If your public service involves interviewing surviving victims or eyewitnesses of violent events, you’ll want to learn more about PTSD and the eyewitness memory retrieval technique and how each may affect your investigation.
Research shows that there are two distinct human processes that prevent investigators and law enforcement personnel from conducting a more effective investigation when working with surviving victims and eyewitnesses of violent crime. These processes have been identified as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Memory Recovery (Recall).
What is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and how does it affect the witness memory retrieval process?
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a reaction to a violent event that evokes intense fear, terror, and helplessness. Many surviving victims of violent crimes… rape, robbery, murder, kidnapping, terrorism, sexual abuse, and physical assault, for example, are unable to recognize the signs of emotional stress they are experiencing. Traumatic events trigger feelings in victims from which they cannot easily recover, largely because they have not been helped to recognize and subsequently deal with their emotional and behavioral changes. These feelings impede the ability of investigators to retrieve additional meaningful information critical to solving a case.
As a police officer or investigator, you are often the first contact victims have after a traumatic encounter. The importance of police interaction with victims cannot be underestimated. In many cases, victims suffer what is known as a second injury in their interactions with police, judges, lawyers, doctors, and other public authority figures. The term “second injury” refers specifically to a psychological injury, rather than a physical injury. The event will leave the victim in a vulnerable state of mind, causing them to perceive situations in a distorted and overly negative light.
Although it is natural to establish common perceptions about the types of behavior that people exhibit, know that things are not always what they seem. The outcome of effective police-victim questioning can have a double positive impact, helping you to retrieve relevant and factual data relevant to your case, while protecting the immediate and potential future emotional well-being of the victim.
While you are not expected to be a diagnostic expert or mental health professional, you are in an ideal position to help. Acquiring even basic information about PTSD combined with practical experience and cognitive interview skills can be a major benefit in obtaining more accurate and vital research information.
PTSD manifests in phases that begin with the initial shock or shock suffered by the victim and ultimately result in a healthy recovery. Dr. Calvin J. Frederick, retired Chief of Psychological Services at the Veterans Administration Medical Center in West Los Angeles, California, has spent his career researching PTSD and has developed a chart listing the phases through which what a victim goes through and the physiological and psychological symptoms. the victim is likely to show after a violent event.
In addition to becoming more aware of the signs of PTSD, there are initial intervention responses available to you. According to Dr. Martin Symonds, a retired New York City Police Department psychiatrist, the first moments of police contact with a victim/witness are the most critical moments.
It is essential that the victim receive a feeling of trust and support and a lessening of any external threats after the trauma of a violent crime. Police officers, especially non-uniformed officers, should immediately identify themselves as such to the victim/witness. It would help to include a basic opening conversation like “I’m sorry this happened to you,” “It wasn’t your fault,” and/or “I’m glad you’re okay.” This, combined with preliminary intervention techniques, will bolster victims’ confidence that they are dealing with law enforcement officers who are sensitive and aware of the trauma suffered.
Ultimately, the method in which a victim/witness is interviewed for the preparation of a police report is not only crucial to their emotional healing, but also to the type and amount of investigative information they can retrieve.
The most commonly used “standard” interview method is a series of questions beginning with a description of the suspect(s): gender, age, race, height, weight, hair and eye color, and the victim’s account of the event.
The second interview method is hypnosis, usually performed by a specially trained forensic hypnotist. With the victim in an altered state of consciousness, the forensic hypnotist asks questions and requests answers. This method is the least used due to the negative legal ramifications it poses within the judicial system.
The third method is the Cognitive Witness Memory Retrieval Technique (WMRT), researched and developed by Dr. R. Edward Geiselman of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). WMRT is a collection of memory jogging techniques designed to provide investigators with an organized series of ‘clues’ and focused memory retrieval steps that assist victims/witnesses in retrieving and processing information stored in memory.
The theoretical support of research and development is based on two generally accepted memory principles:
* A memory is made up of several elements. The more elements a memory retrieval “cue” has in common with the recollection of an event, the more effective the “cue” will be in retrieving information.
* A memory has multiple access paths, so information that cannot be accessed with one retrieval ‘token’ can be accessed with a different one.
The purpose of the Witness Memory Retrieval Technique, when used in conjunction with the standard interview method, maximizes the quantity and quality of information retrieved while minimizing the effects of misleading or inaccurate information.
Skillful handling of specific incidents is an absolute prerequisite for effective police-victim relations and problem solving. Determining the most reliable and effective tools available is a concern for most law enforcement investigators. Any valid interview instrument should be designed to elicit relevant facts, identifications, and memories of the event that will best assist in the arrest and conviction of criminal suspects. Essential bits of information can make the difference between the time you spend on strong leads and the time you spend following up on weak ones.