Why Interviewing Hostile Individuals Last Can Change Your Investigation Game

    In the world of investigations—especially in security and protection—the order in which you conduct interviews can make or break your case. Have you ever wondered who should be your last interview? Well, I’m glad you asked! The answer is those likely to be hostile. 

    Now, why would that be the case? Let’s break it down. When you start your interviews, the ones who’ll cooperate easily—those first responders, support staff, and other friendly individuals—offer a wealth of information. They’re like your opening act, warming the audience up for the main event. By talking to them first, you gather a solid understanding of the situation, which can be instrumental in framing your questions for the more challenging characters later on.

    Let's consider a bit of human psychology here. People are more inclined to reopen discussions when they feel there's a degree of trustworthiness. Interviewing a cooperative party sets the tone right; it gives you the insights that could make later discussions smoother. Plus, knowing the backdrop allows you to craft questions that tackle inconsistencies or delve deeper as you face tougher personalities. 

    It’s essential to remember that hostile witnesses or subjects can significantly influence the narrative. If you interview them too soon, it’s like throwing a wrench in the gears. They might get defensive, trying to throw you off the scent or give you misleading information. You know what? This defensiveness can lead to obstruction of the investigation, which we definitely want to avoid.

    Think about it this way: If you’ve already gathered robust information from those more willing to share, you can pivot effectively when addressing the positions of those who are less than cooperative. It’s about constructing a well-rounded argument—having the details on hand that could call into question any contradictions or evasiveness.

    And here’s another trick: by now, you’ve established rapport with the earlier interviewees. When it’s time to speak with your more challenging subjects, you can invoke some context from prior interviews. This clever connection can soften defenses and help them feel less cornered or attacked. After all, being confronted about inconsistencies can put anyone on edge.

    In essence, finishing up your interviews with those who may be resistant is a strategic approach that enhances the overall effectiveness of your investigative process. Instead of feeling like you’re at a standstill, with a handful of puzzling pieces, you’ll approach the questioning from a well-informed place. Can you see how powerful this tactic can be?

    So, as you prepare to tackle the Certified Protection Professional (CPP) exam or even just refine your skills in the investigation realm, remember this pivotal interviewing strategy. Clearly, understanding the sequence of interviews isn’t just a tactical move; it’s part of a broader strategy to ensure clarity and coherence in your investigations. Happy investigating!