POLICE INVESTIGATIONS 101

LESSONS FROM SHAKESPEARE’S HAMLET

Gilles Renaud | Ontario Court Of Justice (Retired)

INTRODUCTION

In this article, I document the various elements of guidance and instruction from the famous play Hamlet that may result in enhanced excellence in investigative work. Briefly stated, the discussion is organized along broad, thematic lines involving demeanour evidence, interviewing skills, judgment and professionalism in investigations.

DISCUSSION

Demeanour evidence as a guide to investigators

General introduction

Justice O'Halloran cautioned against the fear that a good actor might hoodwink the Court (and His Lordship would have added “the investigator” had he been asked) in Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 (B.C.C.A.), at para. 10. Refer as well to para. 46 of the judgment of Ryan J. A. in R. v. Sue, 2011 B.C.C.A. 91, to demonstrate the ongoing vitality of this judgment:

46 There are a number of cases which caution judges not to rely too heavily on demeanour in determining credibility. As stated by O'Halloran J.A. in the frequently cited case from this Court, Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 at paras. 10 …:

[10] If a trial Judge's finding of credibility is to depend solely on which person he thinks made the better appearance of sincerity in the witness box, we are left with a purely arbitrary finding and justice would then depend upon the best actors in the witness box. On reflection it becomes almost axiomatic that the appearance of telling the truth is but one of the elements that enter into the credibility of the evidence of a witness. Opportunities for knowledge, powers of observation, judgment and memory, ability to describe clearly what he has seen and heard, as well as other factors, combine to produce what is called credibility, and cf. Raymond v. Bosanquet (1919), 50 D.L.R. 560 at p. 566, 59 S.C.R. 452 at p. 460, 17 O.W.N. 295. A witness by his manner may create a very unfavourable impression of his truthfulness upon the trial Judge, and yet the surrounding circumstances in the case may point decisively to the conclusion that he is actually telling the truth. I am not referring to the comparatively infrequent cases in which a witness is caught in a clumsy lie.

Demeanour – body language observed closely to judge if it “matches” the words spoken

Consider a first example taken from another play, King Henry VI (Part1): “Plantagenet. Meantime your cheeks do counterfeit our roses; For pale they look with fear, as witnessing The truth on our side.” Refer to Act 2, sc. iv, l. 62. In effect, I imagine that you as the investigator are speaking, and that you are stating to the person you are interviewing: “your words and your demeanour are fighting each other as what you say is denied by your pale cheeks and fearful expression. In short, your face shows that you are caught in a lie!”

A further useful example follows of the appearance of the witness as a form of “lie-detector”. Refer again to King Henry VI (Part1), at 2-iv-64:

Somerset.

No, Plantagenet,
'Tis not for fear but anger that thy cheeks
Blush for pure shame to counterfeit our roses,
And yet thy tongue will not confess thy error.

Demeanour – What Shakespeare teaches us in Macbeth

The works of Shakespeare contain multiple examples of the dangers associated with demeanour evidence, a very controversial form of "testimony", and a subject that I have discussed critically in extra-judicial writings. Perhaps the best known of these examples is found in Act I, scene IV, of Macbeth: "Duncan: There's no art To find the mind's construction in the face." The companion reference that is best suited to underscore this point is set down in Act I, scene VII: "Macbeth ... Away, and mock the time with fairest show: False face must hide what the false heart doth know." I note as well how apposite is the passage that follows on the issue whether witnesses may be adept at feigning emotions: "... Let's not consort with them: To show an unfelt sorrow is an office Which the false man does easy." Refer to Act II, scene III of Macbeth.

In essence, Shakespeare teaches us two things:

1) We are not capable of assessing accurately what thoughts a person may be entertaining by means of their facial expression, and

2) A person is capable of assuming a "facial guise" that may well trick and deceive the observer.

In addition, both points are mutually reinforcing in the sense that the capacity that we all enjoy to adopt a "false face" only serves to exacerbate the general inability to discern "the mind's construction". In sum, the thoughts of a third party, a witness for our purposes, may not be judged fully and fairly based on their demeanour.

Demeanour – A brief excerpt from R. v N.S., [2012] 3 SCR 726

I only wish to quote this passage from the majority judgment of McLachlin C.J.C. and Deschamps, Fish and Cromwell JJ.A.:

Changes in a witness's demeanour can be highly instructive; in Police v. Razamjoo, [2005] D.C.R. 408, a New Zealand judge asked to decide whether witnesses could testify wearing burkas commented:

... there are types of situations ... in which the demeanour of a witness undergoes a quite dramatic change in the course of his evidence. The look which says "I hoped not to be asked that question", sometimes even a look of downright hatred at counsel by a witness who obviously senses he is getting trapped, can be expressive. So too can abrupt changes in mode of speaking, facial expression or body language. The witness who moves from expressing himself calmly to an excited gabble; the witness who from speaking clearly with good eye contact becomes hesitant and starts looking at his feet; the witness who at a particular point becomes flustered and sweaty, all provide examples of circumstances which, despite cultural and language barriers, convey, at least in part by his facial expression, a message touching credibility. [para. 78]

Demeanour – Guidance from Bowman A.C.J. of the Tax Court of Canada

The future Chief Justice of the Tax Court observed in Faulkner v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue - M.N.R.), [2006] T.C.J. No. 173:

13 Where questions of credibility are concerned, I think it is important that judges not be too quick on the draw. In 1084767 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Celluland) v. Canada, [2002] T.C.J. No. 227 (QL), I said this:

8 The evidence of the two witnesses is diametrically opposed. I reserved judgment because I do not think findings of credibility should be made lightly or, generally speaking, given in oral judgments from the bench. The power and obligation that a trial judge has to assess credibility is one of the heaviest responsibilities that a judge has. It is a responsibility that should be exercised with care and reflection because an adverse finding of credibility implies that someone is lying under oath. It is a power that should not be misused as an excuse for expeditiously getting rid of a case. The responsibility that rests on a trial judge to exercise extreme care in making findings of credibility is particularly onerous when one considers that a finding of credibility is virtually unappealable.

…

14 I continue to be of the view that as judges we owe it to the people who appear before us to be careful about findings of credibility and not be too ready to shoot from the hip. Studies that I have seen indicate that judges are no better than any one else at accurately making findings of credibility. We do not have a corner on the sort of perceptiveness and acuity that makes us better than other people who have been tested such as psychologists, psychiatrists or lay people. Since it is part of our job to make findings of credibility, we should at least approach the task with a measure of humility and recognition of our own fallibility. I know that appellate courts state that they should show deference to findings of fact by trial judges because they have had the opportunity to observe the demeanour of the witness in the box. Well, I have seen some accomplished liars who will look you straight in the eye and come out with the most blatant falsehoods in a confident, forthright and frank way, whereas there are honest witnesses who will avoid eye contact, stammer, hesitate, contradict themselves and end up with their evidence in a complete shambles. Yet some judges seem to believe that they can instantly distinguish truth from falsehood and rap out a judgment from the bench based on credibility. The simple fact of the matter is that judges, faced with conflicting testimony, probably have no better than a 50/50 chance of getting it right and probably less than that when their finding is based on no more than a visceral reaction to a witness. Moreover, it is essential that if an adverse finding of credibility is made the reasons for it be articulated. [Emphasis added]

Demeanour evidence – guidance from this play

Demeanour – a means of judging the inner thoughts?

This is the general theory, though it is controversial. Consider this example:

HAMLET.
… That from her working all his visage wan’d;
Tears in his eyes, distraction in’s aspect,
A broken voice, and his whole function suiting
With forms to his conceit? … [2-ii]

Consider as well the signal example of the play within a play wherein actors “coached” by Hamlet re-enact his father’s murder at the hands of his uncle Claudius, with a view to having the murderer’s demeanour betray him:

HAMLET.
… About, my brain! I have heard
That guilty creatures sitting at a play,
Have by the very cunning of the scene,
Been struck so to the soul that presently
They have proclaim’d their malefactions.
For murder, though it have no tongue, will speak
With most miraculous organ. I’ll have these players
Play something like the murder of my father
Before mine uncle. I’ll observe his looks;
I’ll tent him to the quick. If he but blench,
I know my course. … The play’s the thing
Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the King.

[2-ii] [Emphasis added]

The “play within a play” element has been often referenced as one of the foundations for the common law’s embrace of demeanour evidence as being of signal importance in fact finding. Thus, the passages found below tend to illustrate how judges and fact finders look to outwards expressions as “lie-detectors” for inner thoughts, especially of guilt:

HAMLET.
... There is a play tonight before the King.
One scene of it comes near the circumstance
Which I have told thee, of my father’s death.
I prithee, when thou see’st that act a-foot,
Even with the very comment of thy soul
Observe mine uncle. If his occulted guilt
Do not itself unkennel in one speech,
It is a damned ghost that we have seen;
And my imaginations are as foul
As Vulcan’s stithy. Give him heedful note;
For I mine eyes will rivet to his face;
And after we will both our judgements join
In censure of his seeming. [3-ii] [Emphasis added]

A further example is found in Act 3, sc. I:

KING.
Sweet Gertrude, leave us too,
For we have closely sent for Hamlet hither,
That he, as ’twere by accident, may here
Affront Ophelia.
Her father and myself, lawful espials,
Will so bestow ourselves that, seeing unseen,
We may of their encounter frankly judge,
And gather by him, as he is behav’d,
If’t be th’affliction of his love or no
That thus he suffers for. [Emphasis added]

Demeanour – duping others by “feigned” appearance

An excellent number of examples are seen in Hamlet:

HAMLET.
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. But come,
Here, as before, never, so help you mercy,
How strange or odd soe’er I bear myself,—
As I perchance hereafter shall think meet
To put an antic disposition on … [1-v]

In effect, he proposed to allow himself to seem mentally disturbed.

Note as well:

KING.
And can you by no drift of circumstance
Get from him why he puts on this confusion,
Grating so harshly all his days of quiet
With turbulent and dangerous lunacy? [3-i]

[Emphasis added]

Demeanour – the elements that are to be assessed by police officers as they interview potential witnesses

Brow

Note this example of grief, found at 1-ii, that supports the general belief that an “internal” emotion may well be manifested outwardly, and that lies or deceipt ought to manifest themselves and be available for detection by an alert investigator:

KING.
Though yet of Hamlet our dear brother’s death
The memory be green, and that it us befitted
To bear our hearts in grief, and our whole kingdom
To be contracted in one brow of woe …

Countenance

The example that follows is quite famous as Horatio describes how Hamlet’s father appeared, or at the very least, how the Ghost of his late father appeared to the guards who saw him near the battlements.

HORATIO.
A countenance more in sorrow than in anger. [1-ii[

Eyes

QUEEN.
Good Hamlet, cast thy nighted colour off,
And let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark.
Do not for ever with thy vailed lids … [1-ii]

HORATIO.
… thrice he walk’d
By their oppress’d and fear-surprised eyes … [1-ii]

Frown.

HAMLET.
What, look’d he frowningly? [1-ii]

Lament

HAMLET. [Play within a Play] … Anon comes in a fellow, takes off his crown, kisses it, pours poison in the King’s ears, and exits. The Queen returns, finds the King dead, and makes passionate action. The Poisoner with some three or four Mutes, comes in again, seeming to lament with her. T…” [3-ii] [Emphasis added]

Look

OPHELIA.

… And with a look so piteous in purport
As if he had been loosed out of hell … [2-i]

The quote that follows is often cited by those who are of the belief that demeanour evidence is worthy of great weight:

HAMLET.
Why, anything. But to the purpose. You were sent for; and there is a kind of confession in your looks, which your modesties have not craft enough to colour. I know the good King and Queen have sent for you. [2-ii] [Emphasis added]

Pallour

If a witness trembles or appears pale, as noted below, you must assess whether these outward manifestations of emotion are the result of some form of wish to deceive (or to impress) you, or are the consequences of illness, in the case of pallour, or situational responses such as a cold room leading to trembling. Consider this passage:

BARNARDO.
How now, Horatio! You tremble and look pale… [1-i]

A further worthwhile example follows:

HAMLET.
… And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
… [3-i] [Emphasis added]

One final illustration:

HAMLET.
… You that look pale and tremble at this chance … [5-ii]

Shows

HAMLET.
… Together with all forms, moods, shows of grief … These but the trappings and the suits of woe. [1-ii]

Sigh

OPHELIA.
… And thrice his head thus waving up and down,
He rais’d a sigh so piteous and profound
As it did seem to shatter all his bulk … [2-i]

KING.
There’s matter in these sighs. These profound heaves
You must translate; ’tis fit we understand them. [4-i]

Smiles

Perhaps the expression “smiling assassin” is derived from what follows:

HAMLET

… Yes, by heaven!
O most pernicious woman!
O villain, villain, smiling damned villain!
My tables. Meet it is I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain!
At least I am sure it may be so in Denmark. [1-v]

Consider as well:

HAMLET.
… What a piece of work is man … Man delights not me; no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so. [2-ii]

…

HAMLET.
Why did you laugh then, when I said ‘Man delights not me’?

ROSENCRANTZ.
To think, my lord, if you delight not in man, what Lenten entertainment the players shall receive from you. We coted them on the way, and hither are they coming to offer you service. [2-ii]

Trembling

BARNARDO.
How now, Horatio! You tremble and look pale… [1-i]

Visage

HAMLET.
Seems, madam! Nay, it is; I know not seems.
’Tis not alone my inky cloak, good mother,
Nor customary suits of solemn black,
Nor windy suspiration of forc’d breath,
No, nor the fruitful river in the eye,
Nor the dejected haviour of the visage … [1-ii]

[Emphasis added]

POLONIUS.
… We are oft to blame in this,
’Tis too much prov’d, that with devotion’s visage
And pious action we do sugar o’er
The devil himself. [3-i]

Interviewing witnesses – guidance from this play

Interviewing – commanding witnesses to speak is not within your powers

In most instances, a police officer is powerless to act if a witness refuses to provide information. In the case of a detainee or a person arrested, they have been informed of their right to silence and are free to act upon that information and remain silent. In the case of other witnesses, they have no legal duty to respond to your questions, though they cannot lie or mislead you if they choose to cooperate. If you were to charge them with some for of obstruct justice or interference with the discharge of your duties, their counsel could argue with success that their common law right to silence was being invoked, albeit silently, when they refused to respond to your enquiries. Although one would wish that the words quoted below would lead to a citizen assisting the authorities, in compliance with a moral duty, no legal duty requires such co-operation:

HORATIO.
What art thou that usurp’st this time of night,
Together with that fair and warlike form
In which the majesty of buried Denmark
Did sometimes march? By heaven I charge thee speak.

… Stay! speak, speak! I charge thee speak!

[Exit Ghost.]

MARCELLUS.
’Tis gone, and will not answer. [1-i] [Emphasis added]

Interviewing – commenting on the responses of the potential witnesses you interview

A police interviewer need not engage in a dialogue with a person who is being interviewed, and who might be called by the prosecution as a witness at trial. The most suitable type of exchange is to receive answers and to frame questions with a view to clarifying information or to guide the witness as to the areas you will to explore. That said, if you repeat the type of phrase that follows, there is a danger at trial that you will be criticized for attempting to fawn with that person. Hence, avoid these words: “KING. Why, ’tis a loving and a fair reply….” [1-ii]

Interviewing – contamination, concern that arises when interviewing more than one person at a time

The example that follows illustrates this proposition quite well. In the case of the two witnesses who saw the appearance of what they believe to be a ghost of the dead King, Marcellus states:

MARCELLUS.
Good now, sit down, and tell me, he that knows … [1-i]

The danger is that in interviewing both at the same time, contamination may arise in terms of the other witness.

Interviewing – general questions lead to precise ones

Consider this example:

HAMLET.
… But your news is not true. Let me question more in particular… [2-ii]

Interviewing – information to be sought from the person who best possesses direct information

The example that follows illustrates this proposition quite well. In the case of the two witnesses who saw the appearance of what they believe to be a ghost of the dead King, Marcellus invites the one who saw the Ghost better to speak:

MARCELLUS.
Good now, sit down, and tell me, he that knows …

Who is’t that can inform me? [1-i]

The danger is that in interviewing both at the same time, the one who knows less will wish to add to the stock of information and might thus skew the reliability of the information available, leaving aside the danger of contamination in terms of the other witness. That said, it is still a good example of the investigator seeking information from the witness who possesses information by stating the goal being pursued.

Interviewing witnesses – inventing falsehoods

As a general rule, it is not unlawful or a Charter breach to provide false information to a witness to spur on the person to furnish information but it is obvious that the greater the degree of mendacity, the more likely the matter will be subject to judicial criticism. Thus:

POLONIUS.
‘And in part him, but,’ you may say, ‘not well;
But if’t be he I mean, he’s very wild;
Addicted so and so;’ and there put on him
What forgeries you please; marry, none so rank
As may dishonour him; take heed of that;
But, sir, such wanton, wild, and usual slips
As are companions noted and most known
To youth and liberty. [2-i]

And a little later:

POLONIUS.
… See you now;
Your bait of falsehood takes this carp of truth;

… [2-i] [Emphasis added]

Interviewing – leading questions, to be avoided

Consider this example:

HAMLET.
Then saw you not his face?

HORATIO.
O yes, my lord, he wore his beaver up.

HAMLET.
What, look’d he frowningly? [1-ii]

This is a leading question as the person being questioned is invited to follow the suggestion as to the “frowning” look upon the face.

Interviewing – listen to the witness carefully and with respect

What follows is a sound illustration of how an interview of a potential witness should be conducted, especially of a victim of violence of some sort:

GHOST.
Pity me not, but lend thy serious hearing
To what I shall unfold. [1-v]

Interviewing – non-leading questions are essential to trustworthy investigations

The example that follows illustrates well how to formulate a non-leading question, that is to say one that does not include the answer you seek.

MARCELLUS.
Good now, sit down, and tell me, he that knows … [1-i]

Interviewing – patience is a required quality in listening to the witness

The examples shown below are quite important in illustrating the type of “ear” you must demonstrate:

HORATIO.
Season your admiration for a while
With an attent ear, till I may deliver
Upon the witness of these gentlemen …

[1-ii] [Emphasis added]

QUEEN.
… O gentle son,
Upon the heat and flame of thy distemper
Sprinkle cool patience. Whereon do you look? [3-iv]

PROLOGUE.
For us, and for our tragedy,
Here stooping to your clemency,
We beg your hearing patiently. [3-ii] [Emphasis added]

Interviewing – plan your interview

The example that follows illustrates the purpose sought to be achieved:

KING.
And can you by no drift of circumstance
Get from him why he puts on this confusion,
Grating so harshly all his days of quiet
With turbulent and dangerous lunacy? [3-i]

[Emphasis added]

Interviewing – right to counsel and right to silence

Many very experienced and able witnesses have testified before me over many years that they never hesitated to explain in great detail the rights enjoyed by a witness, well knowing that their reputation for professionalism depended upon this type of devotion to duty. Many times, they would also add that in their experience, witnesses would want to ignore the advice of counsel and waive their right to silence, and provide full statements, often implicating themselves. Hence:

HAMLET.
We shall know by this fellow: the players cannot keep counsel; they’ll tell all. [3-ii]

Interviewing – suggesting answers to a witness

Not unlike the situation of leading questions, an investigator cannot provide information to a potential witness to be repeated. Hence, one cannot be guided by the quote that follows: “GUILDENSTERN. What should we say, my lord?” [2-ii]

Judgment in investigations – guidance from this play

Judgment – admissions against interest – value of

As a general rule, we tend to believe what persons say of themselves that is negative in nature as common sense dictates that we do not typically present a negative image to those around us. That said, as in the case of any general observation, it is subject to exceptions. For example:

HAMLET.
… I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious, with more offences at my beck than I have thoughts to put them in, imagination to give them shape, or time to act them in. What should such fellows as I do crawling between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us. Go thy ways to a nunnery. Where’s your father? [3-i] [Emphasis added]

Judgment – accidental in nature – not fit

Investigators can only reach well reasoned judgments. In this context, I note:

HORATIO.
… And let me speak to th’ yet unknowing world
How these things came about. So shall you hear
Of carnal, bloody and unnatural acts,
Of accidental judgements, casual slaughters,
Of deaths put on by cunning and forc’d cause,
And, in this upshot, purposes mistook
Fall’n on the inventors’ heads. … [5-ii]

Judgment – bias – be mindful that many persons, notably youth, may place their ‘duty’ to friends above their obligation to society

In this context, noteworthy is what follows:

POLONIUS.
… Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them unto thy soul with hoops of steel;
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatch’d, unfledg’d comrade. … [1-iii]

Judgment – bias – mother’s

Consider this very direct comment:

POLONIUS.
… ’Tis meet that some more audience than a mother,
Since nature makes them partial, should o’erhear
The speech of vantage. … [3-iii] [Emphasis added]

Judgment – bias – father’s

KING.
I have sent to seek him and to find the body.
How dangerous is it that this man goes loose!
Yet must not we put the strong law on him … [4-iii]

Judgment - borrowing – effect on reliability

In many instances, a witness who is in debt towards another may no longer be a reliable witness as a result of this conflict of interest: Consider this example:

POLONIUS.
…Neither a borrower nor a lender be:
For loan oft loses both itself and friend;
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry. [1-iii]

Judgment – consent, obtained after much discussion, and granted grudgingly

The notion of consent is quite complex, whether it applies to sexual contact or the sale of an asset or the removal of a potential or existing beneficiary from a will. In this context, the quote that follows demonstrates the general proposition that “coaxing” may lead to an apparent valid consent, which proposition may not be valid in light of precise legislative provisions, such as the many sections in the Criminal Code relevant to sexual activity. Thus:

POLONIUS.
He hath, my lord, wrung from me my slow leave
By laboursome petition; and at last
Upon his will I seal’d my hard consent… [1-ii]

Consider as well this related quote:

KING.
… This gentle and unforc’d accord of Hamlet ... [1-ii]

Judgment – consulting with a colleague – dangers of

On occasion, it is dangerous to discuss certain beliefs or impressions without having set them out fully in writing, for fear that after hearing your colleague(s), you might no longer wish to express your earlier thoughts, for fear of ridicule…

Judgment – critical thought is always welcome

What Horatio states is quite welcome to judges who are called upon to assess the work of the police: was critical judgment demonstrated? Thus:

HORATIO.
So have I heard, and do in part believe it … [1-i]

Police officers, not unlike judges, are entitled to accept all of the information they receive, to reject it fully, or to accept part only, as a result of the exercise of their intellect. To quote a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. Francois, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 827:

In considering the reasonableness of the jury's verdict, the court of appeal must also keep in mind the fact that the jury may reasonably and lawfully deal with inconsistencies and motive to concoct, in a variety of ways. The jury may reject the witness's evidence in its entirety. Or the jury may accept the witness's explanations for the apparent inconsistencies and the witness's denial that her testimony was provoked by improper pressures or from improper motives. Finally, the jury may accept some of the witness's evidence while rejecting other parts of it; juries are routinely charged that they may accept all of the evidence, some of the evidence, or none of the evidence of each witness…”

Judgment – custom, honoured mostly in the breach

This well-known belief is first expressed in the passage that follows:

HAMLET.
Ay marry is’t;
And to my mind, though I am native here,
And to the manner born, it is a custom
More honour’d in the breach than the observance … [1-iv]

Judgment – difficulties in understanding mankind

Perhaps the best example of this type of belief follows:

HAMLET.
… What a piece of work is man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving, how express and admirable; in action how like an angel, in apprehension, how like a god: the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals. And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so. [2-ii] [Emphasis added]

Judgment – disbelief is urged by the witness

Consider this example:

Judgment – double standard based on gender

Note how Polonius easily comments on the necessary prejudice to be employed when permitting male “liberties” while limiting female ones:

POLONIUS.
… From this time
Be something scanter of your maiden presence;
Set your entreatments at a higher rate
Than a command to parley. For Lord Hamlet,
Believe so much in him that he is young;
And with a larger tether may he walk
Than may be given you. … [1-iii] [Emphasis added]

Judgment – eyes, trusting your own

The quote that follows suggests that police investigators ought to trust their eyes. In this context, you are invited to view the famous “Selective attention test” available on Google to best cause you to pause prior to placing too much faith in this faculty. Thus:

HORATIO.
Before my God, I might not this believe
Without the sensible and true avouch
Of mine own eyes. [1-i]

Judgment – flight as an indication of a guilty mind

The passage that follows supports the commonly held view that only those operating with a guilty mind flee or leave the scene of an event when the authorities arrive. Thus, after the apparition of the ghost of the late King disappears as the soldiers attempt to speak to it, directing its attention with a weapon, we read:

HORATIO.
And then it started, like a guilty thing
Upon a fearful summons. … [1-i]

The difficulty with this train of thought is that there may be a number of innocent explanations for the decision. For example, the person in issue believes that they ought not to cause the police any difficulties by being present to possibly hinder their investigations; they may have experienced severe conflict with the police in their former homeland; they may have misunderstood the identity of the undercover police officers who attended as being criminals; they may not have understood what was said due to a language or cognitive challenge; they may have had a pressing reason to leave, etc. One ought not to rush to judgment.

Judgment – honesty – percentage of honest citizens

It is perhaps unwise (and without purpose) to attempt to estimate their number but this is what Shakespeare suggests

HAMLET.
Then I would you were so honest a man.

POLONIUS.
Honest, my lord?

HAMLET.
Ay sir, to be honest, as this world goes, is to be one man picked out of ten thousand. [2-ii]

To be complete, Shakespeare later opined:

ROSENCRANTZ.
None, my lord, but that the world’s grown honest. [2-ii]

And, still further:

Finally, allow me to quote:

POLONIUS.
My lord, I will use them according to their desert.

HAMLET.
God’s bodikin, man, much better. Use every man after his desert, and who should ’scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity. The less they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty. Take them in. [2-ii] [Emphasis added]

Judgment – human nature – belief that some are born evil

Investigators must be careful to take into account that some witnesses they may interview will be influenced greatly by their deeply held belief that some individuals are naturally evil in nature and might thus “pervert” or “misjudge”, at the very least, certain objective facts into negative ones by reason of this kind of subjective belief. Consider this citation:

HAMLET.
… So oft it chances in particular men
That for some vicious mole of nature in them,
As in their birth, wherein they are not guilty,
Since nature cannot choose his origin,
By their o’ergrowth of some complexion,
Oft breaking down the pales and forts of reason;
Or by some habit, that too much o’erleavens
The form of plausive manners;—that these men,
Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect,
Being Nature’s livery or Fortune’s star,—
His virtues else,—be they as pure as grace,
As infinite as man may undergo,
Shall in the general censure take corruption
From that particular fault. The dram of evil
Doth all the noble substance of a doubt
To his own scandal. [1-iv] [Emphasis added]

Judgment – human nature – beauty can distort reliability

It is not unheard of that judges at trial (and thus police officers in their earlier interviews of witnesses at the police station) have concluded that the reliability of the proposed testimony was compromised by reason of the beauty of the suspect. As we read:

HAMLET.
Ay, truly; for the power of beauty will sooner transform honesty from what it is to a bawd than the force of honesty can translate beauty into his likeness. This was sometime a paradox, but now the time gives it proof. …

[3-i] [Emphasis added]

Judgment – human nature – “better the Devil we know…”

Consider this related adage:

HAMLET.
… And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of? [3-i]

Judgment – human nature – estimating the passage of time

Experience has taught us, and certainly, judges are of the general view, that most witnesses are incapable of estimating the passage of time correctly. In this vein, the existence of contemporaneous notes or of photos on one’s phone with dates in support are highly prized. The passage that follows illustrates how many people reason, illustrating that the restriction of dates from the original two months to a lesser period is in keeping with the witnesses’ subjective desire to demonstrate a precise point, in this case, the undue haste his mother showed in re-marrying after her husband’s sudden death:

HAMLET.
… That it should come to this!
But two months dead—nay, not so much, not two:
So excellent a king; that was to this
… and yet, within a month—
Let me not think on’t—Frailty, thy name is woman!
A little month … married with mine uncle,
My father’s brother; but no more like my father
Than I to Hercules. Within a month,
Ere yet the salt of most unrighteous tears
Had left the flushing in her galled eyes,
She married. O most wicked speed, to post
With such dexterity to incestuous sheets! … [1-ii]

[Emphasis added]

Judgment – human nature – prejudice

Interviewers must be careful not to accept too easily the distorted views of a potential witness who is victim to prejudice such as racism or sexism. For example, this classic put down of women based on nothing but lack of judgment:

HAMLET.
… Frailty, thy name is woman! [1-ii]

Judgment – human nature – quarrel without cause due to honour

The passage that follows demonstrates this proposition:

HAMLET.
… Rightly to be great
Is not to stir without great argument,
But greatly to find quarrel in a straw
When honour’s at the stake. [4-iv]

Judgment – human nature – superlative comments or conclusions

It is very important that investigators be very circumspect in reaching their conclusions and avoid too broad statements such as expressed below. When one suggests that no other person is as good, or as honest, etc., there is a real danger of over-reaching.

HORATIO.
I saw him once; he was a goodly king.

HAMLET.
He was a man, take him for all in all,
I shall not look upon his like again. [1-ii]

[Emphasis added]

Judgment – human nature – vengeance, as a motivator

This emotion accounts for many crimes and must always be assessed in an investigation.

HAMLET.
… Bloody, bawdy villain!
Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindless villain!
Oh vengeance! [2-ii]

Judgment – jealousy and guilt are oft intertwined

Consider this passage:

QUEEN.
… So full of artless jealousy is guilt,
It spills itself in fearing to be spilt. [4-v]

Judgment – love – distorts the better judgment of persons

The wise investigator will pay heed to the fact that individuals may act totally out of character by reason of their emotional investment as regards another. Thus:

POLONIUS.
Come, go with me. I will go seek the King.
This is the very ecstasy of love,
Whose violent property fordoes itself,
And leads the will to desperate undertakings,
As oft as any passion under heaven
That does afflict our natures. … [2-i]

Judgment – memory – is it a faculty capable of being “locked”?

Consider this famous passage in favour of this proposition:

LAERTES.
Farewell, Ophelia, and remember well
What I have said to you.

OPHELIA.
’Tis in my memory lock’d,
And you yourself shall keep the key of it. [1-iii]

All that being expressed, the corollary proposition is that one may “purge” one’s mind of memories. Thus:

HAMLET.
… Remember thee?
Ay, thou poor ghost, while memory holds a seat
In this distracted globe. Remember thee?
Yea, from the table of my memory
I’ll wipe away all trivial fond records,
All saws of books, all forms, all pressures past,
That youth and observation copied there;
And thy commandment all alone shall live
Within the book and volume of my brain,
Unmix’d with baser matter. … [1-v]

Judgment – naiveté, not always a quality that deserves criticism

In Hamlet, the murderous stepfather of the chief character stated “KING. … An understanding simple and unschool’d …” [1-ii] An investigator ought not to conclude, without thought or analysis, that an unschooled person is less intelligent than one with diplomas and certificates.

Judgment – nonsense is nonsense

At times, it is necessary to be quite obvious in describing nonsense as nonsense. Consider the example that follows:

HAMLET.
… Our indiscretion sometime serves us well … [5-ii]

Judgment – oaths, value of

Refer to the rubric “Judgment – trappings of truth?” Refer as well to these two passages:

POLONIUS.
… In few, Ophelia,
Do not believe his vows; for they are brokers,
Not of that dye which their investments show,
But mere implorators of unholy suits,
Breathing like sanctified and pious bawds,
The better to beguile. … [1-iii]

HAMLET.
… Makes marriage vows
As false as dicers’ oaths. O such a deed

Judgment – odd example

Consider:

HAMLET.
I am but mad north-north-west. When the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a handsaw. [2-ii]

Judgment – philosophy – general understanding of wondrous things

In this context, consider what follows:

HAMLET.
… And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. … [1-v]

Judgment – profit - seek out if witness has any hope of

The example that follows illustrates the detective’s question: “what might it gain a potential witness to advance a falsehood?” Consider:

HAMLET.
Nay, do not think I flatter;
For what advancement may I hope from thee,
That no revenue hast, but thy good spirits … [3-1]

Judgment – proportionality in self-defence

The advice that Polonius provides to his son Laertes may not be in keeping with the strictures of the law on self-defence, as it may not be in keeping with the requirement for proportionality. I quote:

POLONIUS.
… Beware of entrance to a quarrel; but being in,

Bear’t that th’opposed may beware of thee. … [1-iii]

Judgment – refusing to consider evidence (or information that might constitute evidence)

A police officer fails to discharge their general duty to the administration of justice when they fail to consider relevant evidence, broadly defined, in a rush to judgment or by reason of a wish to dispose of a file due to lack of interest, amongst other failures of compliance with duty. Thus, any officer who acts in accordance with the words underlined is guilty of this type of misconduct:

BARNARDO.
Sit down awhile,
And let us once again assail your ears,
That are so fortified against our story,
What we two nights have seen. [1-i]

[Emphasis added]

Judgment – reserve prior to concluding – make up your mind slowly

Note the words spoken by Polonius to Laertes on this, and other subjects:

POLONIUS.
… And these few precepts in thy memory

… Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice:
Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgement. … [1-iii]

Judgment – sexist thinking

Is the famous saying about the lady protesting, quoted below, well known by reason of the reference to “lady”, thus suggesting a sexist, non equal estimation of her actions or rather, it is focused on the objective fact of protesting? See:

HAMLET.
Madam, how like you this play?

QUEEN.
The lady protests too much, methinks. [3-ii]

Judgment – trappings of truth?

Police officers must be careful not to be deceived by outward manifestations of sincerity and reliability – typically, focus your analytical powers upon objective facts, if any. In this vein, consider what follows:

OPHELIA.
And hath given countenance to his speech, my lord,
With almost all the holy vows of heaven.

POLONIUS.
Ay, springes to catch woodcocks. I do know,
When the blood burns, how prodigal the soul
Lends the tongue vows … [1-iii]

Judgment – wisdom in others – be wary of emphasizing this quality too strongly

This illustration will suffice:

HAMLET.
…Or if thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool; for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of them… [3-i]

Judgment – words without meaning

Consider this example:

HORATIO.
These are but wild and whirling words, my lord. [1-v]

Judgment - youth – be mindful of the “spirit” of youths

This ‘warning’ is derived from this passage:

LAERTES.

… And in the morn and liquid dew of youth
Contagious blastments are most imminent.
Be wary then, best safety lies in fear.
Youth to itself rebels, though none else near. [1-iii]

Consider as well:

POLONIUS.
… But, sir, such wanton, wild, and usual slips
As are companions noted and most known
To youth and liberty. [2-i]

…

Your party in converse, him you would sound,
Having ever seen in the prenominate crimes
The youth you breathe of guilty, be assur’d … [2-i]

Finally, I quote:

POLONIUS.
… It seems it is as proper to our age
To cast beyond ourselves in our opinions
As it is common for the younger sort
To lack discretion. … [2-i]

Professionalism in investigations – guidance from this play

Professionalism – be not host on your own petard

Consider this well-known expression:

HAMLET.
… For ’tis the sport to have the engineer
Hoist with his own petard … [3-iv]

Professionalism – be true to thyself

Consider this we ll known passage:

POLONIUS.
… This above all: to thine own self be true;
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man. … [1-iii]

Professionalism – brevity is the soul of wit

The support for this proposition follows:

POLONIUS.
… Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief. … [2-ii]

Professionalism – cross-examination – understand that counsel for the defence will seek to impeach your testimony subtly

Consider this illustration from Hamlet:

POLONIUS.
… Look you, sir,
Enquire me first what Danskers are in Paris;
And how, and who, what means, and where they keep,
What company, at what expense; and finding
By this encompassment and drift of question,
That they do know my son, come you more nearer
Than your particular demands will touch it.
Take you as ’twere some distant knowledge of him,
As thus, ‘I know his father and his friends,
And in part him’—do you mark this, Reynaldo?

[2-i] [Emphasis added]

Professionalism – “cruel to be kind”

Consider this example taken from the play: “HAMLET. … I must be cruel, only to be kind …” [3-iv]

Professionalism – deliberation is required prior to decisions

I quote in this regard what follows:

KING.
It likes us well;
And at our more consider’d time we’ll read,
Answer, and think upon this business. … [2-ii]

HAMLET.
Why, then ’tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so. … [2-ii]

KING.
… I stand in pause where I shall first begin … [3-iii]

KING.
My words fly up, my thoughts remain below.
Words without thoughts never to heaven go. [3-iii]

KING.
Let’s further think of this … [4-vii]

Professionalism – double standard – avoid any suggestion that you seek that others “do as you say, but not as you do”

A sound example of this type of double standard is seen in the passage that follows:

OPHELIA.
I shall th’effect of this good lesson keep
As watchman to my heart. But good my brother,
Do not as some ungracious pastors do,
Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven;
Whilst like a puff’d and reckless libertine
Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads,
And recks not his own rede. [1-iii] [Emphasis added]

Professionalism – duty is often written down, but not invariably

Consider this example:

HORATIO.
As I do live, my honour’d lord, ’tis true;
And we did think it writ down in our duty
To let you know of it. [1-ii]

Professionalism – harm not offenders

It is not the function of investigators to punish offenders. As we read in Hamlet: “HAMLET. He would … Make mad the guilty …” [2-ii]

Professionalism – haste, demonstrate a resolve to discharge your duties promptly, but properly

Consider this example:

KING.
… Farewell; and let your haste commend your duty.

CORNELIUS and VOLTEMAND.
In that, and all things, will we show our duty. [1-ii]

Professionalism – insolence that develops after achieving promotion

The investigator must beware of becoming haughty after achieving some success. Thus:

HAMLET.
… For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The pangs of dispriz’d love, the law’s delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes … [3-i] [Emphasis added]

Professionalism – keep your own thoughts to your self

The members of the community and of the public directly involved in your work as a detective are not to be told your private opinions on politics, the legal system, judges, etc. You have taken an oath of secrecy and you must be true to your oath. In this context, note:

POLONIUS.
… And these few precepts in thy memory
Look thou character. Give thy thoughts no tongue,
Nor any unproportion’d thought his act. … [1-iii]

Professionalism – lessons that are received are applied

Detectives must apply fully the lessons that they are taught, both by means of formal instruction and at the “school of hard knocks”.

OPHELIA.
I shall th’effect of this good lesson keep
As watchman to my heart. … [1-iii]

Professionalism – method to your fashion of reasoning

Investigators must be methodical in their manner of solving crimes. In this context, I refer to the oft-quoted phrase: “POLONIUS. [Aside.] Though this be madness, yet there is method in’t….” [2-ii]

Professionalism – passion’s slave

One must fear being the person described in the passage that follows:

HAMLET.
… Give me that man
That is not passion’s slave, and I will wear him
In my heart’s core, ay, in my heart of heart,
As I do thee. … [3-ii]

Professionalism – provide information and not just words

The quote that follows is often the basis for this belief as the speaker, Polonius, is far too brief in the Queen’s judgment, leading her to state: “.More matter, with less art.” [2-ii]

Professionalism – sorrows, investigators must be mindful of the plight of victims

I offer this citation in support:

KING.

… When sorrows come, they come not single spies,
But in battalions. [4-v]

Professionalism –violence, must justify any element, including a show of

No police officer may engage in any act of violence, amounting to an assault, which includes an attempt as set out at s. 265 of the Criminal Code, without lawful justification. In this context, note what follows:

MARCELLUS.
’Tis gone!
We do it wrong …

To offer it the show of violence … [1-i]

Professionalism – voice, success as a witness requires good communication skills

It is a sad reality of our criminal justice system that the overwhelming bulk of all evidence is provided by witnesses who speak to the Court, whether a judge alone or a jury, who evaluate the merits of the testimony and in doing so, consider the voice of the witness and whether it demonstrates conviction. Why this is so is difficult to justify in our modern world, and why the witness is not allowed to respond by typing their response to eliminate the importance of one’s voice is difficult to justify. In the end, you must be alert to the fact that your voice is being judged together with what your voice communicates. Thus, the King in the quote that follows expresses his belief that whatever Laertes wishes to obtain wil prove difficult if he cannot speak with conviction and detail:

KING.
… And now, Laertes, what’s the news with you?
You told us of some suit. What is’t, Laertes?
You cannot speak of reason to the Dane,
And lose your voice. What wouldst thou beg, Laertes,
That shall not be my offer, not thy asking? … [1-ii]

[Emphasis added]

Professionalism – who must answer whom?

The example that follows illustrates the thorny situation involving two officers from different police forces who do not know each other but who come into contact, each seeking to enjoy the upper hand, and each might justify their position by reference to officer safety. Thus: “BARNARDO. Who’s there? FRANCISCO. Nay, answer me. Stand and unfold yourself.” [1-i] This situation may become quite problematic if one of the investigators is acting in an undercover capacity.

Conclusion

From the perspective of a detective, the phrase that follows best identifies their task:

POLONIUS.
Take this from this, if this be otherwise.
[Points to his head and shoulder.]
If circumstances lead me, I will find
Where truth is hid, though it were hid indeed
Within the centre. [2-ii]

That said, I add this general observation that is very much in the interests of law enforcement:

HAMLET.
… Were you not sent for? Is it your own inclining? Is it a free visitation? Come, deal justly with me … [2-ii] [Emphasis added]