INTERROGATING SUSPECTS IN CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE CASES

Abstract

The properly conducted interrogation of suspects is one of the most valuable tools available to investigators in child sexual abuse cases. Other than a DNA match or a videotape of an offender committing the abuse, no evidence is more powerful than a defendant's confession of guilt. When successful, an interrogation produces statements from the suspect that corroborate a victim's allegations and serve as critical evidence in the case.

Interrogations

Interrogation is a systematic method of obtaining the truth from a person suspected of committing a crime through a combination of questioning, confrontation, suggestion, and persuasion. The setting is inherently accusatory because interrogation takes place only when an investigator has reason to believe that a suspect is guilty of the crime under investigation. Unlike interviews, interrogations are usually conducted in a custodial setting (that is, after a suspect is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his or her freedom).¹ In some situations, a suspect may come in voluntarily for questioning.

Successful interrogators must have the following:

• Desire to obtain the truth.
• Confidence in the investigation.
• An ability to bluff.
• Knowledge of human behavior, the suspect, and the case.
• Experience with child sexual abuse cases.
• Self-control and patience.
• Non-judgmental attitude toward suspect.
• Professionalism.

Setting

Interrogations should be conducted one-on-one (meaning only the suspect and interrogator are present in the room). A private setting is necessary because an interrogator would be unable to control the comments and body language of any third person. Having only the investigator and the suspect in the room provides that the suspect will receive only the interrogator's verbal and nonverbal cues. A third person could ask a question or make a statement at the wrong time or mention facts that the interrogator does not want a suspect to hear. From the suspect's point of view, it may also be psychologically easier to admit a mistake or confess a crime to one person at a time.

Observation

If possible, every interrogation should be observed by another investigator. Observation can take place through a one-way mirror or by using audio equipment (such as a microphone) or video equipment (such as a hidden camera). When these methods are unavailable, investigators may use an inexpensive audio monitoring system (such as a baby monitor).

Reasons for Having the Interrogations Observed

• Protects the interrogator from physical assaults. Upon seeing or hearing threats, the observing investigator can intervene or summon help.
• Protects the interrogator from false allegations that he or she verbally or physically abused the suspect or used racial slurs.
• Allows the observer to act as a coach for the interrogator. During breaks, the observer may advise the interrogator about possible themes, strategies, and questions to pursue or suggest what does and what does not appear to be working.
• May help the observer obtain a confession in a subsequent interrogation (in the event that the first interrogator does not obtain one). Having seen and heard what transpired during the first interrogation, an observer may be able to pick up where the original interrogator left off, without pursuing or repeating unproductive lines of questioning. Second interrogators are often successful in obtaining confessions.
• Provides a witness to the interrogation. Unlike the interrogator-who faces a risk of distracting or offending the suspect-an observer can take notes on what he or she sees and hears. Observers may record notes and observations that can be used later in court.

Location

By conducting interrogations in an investigator's own office, the investigator can control and minimize interruptions and distractions. If an interrogation takes place at a suspect's home or office, the interrogator will be unable to control possible interruptions by a suspect's family and friends. He or she cannot be sure that weapons are not present. Interrogations conducted on an investigator's "home turf" also provide a psychological advantage to the investigator and allow for observation.

Timing

The timing of an interrogation-at what point during an investigation it takes place-will vary from case to case. As a general rule, investigators should balance adequate preparation against the need for the element of surprise when they schedule interrogations. In other words, the investigator's challenge is to be sufficiently prepared to conduct a thorough interrogation but not to take so much time preparing that a suspect becomes aware of the investigation.

In cases involving Child Protective Services (CPS) or other investigative agencies, law enforcement officers should communicate and work closely with the social workers and other professionals involved in the case to prevent the suspect from learning about the investigation prematurely. Law enforcement investigators must realize that CPS workers have statutory duties and timeframes by which they must abide. In addition, they may be subject to departmental policies that dictate a timeframe within which they must contact a suspect and inform him or her of an investigation.

In some situations, preparation is less important than the element of surprise. For instance, if a patrol officer arrests a local businessman in the act of committing a sexual act with a runaway and transports the suspect directly to the investigator's office, very little (if any) preparation would be necessary before interrogating the suspect. The investigator might want to interview the victim, but could then begin the interrogation without much additional preparation. In that case, the patrol officer's reliable eyewitness account could be used to confront the suspect.

In other cases, the need for extensive preparation far outweighs the importance of surprising a suspect. For example, a case involving an anonymous letter accusing a new teacher of sexual abuse would require a great deal of preparation before interrogating the teacher. The investigator would first have to identify potential victims, interview them, conduct background checks, and complete other investigative steps to decide whether sufficient evidence exists to bring the suspect into custody.

Preparation

The investigator's preparation for interrogation is almost as important as the interrogation itself. By showing that he or she is prepared, a successful interrogator convinces a suspect that a thorough investigation has been completed. A prepared investigator knows the evidence in the case and how it relates to statements made by the victim, witnesses, and suspect. The more prepared the investigator is, the better he or she will able be to detect a suspect's deception and overcome any denials.

Understand the Allegations and Evidence

Before entering the interrogation room, the investigator should know as much as possible (and practical) about the following subjects:

• The victim's account of the abuse.
• The medical, physical, and testimonial evidence in the case.
• The suspect's account of the abuse (if one has been given or recorded).
• The facts of the case (who, what, when, where, why, and how)
• The nature and extent of the sexual abuse sustained.
• Whether pictures or videos of the victim were made.
• How long the abuse continued.
• When the abuse started.
• How the suspect secured the victim's compliance and silence (through gifts, money, or special privileges).
• Whether the suspect threatened to harm the victim.

If conducted properly, the forensic interview of the victim will provide information on these issues.

The investigator should consider the evidence available in the case before beginning the interrogation. Physical evidence or witnesses that corroborate a victim's allegations can be very important in overcoming a suspect's denials and detecting deception. The investigator may want to obtain additional evidence or information before contacting the suspect or beginning an interrogation. For example, a search warrant may be needed to obtain corroborative evidence (e.g., from the crime scene or the suspect's residence). One-party consent or pretext telephone calls-an investigative technique in which the victim or another person contacts the suspect by telephone and the conversation is recorded-may also be necessary². The value of these techniques, however, is greatly diminished once a suspect has been contacted and/or interrogated.

Know the Suspect

In addition to being familiar with a victim's allegations and the evidence in a case, investigators need information about the suspect they interrogate. Because every interrogation should be tailored to the dynamics and personalities involved, every suspect must be approached differently. A line of questioning or specific theme that may be productive with a preferential child molester who relates love for a victim probably will not work with a situational offender who did not know his or her victim. Understanding that no particular approach will work well with all offenders, experienced and effective interrogators treat all suspects as different individuals. Just as no profile fits or describes all offenders, no single approach to interrogation fits all suspects.

Obtain Basic Information

When preparing for an interrogation, the investigator should obtain as much of the following information about the suspect as practical:

• Criminal history.
• Contacts with law enforcement.
• Involvement with CPS.
• History of alcohol or substance abuse.
• Reputation in the community.
• Medical history (including medical conditions and disabilities and the use of medications).
• Employment and volunteer history.
• Marital status.
• Relationships with other family members.
• Financial condition.

Legal Issues

The interrogation of suspects involves many legal issues. In addition to informing suspects of their Miranda rights, investigators must comply with other constitutional protections, applicable State laws, and departmental policies. To be considered by the jury, a statement obtained by the police during a custodial interrogation must have been made after police gave the defendant the warnings required by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and the defendant voluntarily waived the rights described in the warnings. Unless a defendant received his or her Miranda rights and knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights, a jury may not hear the defendant's statement. For information about applicable laws and policies in specific jurisdictions, investigators should confer with local prosecutors or departmental legal advisers.

The Interrogation Process

Although every interrogation is different, almost all include the following steps (which usually occur in the order listed):

• Introduction.
• Advising suspect of his or her constitutional rights (as required by state law or departmental policy).
• Conducting a pre-confrontation interview of the suspect.
• Confronting suspect with evidence of guilt and other results of the investigation.
• Overcoming suspect's denials, objections, and assertions of innocence.
• Using questions, themes, and strategies (including alternative questions, deception, and minimization of suspect's guilt) to obtain a first admission of guilt.
• Building on the first admission of guilt to obtain a complete narrative account.
• Resolving inconsistencies.
• Obtaining a formal statement.
• Conducting a post-interrogation interview.

Each step is described below.

Introduction

During the introduction, an investigator has two goals. First, the investigator should introduce himself and demonstrate control over the situation. The investigator may say, "I'm Detective Jones, and I'm in charge of this investigation. After talking to you today, I will decide what is going to happen in this case." This type of statement elevates the investigator's importance in the eyes of a suspect.

Second, the investigator wants to convince the suspect of the benefits of talking to the investigator. To meet this goal, an investigator might say, "I am very thorough, and I want to be certain I have all the facts before I decide what I am going to do in this case. Up until now, I have only heard one side of this. I want to give you an opportunity to tell me your side before I decide what has to be done next." After hearing such statements, suspects may decide that talking to the investigator will allow them to talk their way out of a situation or at least mitigate the seriousness of the situation. The investigator's goal is to encourage the suspect to talk rather than invoke his or her right to remain silent or right to request an attorney.

Constitutional Rights

The investigator must consult applicable state laws and departmental policies to determine whether constitutional (Miranda) warnings are necessary before or at any point during a custodial interrogation. To be on the safe side, many prosecutors prefer that investigators read all suspects advice on their constitutional rights (even if they have not been arrested or taken into custody). Some State laws and local policies require that suspects be advised of their Miranda rights when they become the focus of the investigation, whether they are in custody or not. Investigators need to be familiar with their own State and local laws and departmental policies governing the circumstances under which they must advise suspects of their constitutional rights.

When an investigator advises a suspect of his or her constitutional rights, the investigator should read the rights from a preprinted card or form, rather than recite them from memory. The investigator and suspect should then sign and date the card or form from which the rights were read, thereby making it difficult for suspects to argue that no one advised them of their rights or that the information read to them was incomplete or inaccurate. Because it may be needed in court, the signed card or form should be safeguarded.

After reading a suspect his or her rights, the investigator should ask the suspect if he or she understands those rights or has any questions about them. A suspect must understand his or her constitutional rights in order to waive them (give them up) voluntarily. The investigator, therefore, should begin questioning the suspect only after confirming that the suspect understands his or her constitutional rights. If the suspect understands these rights and chooses to answer questions anyway, the suspect has knowingly waived his or her rights.

Conducting a Pre-confrontation Interview

A pre-confrontation interview will not occur in every interrogation. In the example discussed above (of a local businessman arrested in the act of sexual abuse), interrogation could begin without an interview. In other cases, a pre-confrontation interview will establish a baseline for a suspect's speech patterns and nonverbal (body) language. While conducting the interview and asking questions unrelated to the case (such as name, address, and date of birth), the investigator can observe how a suspect behaves when answering questions truthfully.

The pre-confrontation interview may also help the investigator identify possible strategies and themes to use during the interrogation. A suspect may state in the interview that he or she would never commit sexual abuse because he or she loves children. The investigator can explain that these behaviors are not always incompatible.

Confronting the Suspect

During this stage, an interrogator directly confronts the suspect about his or her guilt. The investigator, for example, may say, "Bob, our investigation proves that you sexually abused the little girl who lives next door to you." The statement must be convincing and unequivocal. The suspect is likely to interrupt the investigator at this point, declaring his or her innocence and claiming that there must be some mistake. The investigator, however, should disregard the suspect's objections and continue talking and asking questions. After confronting a suspect with his or her guilt, the investigator may follow up with a statement such as, "Bob, the reason I am taking the time to talk to you today is to find out why this happened, as I already know what happened."

Overcoming Denials, Objections, and Claims of Innocence

Rarely will a suspect accused of child sexual abuse sit quietly. On the contrary, the suspect is likely to deny his or her involvement in the crime, object to the investigation's procedures and results, and assert his or her innocence. The investigator, however, must hold firm to his or her position that the suspect is responsible for the crime. To overcome a suspect's objections, denials, and assertions, the investigator should dominate the conversation and refuse to engage in a debate with the suspect. The investigator should explain confidently that the suspect's guilt is not in question-that only his or her explanation of why the crime happened remains at issue.

The investigator must convince the suspect that denials and claims of innocence do not change the fact of his or her guilt. If a suspect says, "I wouldn't sexually abuse that girl because I have a beautiful wife at home," the interrogator could counter, "Bob, it doesn't have anything to do with your wife; there are other reasons people make mistakes like this."

Using strategies and themes specifically suited to a suspect may cause the suspect to become less vocal. As an interrogation progresses, a guilty suspect is likely to raise fewer objections and start to listen carefully and quietly to the interrogator.

Using Questions, Themes, and Strategies

The particular questions, themes, and strategies that an interrogator chooses will depend on the dynamics of the case and the suspect involved. In a case of intra-familial sexual abuse (incest), an investigator may want to emphasize that the suspect is not the kind of person who hangs around parks trying to abduct children. The investigator might also acknowledge that the suspect cares about the child or that the child loves the suspect.

Flexibility

Investigators need to be flexible when deciding what strategies, themes, or lines of questioning to pursue. If a line of questioning or a particular theme or strategy does not work, investigators must be prepared to try another, without missing a beat.

Alternative Questions

Many investigators interrogating persons suspected of child abuse use alternative questions-that is, questions that suspects answer by choosing from two or more answers offered by the interrogator (any one of which forces the suspect to admit wrongdoing). The suspect's only choice is to choose the answer that seems to minimize his or her culpability. Two examples of alternative questions follow.

Example 1:
"There is no doubt that you engaged in sexual intercourse with your daughter; I can prove that. I just need to know-did you plan this in advance or is it something that just happened?" Before the suspect can answer, the interrogator may add, while nodding his or her head affirmatively, "It just kind of happened, didn't it? Didn't it?"

Example 2:
"There is no doubt that you engaged in sexual intercourse with your daughter. I can prove that. I just need to know-is this the first time you have done this, or have you done it many times before?" Before the suspect can answer, the interrogator may add while nodding his head affirmatively, "It was the first time, wasn't it? Wasn't it?"

Deception

Deception-the intentional misleading of a suspect by falsehood "spoken or acted"³ -is an important (and legally permissible) strategy for investigators to use during interrogations. Affirming investigators' ability to use deception in interrogations, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969), upheld the conviction of a murder suspect who confessed after police told him (falsely) that his accomplice had confessed. (As for all legal issues, investigators should check with local legal advisers and/or prosecutors in their jurisdiction for information on specific laws, court decisions, and procedures governing the use of deception in interrogations.)

Investigators may use deception about the following subjects in child sexual abuse cases:

• Existence of witnesses.
• Existence of medical and/or physical evidence.
• Substance of testimony from other victims or offenders.
• Existence of diaries, photographs, videotapes, or recordings.
• Existence of laboratory and scientific tests involving DNA, trace evidence, and fingerprints.

Minimizing Criminal Culpability

Minimizing a suspect's level of criminal culpability is another useful strategy in child sexual abuse interrogations. Using this technique, the interrogator allows a suspect to confess in a way that he or she may find psychologically acceptable.

The suspect can also view his or her conduct as less reprehensible than that of the other criminals described by the investigator. By doing so, the suspect minimizes his or her behavior and transfers some or all of the blame onto the victim or other people. This strategy allows suspects to see themselves as "victims."

Sliding Scale of Criminal Responsibility

In seeking to minimize the seriousness of a suspect's conduct, investigators may refer to the Sliding Scale of Criminal Responsibility for sexual abuse. The scale lists less severe forms of sexual abuse on the left and more severe forms on the right.

Transferring Blame

Although some interrogation techniques allow suspects to minimize their culpability, others allow suspects to transfer some or all of the blame for abuse onto another person. The following themes and strategies are useful in getting a suspect to admit his or her actions, while placing responsibility on someone else (at least in his or her mind).

Blaming the victim

Regardless of the victim's age, the type of abuse, or the force involved in a case, many suspects try to blame the child victim for the abuse committed. To capitalize on a suspect's attempt or desire to transfer blame to his or her victim, the interrogator may suggest to the suspect that the victim is to blame for any or all of the following:

• Initiating sexual contact with the suspect.
• Seducing the suspect.
• Exaggerating the nature and extent of abuse committed, the number of times it happened, the force involved, or the use of a weapon.
• Being sexually promiscuous and sexually active.
• Provoking the suspect into committing sexual abuse (by teasing or daring him or her).
• Blackmailing the suspect.
• Misinterpreting the suspect's action.
• Failing to say "no" or cooperating with the suspect.
• Disobeying the suspect.

Blaming Others

Suspects not only try to blame victims for their actions, they may try to blame the child's parents or others for the abuse as well. In cases of intra-familial sexual abuse, a suspect may blame his or her spouse for the abuse. Interrogators can build on suspects' attempts or willingness to blame others for abuse by making statements such as the following:

• "They should not have allowed the child to [add behavior or actions tailored to the case] because that provided you [the suspect] with an opportunity to commit the abuse."
• "They ignored the child's need for love and attention, so the child turned to you [the offender] to fill these needs."
• "They were negligent in supervising the child; otherwise, they would have noticed that something was wrong and stopped it."
• "They failed as parents. If they had raised the child properly, this never would have happened."
• "They never should have left the child alone with you [the suspect]."

In cases of intra-familial sexual abuse, interrogators may suggest that a spouse or partner is to blame because he or she was unwilling or unable to satisfy the suspect's emotional and sexual needs, forcing him or her to turn to the child.

If a suspect was previously incarcerated or treated for abusing a child, the interrogator may suggest that the prison, therapist, agency, probation department, or parole officer involved in the earlier case or incident is to blame for failing to rehabilitate him or her.

Blaming outside factors

Some suspects blame their behavior on factors beyond their control and insist that, but for these factors, they never would have committed the abuse. These suspects may blame their actions on circumstances such as the following:

• Unusual stress due to work, medical, family, or financial situations.
• A combination of factors that caused them to act irrationally and uncharacteristically.
• Mistreatment or misunderstanding by society.

Blaming alcohol and drugs

Some suspects blame their behavior on addiction, disease, or intoxication. Although intoxication is not a defense against prosecution for child abuse in the majority of states, investigators may want to tell suspects who are trying to blame their behavior on substance use or abuse that alcohol and drugs depress inhibitions, make people aggressive, stimulate sexual interest, and impair judgment. An interrogator could also ask a suspect, "You wouldn't have done that if you were sober, would you?"

Suspect-specific themes

Depending on the specifics of a case and the suspect being interrogated, an investigator may want to pursue one or more of the themes listed below.

• Suspect is not a bad person, but his or her behavior was wrong.
• Suspect was showing affection for the child and went too far.
• Suspect was educating the child about sexual matters, not obtaining sexual gratification.
• Suspect was abused as a child, which is why he or she abused the child.
• Suspect did not intend for the abuse to happen; it was an accident.
• Suspect made a mistake, and it will never happen again.
• The suspect's actions were not as bad as those of offenders in other cases the investigator has handled. (For example, the interrogator may say to an intra-familial offender that strangers, who molest children they do not know or care for, are terrible people. To the non-familial offender, the interrogator may emphasize the depravity of molesting or abusing one's own child.)

Other themes

Other themes and strategies, such as the three examples provided below, are combinations or variations of those described above.

• Asking a suspect, "Is this all you did or are you also responsible for [additional conduct]?" This theme may be used with a suspect who tries to minimize the severity of the abuse or the number of victims. Using this theme, an investigator could ask a suspect in a fondling case, "Did you just touch the girl or did you rape her?"
• Saying to a suspect, "Listen, you cannot change what you did before you entered this room today. What's done is done. All you can do now is take responsibility for what you have done and what I can prove. You will only cause the child more suffering by denying what you and I both know you did."
• Telling the suspect that, although what he has done is wrong, he has barely "stepped over the line," compared to other cases the investigator has handled.

Building on Suspect's First Admission

Once a suspect admits guilt, an interrogator's job is to build on that admission and obtain a full account of the abuse. After a first admission, many suspects try to convince interrogators that they have made a full disclosure. This is almost never the case. Most suspects provide interrogators with as little information as they possibly can, hoping that if they admit to the least serious act of abuse committed or to "doing it only once," the interrogator will be satisfied. The interrogator, however, should not accept so little, so soon.

When a suspect first admits guilt, the interrogator should acknowledge that the suspect has told the truth but inform him or her that the interrogator knows there is more to tell. The following example illustrates how an interrogator may build on an initial admission and convince a suspect to provide additional detail:

"Bob, I'm glad you have finally admitted that you fondled your daughter. I know that was not an easy thing to admit. But Bob, if you are going to be honest with me, you have to be completely honest. You know and I know that you did it more than once, right? It was more than once, wasn't it, Bob?"

"You know that I have already interviewed your daughter, and I know it happened more than once. Listen, if you lie to me now and say it was only once, when I know it was more, I'm going to have to think you are lying when you said that all you did was touch her. It was more than once, right? Was it 5 or 6 times, or 10 or 20 times? It was 5 or 6, right?"

Interrogators can use variations on this theme to influence suspects to be more forthcoming. While interrogating the suspect, the investigator should recall information and evidence gathered from the victim and other witnesses and compare that information to the suspect's statements.

Resolving Inconsistencies

Once a suspect has fully disclosed the nature and extent of his or her involvement, the interrogator should give him or her a chance to start over and provide a full narrative account. The interrogator should listen carefully to the account and ask the suspect to clarify any statements that are inconsistent with the interrogator's understanding of the facts. Before asking the suspect to make a formal statement, the interrogator should be certain that all of the important issues have been addressed. In addition to asking standard questions (who, what, when, where, why, and how), the interrogator may ask the suspect to address issues such as motivation, intent, and attempts to conceal conduct.

Obtaining a Formal Statement

The procedure for obtaining a suspect's formal statement may vary from one jurisdiction to another (even from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within the same state). Some agencies or departments ask suspects to write out their statements by hand. Others prefer to have a suspect dictate his or her statement to a stenographer or the interrogator; a suspect then reviews and signs the typed or handwritten statement. Some jurisdictions require audio or video recording of suspects' statements or entire interrogations. Regardless of the method they use, interrogators must ensure that formal statements include information on all relevant issues discussed during the interrogation. When state law or agency policy requires the presence of a witness when a suspect gives a formal statement, the investigator should instruct the witness not to react or respond to the suspect's statement.

Conducting the Post-interrogation Interview

After obtaining a suspect's formal statement, the interrogator must consider several issues. These issues are described briefly below.

• Speak cordially to the suspect
  Regardless of the type of crime committed by the suspect, the interrogator must refrain from speaking harshly to the suspect. Such comments would be unprofessional, inappropriate, and counterproductive. At the trial, defense counsel will scrutinize investigators' conduct during the interrogation, and investigators must be careful not to give the defense any ammunition with which to attack their professionalism. The investigator may also have to interrogate the suspect again if another victim comes forward. If the investigator has mistreated the suspect, the suspect is unlikely to cooperate or provide information in the future.
• Take the suspect's picture The suspect's picture, taken after he or she has given a formal statement, may prove that the suspect was not mistreated during the interrogation. If a suspect has visible injuries, the investigator should note them in the file and document how the injuries were caused and that they were present before the interrogation. Interrogators may want to photograph injured suspects before and after their interrogation.
• Ask about other crimes
  During the post-interrogation interview, the investigator can ask the suspect about other crimes and evidence. This technique is not always successful, but it does occasionally lead to information about other victims or crimes. The questions below seek information on other victims, crimes, or evidence.
• Ask about other victims
  "Bob, I'm glad you told me what happened with your daughter. It was the right thing to do. But now I need to know about other children you have been involved with. See, I know about them also."
• Ask about other crimes
  "Bob, I'm glad you told me about what happened with your daughter. It was the right thing to do. But now I need to know about those other incidents you have been involved in. See, I know about them also."
• Ask about evidence:
  "Bob, I'm glad you told me about what happened with your daughter. It was the right thing to do. But now I need to talk to you about those pictures you took of her. I know you said you destroyed them all, but would you be willing to sign a consent to search your apartment, so I can tell my supervisor that I made sure no more pictures are left?"

Follow-up Investigation

Even after securing a formal statement and conducting a post-interrogation interview, the interrogator's job is not complete. Confessions are ruled inadmissible every day. For example, the confession of a legally deaf suspect may be ruled inadmissible if he or she was interrogated without a certified sign language interpreter present. Confessions are also often ruled inadmissible when defense attorneys successfully argue that suspects were coerced into confessing and that their statements were not voluntary. After the interrogation, therefore, the investigator must continue to gather facts and build a case that can be won in court-with or without the suspect's confession. The investigator's follow-up investigation should include working to corroborate the details of the victim's allegations and the suspect's confession. Identifying additional victims also will usually strengthen the case against the suspect.

Conclusion

Interrogation is an important tool for those who investigate child abuse. A suspect's confession is one of the strongest types of evidence that can be introduced against a criminal defendant in court. When interrogating individuals suspected of child abuse, investigators must follow all applicable state laws and departmental policies, including those that govern the use of interpreters. Although some investigators are naturally more skilled at interrogation than others, every investigator can improve his or her skills through training, observation, and practice.