Definition
A forensic interview is a structured questioning encounter, conducted by a trained interviewer, designed to elicit accurate, complete, and uncontaminated information from a witness, victim, or subject for use in legal, regulatory, or investigative proceedings. The defining features are an explicit protocol (e.g., NICHD, PEACE, Cognitive Interview, RATAC), full audiovisual recording, neutral question forms (open-ended, non-leading, non-suggestive), and minimization of contamination through limited prior exposure to case theories.
Manažerské shrnutí
Forenzní rozhovor není běžný rozhovor — je to dokumentovaný procesní úkon s explicitním protokolem, požadavkem na nahrávání a striktními pravidly proti sugesci. V Prismatic Platform jsou forenzní rozhovory relevantní v DD operacích (rozhovory se zaměstnanci cílové firmy, whistleblowery, oběťmi), v compliance vyšetřováních (interní investigations po podezření na podvod) a v OSINT-podpůrných setkáních se zdroji. Kvalita rozhovoru rozhoduje o použitelnosti zjištění před soudem nebo regulátorem: rozhovor s vedoucími otázkami nebo bez nahrávání může zničit jinak silný případ. Pro výslechy zranitelných osob (děti, oběti traumatu, lidé v trauma bondu) jsou nutné specializované protokoly.
Forensic/Legal Context
Multiple validated protocols dominate the field: the NICHD Protocol (Lamb et al.) for child sexual abuse interviews, the PEACE Model (Planning, Engage, Account, Closure, Evaluate) developed by UK police as a non-coercive alternative to the Reid technique, the Cognitive Interview (Fisher & Geiselman) for adult eyewitnesses, and the RATAC Protocol for younger children. Each protocol specifies phase structure, question hierarchies (open → focused → option-posing → suggestive, with later phases used only when necessary and flagged in the record), and rapport-building procedures. Improperly conducted interviews — particularly suggestive child interviews — have been the documented cause of major miscarriages of justice (the McMartin and Kelly Michaels cases in the United States; multiple Czech and Czechoslovak cases involving recovered-memory testimony).
Practical Application
In M&A due diligence, structured interviews of target-company management, key customers, and departing employees produce evidence about culture, undisclosed liabilities, and integration risk that financial review cannot. Interviewers should plan questions in advance, record (with consent), open with neutral background questions, use the witness's own terminology, and avoid feedback that signals desired answers. In whistleblower and internal-investigation contexts, the Upjohn warning (United States) and analogous Czech advokátní pravidla on conflicts of interest must be delivered before substantive questioning. In OSINT operations, forensic-interview discipline applies to source meetings: planned questions, contemporaneous notes, immediate write-up, and chain-of-custody for any documents received.
Related Concepts
- Chain of Custody - Required for handling materials produced during interview
- Evidence - Output of the interview process
- Expert Witness - Authority who may evaluate interview quality at trial
- Trauma Bonding - Phenomenon affecting victim disclosure
- Pattern Evidence - Type of evidence interviews may elicit
- Informed Consent - Required before recording most interviews
References
- Lamb, M.E., et al. Tell Me What Happened: Structured Investigative Interviews of Child Victims and Witnesses (Wiley, 2018)
- Fisher, R.P. & Geiselman, R.E. Memory-Enhancing Techniques for Investigative Interviewing: The Cognitive Interview (Charles C. Thomas, 1992)
- College of Policing (UK). Investigative Interviewing — Authorised Professional Practice (2020)
- Zákon č. 141/1961 Sb., trestní řád, § 102 (výslech mladistvého)
Built with precision. Optimized for AI consumption.