precise attention to a variety of features. Thus, what of the expression "goose look" found in Macbeth, Act V, scene III: "Macbeth The devil damn thee black, thou cream-faced loon! Where got'st thou that goose look?" Romeo and Juliet, Act III, scene II, provides a further example: "JULIET O serpent heart, hid with a flowering face!" At times, as illustrated in Romeo and Juliet, Act IV, scene II, the "look" appears to contradict what ought to be subjectively felt: "Nurse See where she comes from shrift with merry look."

Consider as well Hamlet, Act II, scene I, touching upon the Prince's terrible look:

OPHELIA

My lord, as I was sewing in my closet,
Lord Hamlet, with his doublet all unbraced;
No hat upon his head; his stockings foul'd,
Ungarter'd, and down-gyved to his ancle;
Pale as his shirt; his knees knocking each other;
And with a look so piteous in purport
As if he had been loosed out of hell
To speak of horrors,--he comes before me.

Pallour of skin

I find some further assistance in Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene II, wherein we read that those who grieve ought to be demonstrating pallour: "Romeo - Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon, Who is already sick and pale with grief ..." I note also this passage, at Act V, sc. I of the same play::

BALTHASAR

I do beseech you, sir, have patience:
Your looks are pale and wild, and do import
Some misadventure.

If a witness becomes livid, what might that bespeak of? Consider Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene IV:

NURSE

Well, sir; my mistress is the sweetest lady--Lord, Lord! when 'twas a little prating thing:--O, there is a nobleman in town, one Paris, that would fain lay knife aboard; but she, good soul, had as lief see a toad, a very toad, as see him. I anger her sometimes and tell her that Paris is the properer man; but, I'll warrant you, when I say so, she looks as pale as any clout in the versal world. Doth not rosemary and Romeo begin both with a letter?

Sighs

I now draw attention to Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene I, as it makes plain that a sigh may put in evidence many emotions. Indeed, Mercutio says:

Nay, I'll conjure too.
Romeo! humours! madman! passion! lover!
Appear thou in the likeness of a sigh.

Further, in Act II, scene I, of Hamlet, we read:

OPHELIA

He took me by the wrist and held me hard;
Then goes he to the length of all his arm;
And, with his other hand thus o'er his brow,
He falls to such perusal of my face
As he would draw it. Long stay'd he so;
At last, a little shaking of mine arm
And thrice his head thus waving up and down,
He raised a sigh so piteous and profound
As it did seem to shatter all his bulk

What is of interest to the detective is that Hamlet is described as perusing Ophelia's face, to read whatever might be available to be deciphered whilst the latter opined that Hamlet's sigh was of a certain quality, and telling in its importance and extent. Of course, a sigh is thought to be capable of being heard, and might be more amenable to an objective assessment. In this light, note Hamlet, Act IV, scene I:

KING CLAUDIUS

There's matter in these sighs, these profound heaves: You must translate: 'tis fit we understand them. Where is your son?

Let us consider the case of a witness in your office or at the scene of the crime and who is wearing some form of article of clothing over the face. They will still be heard to sigh, and this may be a far more reliable form of "tell" as to what is being thought of in the mind of the person testifying. Pursuing this line of inquiry, Hamlet, Act IV, scene V, provides guidance on the issue of "winks and nods":

She speaks much of her father; says she hears
There's tricks i' the world; and hems, and beats her
heart;
Spurns enviously at straws; speaks things in doubt,
That carry but half sense: her speech is nothing,
Yet the unshaped use of it doth move
The hearers to collection; they aim at it,
And botch the words up fit to their own thoughts;
Which, as her winks, and nods, and gestures yield them,
Indeed would make one think there might be thought,
Though nothing sure, yet much unhappily.

Smiles

On the issue of interpreting smiles, Act II, scene III, of Macbeth includes the words: "... There's daggers in men's smiles."

Trembling

On the issue of trembling, a telltale sign of dishonesty if perceived in a police station or a courtroom, or of simple nervousness (or that the room is cold.), I refer to Hamlet, Act I, scene I:

BERNARDO

How now, Horatio! you tremble and look pale: Is not this something more than fantasy? What think you on't?

Interviewing skills and techniques:

Assess the plain meaning of the responses

Assessing the plain nature of the responses you receive is a fundamental element of interviewing. You should focus your attention on the powers of observation, the opportunity to observe, memory, the possibility of innocent contamination, et cetera, as you interview potential witnesses. An example of plain testimony, and its opposite, is cited below, taken from Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene III:

FRIAR LAURENCE

Be plain, good son, and homely in thy drift; Riddling confession finds but riddling shrift.

After all, a failure to respond promptly and with detail ought to lead to the question whether the witness has an agenda not fully consistent with the solemn oath or affirmation taken previously, or the obvious duty to assist the police? In this vein, note a further passage from the play at Act II, scene III, to the effect that the fact that witness claims to be responding plainly does not mean it is a reliable response:

ROMEO

Then plainly know my heart's dear love is set
On the fair daughter of rich Capulet:
As mine on hers, so hers is set on mine;
And all combined, save what thou must combine
By holy marriage: when and where and how
We met, we woo'd and made exchange of vow,
I'll tell thee as we pass; but this I pray,
That thou consent to marry us to-day.
Advocacy: A calm recitation of facts

In thinking over this question of the reliability of a witness, investigators may wish to consider the lengthy extract from Romeo and Juliet, Act III, scene I:

BENVOLIO

Tybalt, here slain, whom Romeo's hand did slay;
Romeo that spoke him fair, bade him bethink
How nice the quarrel was, and urged withal
Your high displeasure: all this uttered
With gentle breath, calm look, knees humbly bow'd,
Could not take truce with the unruly spleen
Of Tybalt deaf to peace, but that he tilts
With piercing steel at bold Mercutio's breast,
Who all as hot, turns deadly point to point,
And, with a martial scorn, with one hand beats
Cold death aside, and with the other sends
It back to Tybalt, whose dexterity,
Retorts it: Romeo he cries aloud,
'Hold, friends! friends, part!' and, swifter than his
tongue,
His agile arm beats down their fatal points,
And 'twixt them rushes; underneath whose arm
An envious thrust from Tybalt hit the life
Of stout Mercutio, and then Tybalt fled;
But by and by comes back to Romeo,
Who had but newly entertain'd revenge,
And to 't they go like lightning, for, ere I
Could draw to part them, was stout Tybalt slain.
And, as he fell, did Romeo turn and fly.
This is the truth, or let Benvolio die.

Attitude adopted by a witness: Scrutinize carefully

A witness can adopt an attitude during their police interview(s) and you would do well to pay close attention to such concerns. For example, Juliet states in the play at Act II, scene II:

So thou wilt woo; but else, not for the world In truth, fair Montague, I am too fond, And therefore thou mayst think my 'havior light: But trust me, gentleman, I'll prove more true Than those that have more cunning to be strange. I should have been more strange, I must confess, But that thou overheard'st, ere I was ware, My true love's passion: therefore pardon me, And not impute this yielding to light love, Which the dark night hath so discovered. [Emphasis added]

A detective might interpret this passage as being a warning to be alert to the sad reality that witnesses may adopt an attitude in order to promote a partisan objective.

Hesitation displayed by a witness prior to responding to a question

A good example of a potential witness pausing in your office prior to responding to a question, not by reason of any memory issues, but in order to calculate coldly the partisan advantage, if any, in advancing a full and fair response is seen in Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene II:

ROMEO

[Aside] Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?

Not only should an investigator coolly assess such a situation, he or she must ensure that the record captures this situation. For example, it may be necessary to state: "I noted that you have responded quickly and without hesitation when you were asked other questions. Why, then, did you hesitate so much prior to responding to this question, a question that is simple and uncomplicated?"

Inconsistent responses

Investigators, and other decision makers, must be alert to the possibility that any subsequent details in further responses tend to undercut what is stated initially. For instance, in Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene V, the nurse appears to provide details that may be said to deny a prior response:

Nurse

Well, you have made a simple choice; you know not how to choose a man: Romeo! no, not he; though his face be better than any man's, yet his leg excels all men's; and for a hand, and a foot, and a body, though they be not to be talked on, yet they are past compare: he is not the flower of courtesy, but, I'll warrant him, as gentle as a lamb. Go thy ways, wench; serve God. What, have you dined at home?

Interviewing – method

An investigator should always ask questions with method. For example, the play we are examining sets out this advice, at Act I, scene II:

ROMEO

Whither?
Servant
To supper; to our house.

ROMEO

Whose house?
Servant
My master's.

ROMEO
Indeed, I should have ask'd you that before.

Questions calling for yes or no responses

In this vein, note the illustration found in Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene V:

JULIET

The excuse that thou dost make in this delay
Is longer than the tale thou dost excuse.
Is thy news good, or bad? answer to that;
Say either, and I'll stay the circumstance:
Let me be satisfied, is't good or bad?

Persistence

An investigator, on occasion and after some consideration of all of the elements at play, may elect to keep pressing until an apparently reluctant witness replies, as in Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene III:

ROMEO

I'll tell thee, ere thou ask it me again.
I have been feasting with mine enemy,
Where on a sudden one hath wounded me,
That's by me wounded: both our remedies
Within thy help and holy physic lies:
I bear no hatred, blessed man, for, lo,
My intercession likewise steads my foe.

Rote responses?

Is the answer to your question fairly seen as a reply by rote, and thus less reliable? In Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene III, Friar Laurence remarked: "O, she knew well Thy love did read by rote and could not spell. But come, young waverer, come, go with me."

Shortcuts are not allowed

The investigator must ask the question: Is the shortening of the witnesses' account justified? Why is it that a witness responded with an abbreviated response? Consider for example Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene IV:

MERCUTIO

O, thou art deceived; I would have made it short: for I was come to the whole depth of my tale; and meant, indeed, to occupy the argument no longer.

Investigative skills

Investigative skills and circumstantial evidence

An example of circumstantial evidence is found at Act II, scene III of the play wherein Friar Laurence states the evidence in support of his belief that it is likely that Romeo has been to bed:

What early tongue so sweet saluteth me?
Young son, it argues a distemper'd head
So soon to bid good morrow to thy bed:
Care keeps his watch in every old man's eye,
And where care lodges, sleep will never lie;
But where unbruised youth with unstuff'd brain
Doth couch his limbs, there golden sleep doth reign:
Therefore thy earliness doth me assure
Thou art up-roused by some distemperature;
Or if not so, then here I hit it right,
Our Romeo hath not been in bed to-night.

Investigative skills: Objective evaluations made by witnesses are subject to subjective factors

This proposition is supported by the passage that follows, consigned in Romeo and Juliet, Act I, scene II:

BENVOLIO

Tut, man, one fire burns out another's burning,
One pain is lessen'd by another's anguish;
Turn giddy, and be holp by backward turning;
One desperate grief cures with another's languish:
Take thou some new infection to thy eye,
And the rank poison of the old will die.

Expressed differently, "one pain is lesen'd by another's anguish" refers to the fact that a person's reaction at having his or her car vandalized, by way of limited example, must perforce be significantly reduced upon discovering that the neighbour's house was burned to the ground and the residents murdered. An investigator called upon to record the potential testimony of the owner of the vehicle must be alert to potential contextual impeachment.

Judgment in investigations

Judgment and death threats: judging whether certain statements amount to

When the correct interpretation to be given to legislation is the subject of debate, it will always be useful to refer to the world of fiction in order to delineate the will of Parliament by seeking to determine whether a certain well-known phrase or dramatic event amounts or not to the type of offence under consideration. Put simply, I invite the investigator to consider a certain fictional factual situation and to assess whether a crime has been committed, to then apply that guidance to the actual controversy. Detectives will be well advised to point to phrases that assist in delineating the parameters of this provision, by identifying situations that fit within and without the section; thereafter, it may be easier for the prosecution to adopt your suggestions and conclusions. With time, the case law will certainly reduce the need for such interesting speculation, but for certain offences, certainly novel ones, this technique may well be felicitous for a lengthy time period.

Indeed, an excellent example of this situation involves the meaning of "death threats" as found in s. 264.1 of the Criminal Code. In attempting to circumscribe the extent of the legislative injunction against such threatening words and actions, prosecutors (and Courts) should welcome references such as found in Romeo and Juliet, Act I, scene II:

SAMPSON

'Tis all one, I will show myself a tyrant: when I have fought with the men, I will be cruel with the maids, and cut off their heads.

Issues such as the intent of the witness you interview, the degree of braggadocio at play, and the capacity of the actor to carry out his purpose, all fall to be scrutinized and this technique may well assist in the Court's finding that the accusation has not been established in similar scenarios. In effect, investigators should seek to make plain the contradiction between the apparently peaceful speech and the disguised but much desired bellicose act. In this context, I refer with profit to Romeo and Juliet, Act I, scene II: "TYBALT What, drawn, and talk of peace! I hate the word, As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee: Have at thee, coward!"

Judgment and logical conclusions

In Romeo and Juliet, Act I, scene V, we read:

Second Servant
We cannot be here and there too.

Of course, that is an obvious proposition, but a careful investigator might well succeed in demonstrating that the witness was too clever by half. Indeed, examine the statement critically if it suggests that the witness was careful to obfuscate where, in fact, he or she was at the relevant time. One cannot be at two places at once but one must be prepared to answer clearly, the question where one was at the relevant tim.

Further, note Romeo and Juliet, Act III, scene V:

CAPULET

How now, how now, chop-logic! What is this? 'Proud,' and 'I thank you,' and 'I thank you not;' And yet 'not proud,' mistress minion, you, Thank me no thankings, nor, proud me no prouds,

Judgment and reliability issues – Bias, due to kinship

Romeo and Juliet, Act III, scene I, attacks the recitation of fact made by Romeo's family member in these terms:

LADY CAPULET

He is a kinsman to the Montague;
Affection makes him false; he speaks not true:
Some twenty of them fought in this black strife,
And all those twenty could but kill one life.
I beg for justice, which thou, prince, must give;
Romeo slew Tybalt, Romeo must not live.

On this subject, I quote as well from Romeo and Juliet, Act III, scene II:

Nurse

Will you speak well of him that kill'd your cousin?

JULIET

Shall I speak ill of him that is my husband?
Ah, poor my lord, what tongue shall smooth thy name,
When I, thy three-hours wife, have mangled it?
But, wherefore, villain, didst thou kill my cousin?
That villain cousin would have kill'd my husband …

Judgment and reliability issues: Estimating the passage of time whilst stressed

A number of factual concerns arise as to the reliability of testimony, including the ability of a witness to estimate correctly the passage of time in situations of stress or other emotional impact. Investigators may profitably consider the example take from Romeo and Juliet, Act I, scene II: "ROMEO Ay me! sad hours seem long ... BENVOLIO It was. What sadness lengthens Romeo's hours? ROMEO Not having that, which, having, makes them short." Consider as well a passage from Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene II, suggesting that time takes forever when one is in love:

JULIET

I will not fail: 'tis twenty years till then. I have forgot why I did call thee back.

Noteworthy as well is Romeo and Juliet, Act I, scene II, on the related question of the correct perception of time when sad:

ROMEO

Ay me! sad hours seem long.
Was that my father that went hence so fast?
BENVOLIO
It was. What sadness lengthens Romeo's hours?
ROMEO
Not having that, which, having, makes them short.

Judgment and reliability issues – Love is blind!

Investigators should always be mindful of the vulnerability of information advanced by one who is in love as the person may not be a reliable witness, because of the emotional blinders that may be in place. Some direct support for this belief is available in Act II, scene I, of Romeo and Juliet:

MERCUTIO

If love be blind, love cannot hit the mark.

Note as well Romeo and Juliet, Act III, scene II, on this theme:

JULIET

Gallop apace, you fiery-footed steeds,
Towards Phoebus' lodging: such a wagoner
As Phaethon would whip you to the west,
And bring in cloudy night immediately.
Spread thy close curtain, love-performing night,
That runaway's eyes may wink and Romeo
Leap to these arms, untalk'd of and unseen.
Lovers can see to do their amorous rites
By their own beauties; or, if love be blind,
It best agrees with night. Come, civil night,

As a result, by way of limited example, lovers may forswear all, and this may have a direct result on the degree of objectivity that the Court may be able to assign to the testimony in question. In this context, I refer to Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene II, on two occasions:

JULIET

O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet.
...
And I will take thy word: yet if thou swear'st,
Thou mayst prove false; at lovers' perjuries

Drawing attention now to Act II, scene III, we read:

FRIAR LAURENCE

Holy Saint Francis, what a change is here! Is Rosaline, whom thou didst love so dear, So soon forsaken? young men's love then lies Not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes.

Judgment and reliability issues: Lying

Dissembling by a witness in your office is an obvious concern. In this vein, Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene II, provides a great illustration of a "clumsy lie" that was being contemplated by a person wishing to woe a lady:

ROMEO

Art thou not Romeo and a Montague?... Neither, fair saint, if either thee dislike.

Judgment and reliability issues - Memory - is the recall anchored in a reliable fashion?

Romeo and Juliet, Act I, scene III, includes this mention:

Nurse

Even or odd, of all days in the year,
Come Lammas-eve at night shall she be fourteen.
Susan and she--God rest all Christian souls!--
Were of an age: ... but, as I said,
On Lammas-eve at night shall she be fourteen;
... I remember it well.
'Tis since the earthquake now eleven years;
And she was wean'd,--I never shall forget it,--
Of all the days of the year, upon that day:
... And since that time it is eleven years;
For then she could stand alone; nay, by the rood.

In effect, the witness in fixing her memory with not one but two supporting screws: one the one hand, the age of one person is well recalled in relation to an another and is referenced to a momentous occasion, the earthquake, on the other.

I draw attention as well to Romeo and Juliet, Act III, scene II:

Juliet

Some word there was, worser than Tybalt's death,
That murder'd me: I would forget it fain;
But, O, it presses to my memory,
Like damned guilty deeds to sinners' minds:
'Tybalt is dead, and Romeo--banished;'

Part of your task as the investigator is to assess fully and fairly the merits of the foundation for the suggested memory, especially if the witness is describing a critical event, or feature thereof, after a significant passage of time.

Judgment – Reliability and a seemingly odd response

Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene V, includes this passage:

JULIET

Where is my mother! why, she is within;
Where should she be? How oddly thou repliest!
'Your love says, like an honest gentleman,
Where is your mother?'

In effect, although allowance must be made for the manner by which a response is framed, the ultimate question is the fitness of the response within the matrix of the questioning. No individuals, with all due respect, can be suffered to provide odd replies from the perspective of illogical and unsupportive views.

Judgment – Reliability versus credibility

Shakespeare teaches investigators to be wary of persons best described as lying dreamers. As we read at Romeo and Juliet, Act I, scene IV, Mercutio expresses the opinion "That dreamers often lie." Liars are not persons who take their oath seriously and thus, their credit may be more easily attacked later at trial; as for dreamers, they may be more susceptible to the accusation that their testimony is not reliable, in the Walter Mitty type of situation.

Judgment – Reversing the proposition

In essence, reversing the proposition refers to the investigator pointing to the less obvious, but not unreasonable, other side of the coin during questioning. If the Crown, for example, were to point out to you that the account of the event advanced by a witness does not dovetail well with the testimony of a second witness, it should be stressed that incidental errors and inconsistencies support the credit of the supposedly mistaken witness. After all, his or her account was not suspiciously "too pat". Put shortly, what does a judge conclude of an account, for example, that the accused was found bent over the body of a stabbing victim whilst holding the bloody knife? That the defendant stabbed the victim or happened to be the first person to stumble across the body? In effect, you are invited to look at both sides of an issue, and to all possible facets, prior to making a decision.

A fine illustration of this dynamic is seen in Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene V:

Nurse
Jesu, what haste? can you not stay awhile?
Do you not see that I am out of breath?
JULIET
How art thou out of breath, when thou hast breath
To say to me that thou art out of breath?

Consider as well the “virtue into a vice” type of scenario. Indeed, Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene III, records these observations:

FRIAR LAURENCE

And flecked darkness like a drunkard reels In herbs, plants, stones, and their true qualities: For nought so vile that on the earth doth live But to the earth some special good doth give, Nor aught so good but strain'd from that fair use Revolts from true birth, stumbling on abuse: Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied;
And vice sometimes by action dignified.

Judgment - Self-defence: Did the complainant bring about the apprehension of violence?

Detectives are well advised to look to the world of literature in order to identify conduct that informs the analysis of a recently proclaimed provision, such as self-defence. In this context, a Crown might be persuaded to not go forward with a charge buttressed upon a passage such as found in Romeo and Juliet, Act I, scene II: "SAMPSON Let us take the law of our sides; let them begin." In other words, the fact that the putative defendant initiated the actual touching may be found to be of secondary importance once the provoking conduct of the complainant has been put forward for the prosecuror’s consideration.

This theme is pursued in Romeo and Juliet, Act III, scene I: "MERCUTIO Thou art like one of those fellows that when he enters the confines of a tavern claps me his sword upon the table and says 'God send me no need of thee!' and by the operation of the second cup draws it on the drawer, when indeed there is no need." Again, though the complainant may not have made first contact, he or she may be judged by you prior to trial to have been the far more aggressive party, and you might suggest to the prosecution that a review of the file based on the standard to prosecute policy might be wise.\

A more easily recalled illustration is found at Romeo and Juliet, Act I, scene II:

ABRAHAM
Do you bite your thumb at us, sir?

SAMPSON
I do bite my thumb, sir.

ABRAHAM
Do you bite your thumb at us, sir?

SAMPSON
[Aside to GREGORY] Is the law of our side, if I say ay?

GREGORY
No.

SAMPSON
No, sir, I do not bite my thumb at you, sir, but I bite
my thumb, sir.

In the final analysis, scenarios such as these may be quite helpful in considering whether an accusation of assault is fit as the complainant may be shown to have goaded the ultimate accused to strike first.

Judgment and self-serving statements

The fact that witnesses will state to you that they are being frank is typically worthy of little credit. Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene II, records this statement, and one questions to what degree this self-serving statement is worthy of credit:

JULIET

But to be frank, and give it thee again.
And yet I wish but for the thing I have:
My bounty is as boundless as the sea,
My love as deep; the more I give to thee,
The more I have, for both are infinite.

In certain cases, however, one might conclude that the self-assigned trait of honesty was well deserved.

Judgment – youthful exuberance or lack of judgment

Youth are at times impetuous, as demonstrated in Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene III:

"FRIAR LAURENCE ... Young son, it argues a distemper'd head ... But where unbruised youth with unstuff'd brain ..."

It may be said of them that they are impatient as well, as reported in the ply under study at Act III, scene II: "Juliet Not yet enjoy'd: so tedious is this day As is the night before some festival To an impatient child that hath new robes And may not wear them."

Professionalism in investigations

Fairness to unpopular groups or causes

It has been said by many prominent politicians and by all civil libertarians that the way the police “treat” protestors is a measure of the respect society as a whole displays to unpopular causes. In this context, I refer to the so-called “legality principle” that may best be expressed as follows. “Have demonstrators been alerted sufficiently that their actions are subject to police intervention?” Romeo and Juliet, Act I, scene II, includes a lengthy passage that illustrates what a number of defence counsel (not to mention civil litigators pursuing claims against a variety of public institutions) have suggested was required prior to arrests in the context of any number of demonstrations taking place against the backdrop of multi-government meetings.

PRINCE

Rebellious subjects, enemies to peace, Profaners of this neighbour-stained steel,-- Will they not hear? What, ho! you men ... On pain of torture, from those bloody hands Throw your mistemper'd weapons to the ground, And hear the sentence of your moved prince. Three civil brawls... Have thrice disturb'd the quiet of our streets ... If ever you disturb our streets again, Your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace. For this time, all the rest depart away: ... Once more, on pain of death, all men depart.

Judge not a book by its cover

That one cannot judge a book by its cover is self-evident. The background to this expression includes this passage from Romeo and Juliet, Act III, scene II, wherein Juliet states: "... In moral paradise of such sweet flesh? Was ever book containing such vile matter So fairly bound? O that deceit should dwell In such a gorgeous palace!" This passage reminds us of Justice O'Halloran's remarks as to the dangers associated with a good "actor" in the witness box. Refer to Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 at paras. 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..."

Pleas for a “break” – A word on this subject

The Court must not be deaf to the pleas of the parties but that is an entirely different thing from your role as an investigator. If authority is required for this proposition, consider Romeo and Juliet, Act III, scene I:

JULIET

I have an interest in your hate's proceeding,
My blood for your rude brawls doth lie a-bleeding;
But I'll amerce you with so strong a fine
That you shall all repent the loss of mine:
I will be deaf to pleading and excuses;
Nor tears nor prayers shall purchase out abuses:
Therefore use none: let Romeo hence in haste,
Else, when he's found, that hour is his last.
Bear hence this body and attend our will:
Mercy but murders, pardoning those that kill.
[Emphasis added]

Presumption of truth telling by a witness: None!

Is there a presumption that a witness speaks the truth? Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene II, would suggest that there is such a presumption:

ROMEO

I take thee at thy word:
Call me but love, and I'll be new baptized;
Henceforth I never will be Romeo.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario has provided guidance on this issue, in R. v. Semple, 2015 ONCA 562, at para. 3, albeit in the course of an appeal book endorsement. As noted by Doherty, Gillese and Brown JJ.A.:

[3] The trial judge wrongly told the jury that "there is a presumption in law that a witness comes to court to tell his or her honest recollections". There is no such presumption. Indeed, as the trial judge told the jury the assessment of the witnesses' credibility and reliability can only be made after a consideration of a variety of factors. The trial judge identified those factors at some length.

Respect for youths though they display no respect as you address them

That youths are fiery in temperament especially when confronted is no secret. Some indirect support for the belief that youths are fiery in temperament is derived from the following passage, found in Romeo and Juliet, Act I, scene II:

CAPULET

But Montague is bound as well as I, In penalty alike; and 'tis not hard, I think, For men so old as we to keep the peace.

Sexist perspectives are unworthy of a professional

Perjury may not be presumed in the case of a gender provides but one example of sexist thoughts that cannot be justified. Romeo and Juliet, Act III, scene II, includes this passage, illustrating a false premise based on stereotypical thinking:

Nurse

There's no trust,
No faith, no honesty in men; all perjured,
All forsworn, all naught, all dissemblers.
Ah, where's my man? give me some aqua vitae:
These griefs, these woes, these sorrows make me old.
Shame come to Romeo!

Word – reliance on your word always

It seems obvious that the Courts and the community must be able to “hold” a police officer to their word, whether under oath or not. Hence:

MERCUTIO

Tut, dun's the mouse, the constable's own word: If thou art dun, we'll draw thee from the mire...

CONCLUSIONS

This play is vitally important to those investigators who must understand human nature and the concerns that arise from long-standing enmity and rivalry and how bias plays a role in detective work.

[1] See “A List of One Hundred Legal Novels” (1922), 17 Ill. L. Rev. 26, at page 31.

[2] 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 pages 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.