ABSTRACT
And, like the Investigative Interview Method™ (I2M) it is structured, but flexible. However, it is designed to easily transition to an investigative interview when necessary. Because it is possible that the interviewee is culpable of an actionable offense unknown to the interviewer, the interviewer needs the ability to change his approach upon its discovery. This is more common than many fact finders anticipate. When it happens, the interviewer needs to be prepared and seamlessly transition to an investigative interview, obtain an admission, and properly move on. A loose, ad hoc administrative interview methodology will not allow this. Thus, going forward, I want you to think of the administrative interview as an investigative interview without the benefit of knowing the full involvement or culpability of the interviewee before you. To facilitate our examination of this method I will forego much of what was discussed in the prior chapter and instead focus on the differences between the two methodologies. Let’s begin with a few general considerations.
