Gift of gab helps Saskatoon officer get the truth
Two vehicles, one accident, no one injured.
When Grant Little of the Saskatoon Police Service went to the crash scene in front of Bedford Road Collegiate years ago, five students gave him five different versions of what they saw happen. All five were sketchy.
Although they heard the smash, they didn’t see what they thought. Little crunched the facts with tire marks and vehicle damage and accident reconstruction.
Det. Sgt. Little is now in his 31st year with police. He investigates suspicious deaths with the major crimes unit. These aren’t fender benders, yet what he learned when he worked the beat still applies. Talking with people and keeping close notes goes with the job.
“With an investigation, you’re trying to get their version of events, another piece in the puzzle,” Little said. “If they’re an uncor- roborated witness, it’s not that useful. It becomes weak in court. If there aren’t witnesses, you need physical evidence — phone calls, text messages, computer use.”
Forensics is a long process, not a one-hour episode of CSI. Even meeting people and hearing their take on a major case can last months.
The work starts in interview rooms at the police station. One room has a tall potted plant, a couch, a painting on the wall. Called the soft room by police, it is designed to create a relaxed atmosphere.
Then there is the hard room. The room has a couple of chairs at a tabletop in a corner, the table braced to the walls and without legs. There are no plants, no comfort — the room sparse and strictly business.
Both the soft and hard room have eyes and ears on the wall. When someone sits in the room, police tell them the gadgets on the wall record everything.
The soft room is where Little interviews anyone who can add information to a case. In the hard room he interrogates suspects. Through his years of doing this work he has heard a truckload of stories.
“Truth is stranger than fiction,” he said. “What’s normal to you and me isn’t for everyone.”
The more someone talks, the less reserved or defensive they feel, the better a file proceeds. Talk away. A person’s story might go on and on — a soup sandwich, Little calls it — and doesn’t apply to the case, but maybe it leads to something he can use.
With a suspect, just getting them to talk is sometimes tougher than a Kevlar vest.
By law, a suspect can first meet with a lawyer then clam up in a police interview. However, the Supreme Court of Canada said police can continue questioning a silent suspect and without legal counsel in the room.
“The court said we can use trickery, provided police trickery is not an affront to society as a whole,” Little added.
Police can be persistent with a suspect, not intimidating and aggressive. They can’t cut a deal and promise a lighter sentence in exchange for a confession. Little knows the questioning can drag and drain. When he leaves a hard room he can be wiped out, as flat as day-old coffee.
“Sometimes we’re there for hours,” he said. “You prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Some people never give up anything. Some give up the whole thing. The worst thing you can do (with a suspect) is BS. They read you, too.
“Be patient. Don’t let frustration lead you. You can’t let emotions rule the way you deal with people. Don’t talk down to them or at them, but with them.
“The people who have the most success at this are not the stereotypical cop. Be yourself. The thing I have is the gift of gab.”
Little is one of eight detectives in Saskatoon with the major crimes unit. During an interview they work in pairs with one of them asking questions while the other one takes notes. They switch, knowing each person’s interview style draws different reactions.
Later, they compare notes and review the video. On one case, Little replayed a disc 30 times to see what he might have missed.
In every interview of a suspect, he measures his words so the questions don’t sound like accusations. He reads body language.
He gauges eye contact and watches posture. Bouncing legs show nervousness. Crossed arms reflect tension or being uncomfortable. He notices if the person moves closer to him during questioning or pulls back.
“Not just listening to the story, but how it’s told,” he said.
If a story somebody says isn’t true, inconsistencies start to surface.
Each person and every case is different. A seasoned criminal’s response to legal procedure is not like a first-time offender. Suspect sophistication, police call it. The job of a major crimes investigator is not to assume facts or take sides or badger a confession. What they look for are explanations. They consider the circumstances. Has someone’s thinking been impaired by drugs or alcohol? Was this murder or an accidental death?
“In an emotional interview, picking at heartstrings is a fine line,” Little said. “With emotional disintegration, you start believing you must have done it.”
And an innocent person doing time is worse than a guilty person walking free.
Little said there is no standard formula for doing an investigation. Some people respond to his questions, some don’t. To trust his instinct and make conclusions in a case based on his own experiences doesn’t fly.
“The payoff,” Little said, “is a solved case.
“This is all about truth.”