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.
Comments
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.