POLICE INVESTIGATIONS 101
LESSONS FROM SHAKESPEARE’S Twelth Night
Gilles Renaud | Ontario Court Of Justice (Retired)
INTRODUCTION
In this article, I document the various elements of guidance and instruction from Shakespeare’s play Twelfth Night 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 – lessons from this play
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 – elements to be studied
Aspect
DUKE ORSINO … of more grave aspect. [1-iv-26]
Eyes
VIOLA … her eyes had lost her tongue … [2-ii-17]
DUKE ORSINO … that cruel eye … [5-i-121]
Face
VIOLA Good madam, let me see your face. [1-v-216]
Forehead
MARIA … by the colour of his beard, the shape of his leg,
the manner of his gait, the expressure of his eye, forehead,
and complexion, he shall find himself most feelingly
personated. … [2-iii-148]
Lip
OLIVIA O, what a deal of scorn looks beautiful In the contempt
and anger of his lip! A murderous guilt shows not itself more soon …
[3-i-143]
Sighs
VIOLA … What thriftless sighs shall poor Olivia breathe! [2-ii-37]
Smile
VIOLA … Smiling at grief… [2-iv-114]
Visage
FABIAN And his opposite, the youth, bears in his
visage no great presage of cruelty. [3-ii-59]
Interviewing witnesses including would-be accused – lessons from this play
Interviewing – answer by the method – there is no method
The most important element in obtaining information is to set the witness in a situation of success, where they overcome their shyness and focus their attention to the task at hand. Thus, there are times when it is counter-productive to invite the witness to recount their trauma by starting at the start, as they may get confused and tired later when they arrive at the difficult parts. I know that this defies your training and common sense, but I have seen witnesses respond to such questions during tape-recorded interviews and I have seen them “deflate” by the time they got to the heart of their victimization. Consider this quote: “VIOLA To answer by the method …” [1-v-215] In sum, there is no method save that which promotes ease of expression by those who have been harmed.
Interviewing – brevity – not required and may be counter-productive
One constant mistake I noted in my more than 40 years viewing criminal trials is the advice given to potential witnesses by police officers to provide concise statements, with the words “If the lawyers want more information at trial, they will ask?” To the contrary, the supervising detective, if any, the Crown prosecutor and the judge who will review the file during a judicial pre-trial are entitled to detailed and insightful information. When witnesses state things for the first time at trial, they are “attacked” by the defence in cross-examination. Thus, do not follow the advice set out below:
OLIVIA
… if you have reason, be brief: 'tis not that time of
moon with me to make one in so skipping a dialogue. [1-v-187]
SIR TOBY BELCH
Go, write it in a martial hand; be curst and brief … [3-ii-40]
Interviewing – challenge the answer(s) provided
This is acceptable, so long as the witness is not intimidated – there can be no threats, inducements, etc. Consider: “MARIA Nay, but say true…” [2-v-173]
Interviewing – confession – half denial, half admission
Consider how every word might be important. Thus: “SIR ANDREW … I'll have an action of battery against him, if there be any law in Illyria: though I struck him first, yet it's no matter for that.” [4-i-33]
Interviewing – details, must obtain important information
It is vital to obtain information that is objective and contextually valuable. Information that does not assist is of no value. Consider this example:
SIR TOBY BELCH
He's as tall a man as any's in Illyria.
MARIA
What's that to the purpose? [1-iii-18]
In other words, that a person is tall or even the tallest in a city is without value as it states little, if anything, about the precise height in question. Investigators must obtain precise and valuable information that is context sensitive. To say that someone was “quite short” is not helpful if the charge is car theft and the short stature might prohibit driving a quite large luxury vehicle but not an expensive but low-slung sports car. In closing, consider this brief quote, setting out your objective: “FABIAN A good note; that keeps you from the blow of the law.” [3-iv-147]
Interviewing – explanations, always seek full details to understand it all
The example that follows is useful: “VIOLA … In your denial I would find no sense;
I would not understand it.” [1-v-248] Thus, to understand, you must seek information.
Interviewing – explanations – ascertaining the witness’s understanding
It is not only correct, it is proper to ask: “MALVOLIO Do you know what you say?” [3-iv-94]
Interviewing – leading question – avoid
This is an example of a prohibited question as it contains the information that is sought and that is controversial. Hence: “Clown … sayest thou that house is dark?” [4-ii-33]
Interviewing – record every word and action of the witness
There is no room for shortcuts in the matter of statements. Only a fully recorded statement capturing every word, sigh, hesitation and expression suffices. I quote what follows:
SIR TOBY BELCH
Go, write it in a martial hand; be curst and brief;
it is no matter how witty, so it be eloquent and fun
of invention: taunt him with the licence of ink:
if thou thou'st him some thrice, it shall not be
amiss; and as many lies as will lie in thy sheet of
paper, although the sheet were big enough for the
bed of Ware in England, set 'em down: go, about it.
Let there be gall enough in thy ink, though thou
write with a goose-pen, no matter: about it. [3-ii-39]
[Emphasis added]
Interviewing – simple questions may well succeed
Nothing stops this type of question from being put to a witness: “DUKE ORSINO What dost thou know [about such and such a situation]?” [2-iv-108]
Interviewing – vocabulary – obtain confirmation as to meaning of words
If you are interviewing a potential witness, you must verify if they understand all of what they are saying, not least to ascertain if they are repeating some “rote” scenario that is meant to advance a false complaint. They may have meant “flatness of affect” when describing a manner of speaking when they stated “flatulence of affect.” In this context, note how the speaker in the quote that follows seeks confirmation of his word selection: “SIR ANDREW By my troth, I would not undertake her in this company. Is that the meaning of 'accost'?” [1-iii-53] Consider as well the lines that are found a little later: “SIR TOBY BELCH Pourquoi, my dear knight? SIR ANDREW What is 'Pourquoi'? do or not do? …” [1-iii-85] In closing on the issue of vocabulary, notable are these lines:
OLIVIA
Cousin, cousin, how have you come so early by this lethargy?
SIR TOBY BELCH
Lechery! I defy lechery. … [1-v-116]
Judgment that must be shown by investigators – lessons from this play
Judgment – assess all available information to judge value of witness
On occasion, potential witnesses utter statements that display some element of incoherence and they must be assessed together with all available information to ensure an objective judgment. Consider these three statements that point to some “odd” element of thought that must be weighed as to merit, sincerity and reliability:
SIR ANDREW
Wherefore, sweet-heart? what's your metaphor? [1-iii-68]
SIR ANDREW
… but I am a great eater of beef and I believe that does harm to my wit. [1-iii-81]
Clown Many a good hanging prevents a bad marriage … [1-disv-17]
Judgment – dissembling – judge the sincerity of witnesses
In few words, are they telling the truth? Thus: “OLIVIA It is the more like to be feigned …” [1-v-183] Note as well: “VIOLA … If I do feign, you witnesses above Punish my life for tainting of my love!” [5-i-130]
Judgment – evidence – must assess it fully and fairly
Consider this useful phrase:
Clown … Good madonna, give me leave to
prove you a fool.
OLIVIA
Can you do it?
Clown
Dexterously, good madonna.
OLIVIA
Make your proof. [1-v-51]
Judgment – eyes – distrust your
Consider this example: “SEBASTIAN … That I am ready to distrust mine eyes.” [4-iii-13]
Judgment – false conclusion, to be avoided at all costs
Consider what follows: “SIR TOBY BELCH A false conclusion: I hate it as an unfilled can …” [2-iii-7]
Judgment – foolish person – beware those wise enough to play the
This is the advice Shakespeare offers on this subject: “VIOLA This fellow is wise enough to play the fool; And to do that well craves a kind of wit …” [3-1-37] Later, we read of “… shameful cunning …” at Act 3, scene I, l. 111.
Judgment – honesty – growth in …
The interesting expression that follows may be construed by a prudent investigator as an indication that objective information discloses a tendency to wrongdoing. Thus: “OLIVIA … you grow dishonest.” [1-v-37] Noteworthy as well are these observations: “SIR TOBY BELCH A very dishonest paltry boy, and more a coward than a hare: his dishonesty appears in …” [3-iv-370]
Judgment – human nature – love as an inconstant and dangerous emotion
Investigators seek to discern if potential witnesses are sincere and reliable witnesses and they may, not must, find truth in what follows: “DUKE ORSINO … For such as I am all true lovers are, Unstaid and skittish in all motions else …” [2-iv-17]
Judgment – identification evidence – be careful as rarely reliable
Criminal law decisions instruct investigators and lawyers that identification evidence is rarely reliable. That said, the police must amass as much information as possible on the prior opportunities, if any, of becoming familiar with the features of another. Consider: “DUKE ORSINO That face of his I do remember well …” [5-i-45]
Judgment – imagination – not to let it interfere
The quote that follows is quite useful. Thus: “MALVOLIO … I do not now fool myself, to let imagination jade me …” [2-v-143]
Judgment – meditate and deliberate upon your conclusions
It is always wise to take your time prior to reaching any conclusions. Thus: “SIR TOBY BELCH I will meditate the while …” [3-iv-188]
Judgment – oath – Shakespeare typically distrusts the notion that oaths bind
A rare “positive” example of sorts follows: “SEBASTIAN … And, having sworn truth, ever will be true.” [4-iii-37]
Judgment – odds, consideration of the likelihood of this or that
Investigators examine all manner of clues that address the likelihood that “x” situation is the result of a criminal act and that “y” person is the culprit. In so doing, naturally, consideration must be given to the odds, the likelihood of such things as coincidence, luck, error in observation, poor memory, etc. But, in evaluating such odds, sight must not be lost of the fact that you are judging human nature, and odds may simply not be a correct foundation for judgment. In this context, consider the quote that follows:
VIOLA
… My brother he is in Elysium.
Perchance he is not drown'd: what think you, sailors?
Captain
It is perchance that you yourself were saved.
VIOLA
O my poor brother! and so perchance may he be. [1-ii-5]
Judgment – open mind, you must keep an
Investigators must always be prepared to review their fundamental assumptions as to their investigation if new information is obtained. Thus, an “open mind” is critical to your exercise of your critical faculties. Consider this example of the contrary state of mind: “MALVOLIO … What is to be said to him, lady? he's fortified against any denial.” [1-v-137]
Judgment – rehearsed statement must be “taken apart”
One way of analysing the merits of statements others have obtained during an investigation is to seek out omissions that should have been easily provided. Consider:
OLIVIA
Whence came you, sir?
VIOLA
I can say little more than I have studied, and that
question's out of my part ... [1-v-166]
In effect, the witness had not been provided with that part of the “story”.
Judgment – reasons, are they adequate or remarkable?
In all things, seek to submit excellent justifications for your conclusions. Consider a quote falling short of that mark: “SIR ANDREW I have no exquisite reason for't, but I have reason good enough.” [2-iii-135]
Judgment – wisdom
Your conclusions must demonstrate wisdom. Thus: “OLIVIA … I prithee, gentle friend, Let thy fair wisdom, not thy passion, sway In this uncivil and thou unjust extent …” [4-i-50]
Professionalism that investigators must demonstrate – lessons from this play
Professionalism – boldness, a quality or not, according to circumstances
Boldness is an attribute but it is to be resorted to when the circumstances warrant it, as a matter of judgment. Noteworthy is this quote: “DUKE ORSINO … What foolish boldness brought thee …” [5-i-65]
Professionalism – concentration
The successful investigator will be pains taking in their practice and will be quiet and attentive when a teaching opportunity is available and about to be exploited by a superior officer or one more experienced in the precise controversy. As stated by Viola, “…Only shape thou thy silence to my wit.” [1-ii-60]
Professionalism – conflict of interest
These are very dangerous situations and you must not allow yourselves to be investigating loved ones or those with whom you have some bias. Thus: “OLIVIA … Thou shalt be both the plaintiff and the judge
Of thine own cause.” [5-i-343]
Professionalism – constancy, a sought-out quality in all ages
Shakespeare addresses this quality in the passage that follows:
Clown
… I would have men of such constancy put to sea, that their business might be every thing and their intent every where [2-76]
Professionalism – counsel and advice, always seek out
This truism is “addressed” somewhat by what follows:
Clown
Two faults, madonna, that … good counsel
will amend: … bid the dishonest man mend
himself; if he mend, he is no longer dishonest; if
he cannot, let the botcher mend him. … [1-v-38]
Of course, you must judge the value of the mentoring you receive. In that context, note this quote: “DUKE ORSINO O, you give me ill counsel.” [5-i-28]
Professionalism – courage and hope as adjunct to correct study of policing
Consider this advice: “VIOLA … Courage and hope both teaching him the practise …” [1-ii-12] In effect, any number of situations may provide welcome instruction for the dutiful student including those that embrace courageous acts and hopeful outcomes, such as kidnappings and hostage taking situations.
Professionalism – criticism out to be conducted rarely
Human nature being what it is, it is inevitable that one will engage in criticism of colleagues and superiors. A professional investigator will be guarded, and engage in such behaviour rarely, and will then seek to draw the correct lesson that such is ill-informed and unprofessional behaviour. Consider this quote that I have amended slightly: “VIOLA … When [th]y tongue blabs, then let mine eyes not see.” [1-ii-63]
Professionalism - danger as sport – never!
The quote that follows expresses nonsense as your staff are never to be sacrificed or even placed in danger, unless as a last resort. Thus:
ANTONIO
… That danger shall seem sport … [2-i-44]
Professionalism – delay – to be avoided at all costs
Some benefit is drawn from this example: “Clown … In delay there lies no plenty …” [2-iii-48] Of course, one takes the time to achieve a full investigation.
Professionalism – fear plays no part in your work
Take not the counsel of fear is a well-known statement. You must judge facts on their merits, and not let the fear that this person might not be charged because of a paucity of evidence interfere with your decisions, or your sleep. Consider: “ANTONIO … these arguments of fear [are irrelevant]”. [3-iii-13]
Professionalism – flattery, always beware of
This is a self-evident proposition. Thus: “OLIVIA I do I know not what, and fear to find
Mine eye too great a flatterer for my mind. …” [1-v-293]
Professionalism – greatness, the various elements of
Shakespeare teaches us the following: “MALVOLIO … but be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em. …” [2-v-125] Later, Shakespeare wrote: “MALVOLIO 'Be not afraid of greatness’ …” [3-iv-38] Note as well the repetition that follows: “Clown Why, 'some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrown upon them…”
Professionalism – knowledge, always seek to increase your degree of
This is a simple yet fundamental goal of your professional life. Thus: “ANTONIO … Whiles you beguile the time and feed your knowledge …” [3-iii-42] An additional useful comment follows: “Clown … I profit in the knowledge of myself …” [5-i-17]
Professionalism – modesty, you need at least a touch of
Consider this quote: “SEBASTIAN … But I perceive in you so excellent a touch of modesty, that you will not extort from me what I am willing to keep in …” [2-i-10]
Professionalism – music as the food for thought
Od hAny number of cases and trials have convinced me that it is not possible to hold persons to any single or simple standard for their work, especially how they may apply themselves and bring concentration to their enterprise. I have seen lawyers prepare cross-examination while cross-country skiing and police officers deliberate about the case they might bring against a suspect while playing the drums during a performance. All that matters is that the person is action professionally, and produces sound, objective results. In this vein, we may change the opening words of the play from “DUKE ORSINO If music be the food of love, play on …” to “If music be the food for intense thought and concentration of investigators, play on!”
Professionalism – nonsense – never allow any to rule your decision making
Consider this example: “VIOLA … Alas, our frailty is the cause, not we! …” [2-ii-29]
Professionalism – patience is always preferable to lack of …
This admonition is useful: “MARIA Sweet Sir Toby, be patient for tonight …” [2-iii-124] Consider as well: “VIOLA … She sat like patience on a monument …” [2-iv-112] and no less, this quote: “Clown Alas, sir, be patient …” [4-ii-98]
Professionalism – pity for accused as a member of an “enemy” group?
On occasion, investigators see the criminal accused as a form of enemy. This type of reasoning is quite contrary to your duty as an investigator. See: “VIOLA No, not a grize; for 'tis a vulgar proof, That very oft we pity enemies.”
Professionalism – respect for all you encounter
Consider these two excerpts of conduct and words never to be selected in your work:
MALVOLIO
My masters, are you mad? or what are you? Have ye
no wit, manners, nor honesty, but to gabble like
tinkers at this time of night? Do ye make an
alehouse of my lady's house, that ye squeak out your
coziers' catches without any mitigation or remorse
of voice? Is there no respect of place, persons, nor
time in you? [2-iii-86]
DUKE ORSINO
O thou dissembling cub! what wilt thou be …[5-i-158]
Professionalism – respect for lawyers
On occasion, thankfully rare, I have encountered situations in which the police failed to respect the important tasks of police officers who are entrusted with the duty of ensuring the rights of persons accused of crimes. Often, the subject of derision surrounds the ability of lawyers, as wordsmiths, to provide “favourable” interpretations for their client’s actions. Consider: “VIOLA … Nay, that's certain; they that dally nicely with words may quickly make them wanton.” [3-i-14] Later, we read “Clown … words are very rascals …” [3-i-19] and “Clown Troth, sir, I can yield you none without words; and words are grown so false, I am loath to prove reason with them.” [3-i-21] Still later, we read: “MALVOLIO … let thy tongue tang with arguments of state …” [3-iv-70]
Professionalism – respect for the Charter and the values of criminal law
As the quote that follows references, the quest for a successful outcome in terms of your investigation, a “return” so to speak, cannot be judged without regard to the rules that govern police conduct and investigations, notably the Charter. In this context, consider this quote: “DUKE ORSINO Be clamorous and leap all civil bounds
Rather than make unprofited return.” [1-iv-20] In fact, you cannot leap all legal bounds and you must accept an apparently “unprofited” outcome if no other outcome is consonant with justice.
Professionalism – violence – all criminal acts are to be denounced and investigated
Any investigator who pronounces the words below is to be the subject of an investigation. Consider: “SIR ANDREW O, if I thought that I'ld beat him like a dog!” [2-iii-133] and “MARIA … I can hardly forbear hurling things at him. …” [3-ii-74] Note as well: “SIR TOBY BELCH Do; cuff him soundly, but never draw thy sword.” [3-iv-375]
Conclusion
The play ends at Act 5, sc. I, l, 392, with these words that apply to your vital work: “Clown … And we'll strive to please you every day.”