Cognitive Interview

Today on a Dutch website by Gerard Overmars I found an article about interview techniques I thought might interest the judges among my readers.

Overmars in an experienced investigator in both law enforcement and private sector. Specialist in interviewing techniques. He is interested in new interviewing methods and developing practical guidelines for interviews in the private sector (investigative interviewing). Because of these interests he started 'Verhoren van .......' for only one reason: sharing experiences.

Well, I think we can learn a lot to improve our interview techniques the hearing room, and I applaud his "free flow of information' policy.

He talks about a seminar he took in Dundee and the lecturer who explained the principles of 'Cognitive Interview'; Dr. Becky Milner, Principal Lecturer at the Institute of Criminal Justice Studies at the University of Portsmouth,

In this article Dr Becky Milne explains the technique of cognitive interviewing:

The cognitive interview was developed for the interviewing of cooperative interviewees, be they witness, victim or suspect, and basically it’s a collection of tools, on a toolbelt that are trained to the police, and the tools on the toolbelt that are trained to the police all help to aid certain areas of memory. Now originally the cognitive interview consisted of four primary techniques.

FIRST
The first technique is a simple technique. It’s simply telling the witness to tell me absolutely everything they can remember; don’t leave anything out, don’t edit anything. The reason why this simple technique basically to tell someone tell me everything is that we know that even the most cooperative adult does not spontaneously report everything that they remember. When they remember something, when they retrieve it, they make a decision, do I tell the person I’m talking to or do I withhold it? And so this simple technique of tell me everything stops witnesses and victims and suspects withholding information.

Now people may withhold information for a large number of reasons. One reason is they think well it’s not important information. But the general public do not know what’s of importance to the police. They might withhold information because they’re not sure about it, oh did I see that or did I not? And there’s lots of research looking at the correlation between how confident someone is and actually how accurate they are, and indeed confidence is instead a personality measure rather than an accuracy measure. Someone may withhold something because they feel well the police already know, they’ve interviewed other people, there was CCTV there.

SECOND
The second technique is what we call context reinstatement. This gets witnesses to think back in their mind’s eye the environment of where the crime actually occurred. It’s very much like you know if you’ve lost a set of keys or a pair of glasses and you’re trying to think in your head, you create an image of where you thought you last saw them, whether it’s your place of work, your home, and you try and think where was it, and you visualise that place in your head and you think of where the keys were. Very similar, what we try and do is we get our witness or victim to either close their eyes or look at the floor, we don’t want them to be too distracted, and we get them to create an image in their mind’s eye of that scene, and it’s quite easy to do, all we get them is to start thinking about things and we say some basic phrases.

We say for example I want you to close your eyes, get a clear, clear picture of the scene in your head. Think about everything that you can remember in that scene, get a clear picture of it. Think about the layout of the scene. Think about all the objects that were there. Think about all the colours that you can remember at the scene. Think about all the sounds that you remember hearing. Get a clear picture of all the people that were there, and then in your own time and in your own pace tell me everything you can remember about that scene. And that’s getting people to slow down, to think about the scene in their head and to create that image in their mind’s eye, and we know through research that is very helpful for memory retrieval.


THIRD
Another of the basic four cognitive techniques is called the reverse the temporal order of recall technique, and this basically gets people to think about the event in a variety of ways. So we get people to either go backwards from the last thing they remember to the first or from the most memorable aspect of the event and going backwards and forwards in time.

Now the reason why this is important is that people from a very young age develop scripts in memory, and the primary reason we do that is because we dislike the unknown. Everyone has been in a situation where you’re going somewhere new, it may be a new place, a new restaurant, and you’re a bit unsure of what it’s like, so you ring someone up who’s been there before, what’s it like, how smart is smart, what are you wearing – that’s a typical fear of the unknown. And because we all fear the unknown, from the age of about three we start developing rules and regulations in life; what typically happens in a restaurant, what typically happens in a dentist. So people develop these scripts.

The reverse order recall instruction is also very useful for trying to detect deceit. Of course, unfortunately, within investigations people do lie, and there has been a whole body of research looking at methods of detecting deceit. Now when people lie they rehearse their lies and typically people will rehearse their lies in a chronological order, and therefore if we get someone to go backwards in time, this therefore really is tricky for someone who is lying, and so research by someone called Aldert Vrij, he has examined the use of the cognitive interview with people who are lying, and we find that it’s very difficult for people to lie when the cognitive interview is used in an interview scenario.

FOURTH
The final technique, the fourth one of the original four, is something called the changed perspectives technique. Now people again are also very egocentric, we’re very me-me-me-me-me, which is fine when you get a witness maybe of a very traumatic event to recall an event. You know, we have weapon focus effect and people are there, you know, going god this happened, that happened, and so of course understandably they report it from their own viewpoint, their own perspective. This technique, which is often used later on in the interview, gets people to think about the event from another perspective, so for someone else who was at the scene.

For example, you get people to think about the event in the shoes of, it’s almost like they’re in a spotlight, and you get that person to isolate that particular memory about the person with the gun, like they’re in a spotlight on the stage, and we just want them to report everything they remember about that particular individual, and this gets people to start thinking about putting themselves in the shoes of another individual at the scene, maybe even the perpetrator, although it does depend on how traumatising and the type of event.


ALL FOUR
Those four techniques form the original cognitive interview, which were originally back in the early Eighties given to police officers to use as and when they wished within their normal interviewing. However research examining how police typically interview in the field was quite shocked that the police did not conform to what we would say is good appropriate interviewing to get maximum quantity and quality of information from people. We know through research the best way to interview someone is to start with what we say an open question, tell me everything, we get a free recall for someone, and what that means is someone can recall in a free manner, recall in any way they want. And they basically recall as much as they want and they have their own time. When that free recall has finished then what we do is we break that free recall up and we ask questions about topic areas in the order the person has remembered it, again using open questions.


QUESTIONLESS INTERVIEW?
It seems to go against common sense but to get information you do not need to ask lots and lots of questions, because every time you ask a question you are stopping that interviewee speaking, so really what you’re trying to do is basically get information from someone without asking as many questions, well, hold on, what you’ve got to do is get information from someone with asking the fewest questions possible. What we often say is the thing, the interview that a police officer is striving to achieve is the questionless interview, because every time a police officer asks a question there is the possibility of contamination of human memory, and so what we’re striving for when we’re training and teaching police officers is almost to try and get as much information as possible without contaminating memory, and so therefore that sort of golden ball in the sky that they are trying to achieve is the questionless interview. It doesn’t exist, it would be almost impossible to have a questionless interview; however if that’s what they’re looking for every time a police officer asks a question, they’re really trying to concentrate off what is the value of that question.

One of our conversational rules is something called the maxim of quantity. We learn from a very young age that speaking in lots of detail is very rude. And so, for example, I have a five year old son, and at the moment we’re teaching him turn taking. It’s mummy and daddy’s turn at the moment to speak, it’s your turn next. And so we learn from a very young age that giving lots of detail is not needed in normal conversation. However in a police interview that’s what we’re asking witnesses to do, give us detail. So if I’m asking a forty year old who has learned from the age of three that detail’s not required, we’re getting people to break normal conversational rules. We’re also getting the interviewers to break normal conversational rules.

I've left parts out, as to give you a change to read the whole post before your morning coffee got too cold, but for the really interested, here is the link to the whole article: Cognitive interviewing: Becky Milne

ESS Act 9; Singapore; Managing the Class.

With not much wind and very shifty as well, we did only four races today in the ESS in Singapore. The 10 Extreme Forties circled Marina Bay to find the wind and get trough the courses. With four umpire boats we can cover almost all incidents as boats are not moving that fast.

Today I was on the water with Charlie Carter who is filling in for the eight umpire position. Charlie is the Extreme Forty Class Manager. He’s employed by OC Third Pole who in turn is hired to manage the Class for Extreme Sailing Series SA, the company that has the design rights to the class. It is not a class that is formed by the sailors who have a class boat- like most classes. Although those are asked for input on a regular bases (twice a year there’s an open forum organized), this class is company owned. Charlie is one of four people who manages the X40-class.

 

Charlie Carter has an engineering background and he’s responsible for technical management of the class. He has extensive experience in the marine industry and has managed various projects in the past, like the Oman Trimaran project and the Imoca open 60 project.

He’s looking after the future of the X40, liaisons with the teams about development and is first in line to make sure the boat is truly a one-design class. He manages the technical support, servicing of the equipment and a supply train for parts for new and existing boats. If any boat gets damaged he can facilitate repairs for teams that don’t have the capability to do this themselves. By being at each class event he can keep in contact with all sailors and owners and provide direct support.

The Extreme 40 was first used in the In-Port Races for the Volvo Ocean Race in 2005. Of those first five boats build, four are still sailing the Extreme Sailing Series. But since then the fleet has increased and now stands at 20 boats.

The X40 is still a very competitive boat that can achieve fantastic acceleration and speeds. Combined with a relatively simple montage and de-montage (two persons can rig (or de-rig) a boat in a day) because of the use of basic parts, the boat offers a fantastic value for money. Only four – though very hard working – crew are needed to sail this big cat, which leaves the fifth place for a guest. If you have 384.500 pound to spare, you can own a X40 kitted out with all parts, sails and even a container to put the complete boat into.

“How does he see the future development of the Class?” I asked Charlie in between races.
He answered: “More modular sections would be a good way to improve the speed in which a boat can be repaired. So sailing can be resumed very fast.
Instead of a composite repair, then only bolting-on an aft section would be needed to fix a sheered off transom – like Team New Zealand had in the previous edition.”

Charlie is also looking into a system to prevent inversion of the boat after a capsize. “The equivalent of 150 kg buoyancy at the top of the mast is needed to keep the boat from completely turning upside down” He hopes a system can be in place for next year – either by automatically inflation or a fixed buoyancy….

The ESS will be back next year – doing the full global circle with old and a couple of new venues. And Charlie will be there as well, count on it.

AC33 | America's Cup Umpiring (2)

I heard back from Bill Edgerton, CU at the AC33 in Valencia. He found time to answer the questions I send him earlier. (See America's Cup Umpiring (1))

As before his answers in blue (a little darker so it's also readable on a white background)



What calls did you make in the first match? Can you tell us about the situations you encountered?
The penalty was a simple port and starboard going 13.1, no 16 involved and the give way boat turned across the ROW boat. She had 2 avenues of escape, took the wrong one, if they had gone down, 16 would have applied to USA's course alteration to follow and the call would have gone green.
(red: 13.1 = keeping clear while tacking, from App C; Match Racing)
Judging 2 boat lengths separation for 17 or not, after the start when they were straight lining, was difficult, but unless it was USA to leeward, it was only academic in those conditions.

(red: for those of you who don't speak umpire speak: Rule 17 restricts the leeward boat from sailing above her proper course (after the start-signal) if she established a leeward overlap within two hull lengths of the windward boat. Bill is explaining he found it difficult to judge a distance of 200 feet accurately - which is completely understandable, in my opinion)

Are you planning to change the system now you've umpired the first match?
No, just rotate the personnel a little and refine some of the communications with the RC, especially the penalty taking where the RC came over our radio transmission inadvertently.

Will the team record and document all calls? If so, will these be published?
What you got above will be the sole extent probably, unless there is something of interest, a learning point.

What strikes you as the biggest difference between AC33 and AC32 - from an umpire point of view?
The boats, obviously. The atmosphere is very different, for instance they don't have joint press conference. But our relationship with the sailors though, is as good always. 
The delays between races mean more careful management of the team to make sure cabin fever doesn't strike, though the team we have here, is very experienced and time management is one of the skills you develop.

After match 1, I came up with some additional question and send them off in an Email. Hopefully Bill will find some time in answering them. Here's what I wrote:


Many thanks Bill, 


Any chance of an updated picture with Graig in the frame? It was him that umpired yesterday, was it not?

I heard some comments on the broadcast about you changing the decision process after a call?
Taking more time to get consensus? Can you tell me anything about that?

Did you change 17 overlap with only the hulls or is the bowsprit the complicating factor?

How are the umpire boats? Yesterday was only between 4-10 knots and you seemed to be going flat out at times.

Will you be able to keep up when it's blowing 16 knots?

I've analysed your call yesterday by the published pictures and put them on the blog It seems to be complying with your answer, but if you have any comments, please send them.
http://rrsstudy.blogspot.com/2010/02/rules-picture-of-year.html

SUI lost five minutes at the finish after completing the penalty. The commentators and journalist all seem to have different answers as to why.

Can you enlighten me? What happened?

Good luck Sunday!
And my regards to your team.
Thanks again .
Jos

If you have additional questions- be quick - it all could be over tomorrow!
(Sunday February 14th)

.

AC33 | America’s Cup Umpiring (1)

Besides the Jury, Measurers and Race Committee there’s a fourth group of ISAF officials active at the AC 33. I’m talking about the Umpires!

We all are in the dark about how these impressive sail machines will perform against each other, but imagine how difficult it must be, having to umpire them.
When these boats were first revealed to the public and it became clear how powerful and fast they would be, I predicted that there would not be any umpiring. They were just too fast to keep up with and too big to maneuver in the prestart. Boy, was I wrong…..

I’ve contacted Chief Umpire Bill Edgerton and asked him and his team to tell us something about how that is going. I prepared some questions and send them by Email. We agreed he would answer them after having umpired the first match.
Although that has not happened yet, he found the time to send me some answers. So here’s the first instalment. I’ve put Bill’s reply in light blue font.

The AC 33 Umpire Team:
Bill Edgerton (GBR), John Standley (AUS), Roger Wood (NZL), Gerard Bosse (FRA)

The NoR and SI change the RRS (including app C) in many ways. Did the umpire team have any influence on those changes? Were there any changes directly (or indirectly) done, because how the Umpires have to "operate" to umpire these matches?

There have been 4 SI or NOR changes originating from us since we started having an input on the event, one of which deleted RRS 13.2, all done with mutual consent from the teams.
None of them were done because of how we will operate, all of them relate to the type and configurations of the racing boats and course.

Did you and your team get a chance to sail on the yachts? You've been following the boats for a couple of days before and you've now umpired the first match. What can you tell us about the umpiring these AC33 boats - specifically what are the differences between these and "regular" match races.
We have not been on board the yachts when they were sailing yet, but have learnt a lot from watching them, one runs out of adjectives to describe how amazing and fast they are.

How do you communicate with the boats? Are you using a flag-system as in regular match racing or/and any other system (radio's, light-system for overlap, zone etc,) If so, can you tell us how that works? Do you have camera's on board of the rib? Do you have to broadcast to the media and explain your decisions?
There have been some procedures issued which relate to the method we will operate regarding radio communications of hails and Y or B flags and so forth, in addition to the requirements of the RRS, and other things.
We are not offering any information to the boats on radio or lights beyond a radio signal of the umpires response to a Y flag and a yellow or blue flashing light, if there is a penalty.
We don't have cameras or anything like that, time was too short to organize any technical assistance. The distances involved mean the communication to the media is by Satellite phone, we are well out of range of the mobiles. We will do media calls on a range of subjects.

What calls did you make in the first match? Can you tell us about the situations you encountered?

Are you planning to change the system now you've umpired the first match?
Will the team record and document all calls? If so, will these be published?
What strikes you as the biggest difference between AC33 and AC32 - from an umpire point of view?
Anything else you want to tell the readers of LTW?

Hopefully Bill can answer these last questions in a next mail.

Day one; waiting for a start. Which ones are the Umpire boats?
Photo from AC33 website © Pedro Armestre/AFP/ 33rd America’s Cup

Next expected posting on Thursday 11 February.

If you have a question for Bill or the others of the Umpire Team, please put them in a comment and I’ll see if I can get them answered.
For now, I wish the whole team the best of luck in the first match!

.