Decades of research on eyewitness identification procedures have resulted in the creation of best-practice recommendations (BPRs). Wells et al.’s 2020 recommendations are the most recent in academia, though governments have also issued recommendations.

Researchers have used surveys to determine whether/how well BPRs have been adopted by law enforcement agencies in Canada and the U.S. (e.g., Beaudry & Lindsay, 2006; Bertrand et al., 2018; Greene & Evelo, 2014; National Institute of Justice; 2013; Wogalter et al., 2006).

In the current research, I use a novel methodology of analyzing transcripts from nine criminal trials to determine whether officers in Manitoba, Canada followed BPRs for eyewitness identification procedures. While some BPRs were generally followed (e.g., providing the “perpetrator may or may not be present” instruction), in all nine cases there were multiple deviations from BPRs. I will discuss findings, implications, and also the benefits and drawbacks of using transcript analysis in this context.

Adhering to established best-practice techniques is often a challenge for child forensic interviewers. Promisingly, previous research has found improvements if interviewers receive regular feedback from experts or peers, although this can be difficult to source. Self-assessment offers a potential source of feedback for interviewers that is easily accessible and comes at minimal cost to organisations. The current study is the first to explore child interviewers’ ability to self-assess their field interviews. A sample of 56 child interviewers completed a self-assessment of their own performance in a recent interview. To allow comparisons to their peer-assessment abilities, the sample also completed a separate assessment of a fictional peer’s transcript. The self- and peer-assessment transcripts were reviewed by experts in child interviewing; participants’ assessments of both transcripts were compared to the experts’ assessments to determine the accuracy of participant reviews. The accuracy of self- and peer-assessments are presented.

United Nations member states endorsed in 2021 the Méndez Principles for effective and ethical interviewing practices. These principles, that safeguard a physically and psychologically safe environment for police interviewees, still leave room for police interviewers to be somewhat ‘strategic’ in when and how to disclose relevant – incriminating – information to suspects.
In this oral presentation, Dr Bull and Dr Van Beek will explain the principles and will present the research findings from four studies on how such strategic disclosure can be done in compliance with these principles. In the first study three such approaches were compared in a naturalistic experiment. The second study looked at the influence of making use of a free recall instruction or not. The third and fourth study explored what happens if the police unwittingly disclose incorrect information; and whether these effects can be corrected in the investigative process. Outcomes and implications will be discussed.

Culturally and linguistically diverse (CaLD) victim-survivors of sexual assault experience heightened vulnerability, particularly when investigative interviews overlook cultural differences. This study examines potential disparities in memory report between CaLD and non-CaLD interviewees and explores whether interpreters can mitigate these differences. Bilingual Mandarin speakers and native English speakers experienced a virtual reality implied sexual assault scenario, followed by a cognitive interview after a one-week delay. Mandarin speakers were randomly assigned to be interviewed in Mandarin, English, or in English with an interpreter, while English speakers were interviewed in English using the same cognitive interview protocol. Stress levels were measured pre- and post-scenario and then pre- and post-interview, along with participants' perceptions of the interview, interviewer, and interpreter (when applicable). Interpreter stress levels were also assessed (when applicable). Preliminary findings will be discussed to shed light on the nuances that demand attention for a more culturally sensitive approach in investigative interview practices.