Cognitive Interview

In any criminal investigation information is crucial, it can come from a variety of different sources and can include physical evidence left at the crime scene such as an DNA and fingerprints, and psychological traces that can be utilised to infer characteristics of the offender (Canter, 2000). Another large and crucial source of information to the police in investigations is that of eye witness testimonies (Kebbell and Milne, 1998). It is the role of police officers to gather as much information about a crime as is possible from all of the sources that are available to them throughout the duration of the investigation. In order to ensure that this is done effectively, systematic processes and procedures must be in place and adhered to and

PEACE which supports the use of Cognitive interviewing (Fisher and Geiselman, 1992) was introduced to assist in the professional development of police officers in regards to interviewing techniques, to ensure that an effective procedure for gaining accurate and detailed information was employed. The cognitive interview is carried out in stages which are, mental reinstatement, in-depth reporting, narrative re-ordering, reporting from different perspectives, and enhanced cognitive

Through the formulation of the cognitive interview (Fisher and Geiselman, 1992) psychology has contributed to this process, embedding empirical research surrounding memory recall into a process that allows for a more accurate and detailed account of the events that took place.

However it is evident from the evidence surrounding the efficacy of the cognitive interview that this process is not being employed in its entirety (Dando, Wilcock and Milne 2009) and sometimes not at all. Clarke and Milne (2001), found that of the 75 witness interviews, 83% of them showed no evidence of the cognitive interview being used at all and Wright and Holliday (2005), found that 38% of experienced police officers did not perceive that they were using the cognitive interview procedures at all.

On reviewing the research the some of the most prevalent reasons of why this may be happening have emerged, the biggest two reasons being that it is too time consuming or too difficult to implement (Dando, Wilcock, and Milne, 2009). Furthermore despite officers being trained in the process some feel that the training is inadequate and not long