Marcelo Eugenio García Almaguer, otrora Director General de Puebla Comunicaciones del gobierno del estado de Puebla, es responsable sobre los

3.5.1ADEQUACY OF NARRATIVE MATERIAL

Both the original credibility criteria and their adapted counterparts have been applied to transcribed statements for the purpose of analysis in the current work. It is important to note, however, is that the statements under scrutiny vary widely with regard to: i) their level of detail, and ii) the total number of words spoken. Ideally, the clips would be of equal (or comparable) length and quality, particularly given that Dukała and Polczyk (2014) and Vrij (2008) note that narrative length often affects the diagnostic efficacy of CBCA as a method. Specifically, Vrij (2008: 228) argues that “the CBCA method has been developed for use on longer statements”. Dukała and Polczyk (2014: 32) state that a statement which is “sparing, short, forced, and/or contains a very small number of

28

details” is likely to contain few credibility criteria even if the speaker is telling the truth (see also Tully, 1998: 184). Comparably, a statement which is “extensive” and in which “the free utterance of the witness is complex and rich” is likely to contain more credibility criteria, even if the speaker is lying (p.33).

Narrative length, then, “has an impact on the accuracy rate of content-based methods” (ibid.), such as CBCA and the adapted criteria. However, while forensic science professions, such as fingerprint analysis, rely upon “benchmarked standards” (ibid.) to determine the adequacy of the material or object(s) under scrutiny, no such standards exist in relation to the quality of narrative material – there are no guidelines given in CBCA literature as to the minimum length of a statement, for example. In addition, lengthy and unedited footage of (UK-based) public appeals is typically very difficult to find, and the statements included in the dataset – while variable in terms of length – were among the few available for analysis.

3.5.2DATA RETRIEVAL METHODS:INTERVIEWS VS PRESS APPEALS

When CBCA is implemented as part of the wider SVA procedure, narrative material is collected by means of a semi-structured investigative interview (Köhnken, 2004: 48). Popular methods of interviewing child witnesses which are often combined with SVA are the “step-wise interview” (Yuille et al., 1993: 99-100; see also Hewitt, 1999: 204) and the “cognitive interview” (Vrij, 2008: 237). The former is specifically designed to “maximise recall while minimising contamination” (Kapardis, 2014: 128), and includes aspects such as rapport building, free narrative, general and specific questions, and interview aids (where necessary). The latter was developed in America and is based upon “psychological principles of remembering and retrieving information from memory” (Vrij, 2008: 237). While not all SVA experts use exactly the same interview type, it is generally agreed that interviewing methods should: i) incorporate as many open-ended questions as possible to encourage free narrative, and ii) use focused rather than leading questions7 _{to prevent contamination, particularly with more vulnerable and suggestible}

7 _{Vrij (2008:206-7) explains that a “focused question” requests further details without guiding the}

recipient towards a specific response, such as “Can you tell me what the man looked like?” after the witness has mentioned a man. By contrast, a “leading question” encourages the respondent to simply agree with information contained within the question, such as “Was the man black?”

29

witnesses (Vrij, 2008: 206-7). The entire interview is recorded and transcribed, but not all of the transcript may be used for analysis; rather, the analyst will select diagnostically relevant portions of the statement which related to “disputed” elements of the witness’s narrative (p.205).

Following Archer and Lansley (2015), however, the data analysed in the current work were generated as part of public appeals for missing people, and have been retrieved from documentaries and social media sites. In addition, some of the clips (Andrews, Matthews, Hazell) were edited as part of press interviews and documentaries. As discussed in Chapter 3, data from press appeals affords a particular advantage: legal ground truth has been established in these cases. Nonetheless, it is important to note that there are drawbacks to relying upon edited, incomplete, and/or fragmented versions of the original appeals. As Limberg notes:

Any form of documentary is the result of an editing process which makes the recordings appealing for the audience […] data are never exhibited in their entirety because…[they] are cut into several scenes. This is certainly a major drawback of these television formats from the point of view of linguistic analysis because we can never know which details might have been edited out.

Limberg (2008: 157-8)

The statements by Tracie Andrews and Karen Matthews (clips 1 and 2) were retrieved from a documentary relating to deceptive public appeals for missing people, Tears, Lies and Videotape (2009). In addition, the YouTube video from which Stuart Hazell’s statement was retrieved contained the edited version of the press interview which was aired on ITV in August 2012. There are several points in all three of these transcripts where the speaker is interrupted by commentary (Andrews and Matthews) or where footage has been edited out (Hazell)8_{. Consequently, there is a level of “contamination”}

(Kapardis, 2014: 128) of the data, such that the presence or absence of certain criteria may be attributable not to the truth or falsity of the account but to the editing process and/or interview style. As noted in 3.3.1, however, there was limited availability to

30

unedited versions of the original press appeals. In addition, the analysis will be conducted with full awareness of the limitations of using edited data.