That works against a remarkably stupid questioner who repeats the same question. More efficiently, so does this:
Did you steal it?
> No
Did you steal it?
> What makes you think asking the same question again will
get a different answer?
Did you steal it?
(Silence)
And in a court, the second question would prompt an objection of "asked and answered" for the same reason.
On the other hand, a better questioner would ask questions around the same area and try to find a question they can get a response to. In particular, they'd ask questions for which it would be more unusual for someone to refuse to respond:
Did you see anyone or anything suspicious in the area?
Just because I typed up a quick example (which exactly exists and is used to crack a suspect in certain examples) you have launched into some sort of critique of one written example, of one segment, of one technique of one fictional scenario.
Then proceeded to offer a handful of lines of advice as if you are somehow rewriting the techniques of tactical questioners everywhere.
However, since you offered advice, let me offer you some.
1. We never specified we are in Court. That is not tactical questioning, it is cross examination and techniques exist for that.
2. >> On the other hand, a better questioner would ask questions around the same area and try to find a question they can get a response to.
Actually they absolutely will not do that. They will begin by asking the subject to just walk them through the entire <insert event/subject> in it's entirety and without interruption.
3. >> Did you see anyone or anything suspicious in the area?
That is a horrible question.
Have you established they were in the area? Do you want confirmation of someone suspicious or something suspicious? Why have you asked a closed question? Have you defined the area? have you defined the timebox you are referring to in the area?
^^
I am being overly harsh but that is what happens when you try to impose your criticism on a tiny aspect of complex science.
> "Does it matter where I was? You just said I didn't steal it. So you believe me right?"
Now your questioning has gone off the rails and your subject has placed the emphasis on you justifying your reasoning.
Even the follow up questions you have utterly smack of a Columbo-like approach which really only works in movies.
> A: So let me confirm this one more time, you were busy last night, had dinner with your friend Bob, then went out for a drink?
Response : "Why do you need it confirmed? We have been over this. Are you asking if I was busy all night?"
^^
Not to mention in your own example you have proven why you would be terrible at this.
You wrote the answer of the subject as saying I went out after I had dinner to meet my friend Bob for a drink.
Then you tried to follow up with "...had dinner with your friend Bob.
At no point did the subject say that, they said they had dinner and then met Bob for a drink. So you are seeking a false confirmation for a version of events the questioner has manufactured.
Comments
That works against a remarkably stupid questioner who repeats the same question. More efficiently, so does this:
Did you steal it?
Did you steal it?
Did you steal it?
(Silence)
And in a court, the second question would prompt an objection of "asked and answered" for the same reason.
On the other hand, a better questioner would ask questions around the same area and try to find a question they can get a response to. In particular, they'd ask questions for which it would be more unusual for someone to refuse to respond:
Did you see anyone or anything suspicious in the area?
Do you know Bob?
Where were you at the time?
Do you know anyone who might have reason to ...?
Dunning Kruger in full swing here.
Just because I typed up a quick example (which exactly exists and is used to crack a suspect in certain examples) you have launched into some sort of critique of one written example, of one segment, of one technique of one fictional scenario.
Then proceeded to offer a handful of lines of advice as if you are somehow rewriting the techniques of tactical questioners everywhere.
However, since you offered advice, let me offer you some.
1. We never specified we are in Court. That is not tactical questioning, it is cross examination and techniques exist for that.
2. >> On the other hand, a better questioner would ask questions around the same area and try to find a question they can get a response to.
Actually they absolutely will not do that. They will begin by asking the subject to just walk them through the entire <insert event/subject> in it's entirety and without interruption.
3. >> Did you see anyone or anything suspicious in the area?
That is a horrible question.
Have you established they were in the area? Do you want confirmation of someone suspicious or something suspicious? Why have you asked a closed question? Have you defined the area? have you defined the timebox you are referring to in the area?
^^
I am being overly harsh but that is what happens when you try to impose your criticism on a tiny aspect of complex science.
Or go in circles.
A: Ok, you didn't steal it, but where were you last night?
B: I went out after I had dinner to meet my friend Bob for a drink.
Fast forward 20 minutes...
A: So let me confirm this one more time, you were busy last night, had dinner with your friend Bob, then went out for a drink?
Gauge their response, see if they correct you and say no, they met Bob after dinner, sticking to their original facts.
The answer to your first question would be
Now your questioning has gone off the rails and your subject has placed the emphasis on you justifying your reasoning.
Even the follow up questions you have utterly smack of a Columbo-like approach which really only works in movies.
Response : "Why do you need it confirmed? We have been over this. Are you asking if I was busy all night?"
^^
Not to mention in your own example you have proven why you would be terrible at this.
You wrote the answer of the subject as saying I went out after I had dinner to meet my friend Bob for a drink.
Then you tried to follow up with "...had dinner with your friend Bob.
At no point did the subject say that, they said they had dinner and then met Bob for a drink. So you are seeking a false confirmation for a version of events the questioner has manufactured.