In addition to taking written statements, modern police often audio and video tape subject interviews. Should it be accepted by the defense, the tape becomes evidence in further conduct of the case. In the same time, the transcript of the audio/video recorded tape enables investigators and prosecutors to make informed decisions about what was said during the interview. In most cases, investigators who conducted the said subject interview testify in the case which means that the audio/video tape and its transcript (again, if agreed by the defense), become exhibits when accepted by the Chambers.
It is understood that after receiving a transcript back from the transcriber, the investigator will re-listen, i.e. revise the transcript. However, it is extremely important that the transcript is properly done the first time round and that the investigator makes minimal or no changes to it. Should the investigator make any changes to your transcript (yours because you will be asked to explain should anything linguistically ambiguous arise from your rendering), s/he is obliged to inform you about any changes s/he made.
In ideal case, the investigator will provide glossary to the transcriber. The glossary will contain specialized terms and a list of all names and locations mentioned during the interview. There is absolutely no reason why you should not be provided glossary, so if you don’t get one, there is a problem.
Although the following instructions could, under certain circumstances, apply to all kinds of transcripts, police transcripts differ from other transcripts in that they have to be verbatim and unembellished.
Topology of the police interviews
Investigators normally work in pairs: one is taking statement of facts and the other is clarifying unclear portions in the subject’s propos. This means the first investigator will ask normal 5W+H questions (who, what, where, when, why and how) whereas the second might be more provocative and probing (Are you trying to tell me that X? So you think that X? According to you X? That sounds like X.).
Police interviews are very straight forward. The lead investigator will start by introducing self, the date, time and location where the interview is taking place and will then ask others to introduce themselves. This will give you a chance to learn their voices. Good investigator will not forget to let the participants in the interview know that the tape will be transcribed and that they should not speak too fast, over each other and that they should speak clearly.
After they have finished with the introductions, the investigator will proceed to reading the subject’s rights and the list of allegations put before him or her. The subject rights don’t really change, so, once you transcribed them, you should keep them handy somewhere to save you from typing them over and over again; what does change, however, is how the investigator reads them.
Once this is done, the lead investigator will ask the subject about his background and/or relation to the subject, and then move to discussing the merits of the matter.
Suggested formatting
Font: Ariel; Size: 12; Spacing: 1.5; Simple numbering in 1, 2, 3 format.
Numbering (automatic), initials, colon, tab, text:
XX: My name is...
The purpose of formatting is to make the transcript readable and to prepare it for later quoting by the parties during the court procedures. Simple numbering is often better when quoting: “Line 72, subject confirmed having been...” vs. “Lines 12 through 17 and 19 through 24, page 22, subject confirmed having been...”
TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW – (your initials) Interviewee: Mr./Ms. Full Name (Initials) Functional Title Name of Organization Investigators: Mr./Ms. Full Name (Initials) Functional Title Name of Organization Date: (date of actual interview)
XX: Today is (date), it is (time), we are in (location). My name is (full name), I am (functional title). I am assisted here today with my colleague...
YY: My name is (full name), I am (functional title).
XX: And we will be conducting a subject interview of...
ZZ: My name is (full name), I am (functional title).
XX: Okay, Mr. ZZ, before we start the interview I need to advise you of your rights. You have a right to /.../; do you understand?
ZZ: Yes.
XX: This investigation is conducted pursuant to /.../; do you understand?
ZZ: Yes.
If the interview is conducted with the aid of interpreter, you should put “/Int” right next to the subject initials. Do not include it if the subject answers in English:
XX: Today is (date), it is (time), we are in (location). My name is (full name), I am (functional title). I am assisted here today with my colleague...
YY: My name is (full name), I am (functional title).
XX: And we will be conducting a subject interview of...
ZZ/Int: My name is (full name), I am (functional title).
XX: Okay, Mr. ZZ, before we start the interview I need to advise you of your rights. You have a right to /.../; do you understand?
ZZ: /self/ Yes.
XX: This investigation is conducted pursuant to /.../; do you understand?
ZZ/Int: Yes.
Many transcribers prefer to put the names of the participants in the footer. They argue that this will help the reader always know who said what during the interview.
On the one hand, a reader who confuses police officer for a subject or a reader who is unable to scroll back to the first page where all participants and their functions are clearly named is clearly at a loss. On the other, keeping the list of participants in the footer increases the number of pages. Transcripts are normally printed out in numerous copies and that opens up a not unimportant issue of waste of paper.
For example: I recently completed transcript that fit on 204 pages (formatting as above). When I put the names of participants in the footer and changed the font to Times New Roman, size 12, that same transcript fit onto 247 pages. It is very likely the transcript will be printed out by, at least, one investigator, one analyst, one assistant prosecutor, one prosecutor, one assistant defense attorney and one defense attorney which brings us to 1224 vs. 1487 pages or 263 pages of wasted paper. Nobody expects you to leave whatever you’re doing and go to the closest park and start hugging trees, but, if you’re already in a situation you can do something to save them, why not do it.
What to transcribe and how to tag?
First thing’s first: every transcript of a police interview has to be done verbatim. All communication must be transcribed. You type what you hear, just like you heard it, absolutely no embellishment allowed. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s as simple as that.
In general, one hour of conversation is transcribed in 5 hours. In general, fair price for one hour of material for transcription is $200.
Commenting is allowed in transcripts. Comments are called tags and all your tags should be put in /.../ or [...], but not in (...) because they can be confused for the original utterance.
When transcribing, you will soon realize the most important thing about making transcripts: punctuation is the only tool at your disposal. In that, you have to be especially careful with conjunctions such as: and, as, because, for, etc.
Mostly, investigators ask questions after making an allegation; these two should be kept separate:
XX: Let me see if I understood you correctly: after having woken up with a hangover, prior to taking a shower, you discovered you received SMS message; correct?
Investigators also have a habit of repeating subject’s answer or claim. They do this to establish solidity of facts.
XX: So, you read this newspaper article?
YY: Yes.
XX: You did?
YY: Yes.
Or:
YY: I would have done it, but the newspaper never came.
XX: It never came.
YY: It never came.
XX: The newspaper never came.
YY: No.
XX: Okay.
Also, it will happen that the speakers lead a natural conversation, meaning that they will not necessarily wait for each other to finish, but that will not affect the transcript:
XX: So, did Mr ZZ...
YY: Yeah?
XX: ... write you about that?
YY: Yes, he did.
Or:
XX: You woke up...
YY: Yes.
XX: ... and you called him...
YY: Yes.
XX: ... and he has told you what happened...
YY: Yes.
XX: ... but, you didn’t react immediately.
YY: No.
XX: Is that, is that what happened?
YY: Yes.
XX: What do you mean?
YY: I woke up and he called me and told me what happened, but I didn’t react immediately.
In my experience, the following non-verbal sounds are used as means of communication between the speakers: uh-huh (confirming), pfff (dismissing), ehm (changing subject), uhm (thinking).
XX: So, can you tell me what you did that day, then?
YY: Uh-huh.
XX: Okay, start from the beginning.
YY: I was hung over. Uhm, I was hung over and I didn’t feel all that well when I got up that morning. I was like “Pff, not weekend duty at work, again.” So, before I had a shower, ehm, just, actually, I checked my phone and I saw I received two SMS messages.
Please, note: all the above may differ in length. Marking them as “uuuuh-huuuuuuh” or “uuuuuuuuuuuuhm” or “eeeeeeeehm” or “pffffffffff” does look a bit neurotic, right?
Speech is sometimes unintelligible or inaudible. Your investigator needs to know about all such instances and the best way to get his attention is to put these tags in bold and/or in color that is different from the rest of the font color you used in the transcript.
In addition to that, it will sometimes happen that you will be pretty sure that you heard something, but you will not be 100% sure. It is best to mark those with tag /?.../.
Do not forget the time stamp when tagging these. Do not use these tags to compensate for your lack of concentration! People’s professional or emotional wellbeing is at stake here. Having more than five of these tags in any interview is not normal.
XX: So, can you tell me /inaudible, 00:00:00/, then?
YY: Uh-huh.
XX: Okay, start from the beginning.
YY: I was hung over. Uhm, I was hung over and I didn’t feel /unintelligible, 00:00:00/ I had a shower, ehm, just, actually, I /?checked my phone, 00:00:00/ and I saw I received two SMS messages.
When starting to speak, people sometimes use filler words that are not communicating anything, like filler “ehm.”
On the other hand, there are people who start sentences using filler words such as: okay, right, alright. Those are clearly ambiguous because they can have more meanings, such as: “Okay, I hear what you said,” “Alright, we established that fact,” or just “Right.” I suggest you omit what’s in red:
XX: Ehm, so, can you tell me what you did that day, then?
YY: Ehm, uh-huh.
XX: Okay, start from the beginning.
YY: Alright. I was hung over. Uhm, I was hung over and I didn’t feel all that well when I got up that morning. I was like “Pff, not weekend duty at work, again.” So, before I had a shower, ehm, just, actually, I checked my phone and I saw I received two SMS messages.
Sounds such as: /burps/, /laughs/, /doors open/close/, /sighs/, etc. should find their place in transcript if they affect communication in any way.
XX: So, as I was saying, /burps/. Sorry about that.
(He apologized, so you have to put /burp/ because why else would he apologize)
YY: /laughs/
(He reacted to XX’s burping and/or apology)
XX: Sorry. /doors open/ We are now joined by another colleague who will introduce himself for the record /door closes/.
(XX apologized again when YY laughed at him and announced a third person who just arrived, hence tag about the doors)
WW: My name is WW, I am (functional title), with the (organization). I do have a couple of questions for you this morning.
YY: /sighs/
(The third person reacts to YY’s disappointment expressed by sighing in the next line)
WW: I know, I know, I do apologize, we didn’t anticipate this will last this long, but I promise not to keep you much more.
Non-native speaker specific
Generally speaking, participating in investigation is not a pleasant experience. It’s a brand new world that opens before an individual and s/he cannot but be cautious or feel intimidated regardless of his or her involvement in the case.
In such tense situations, people tend to mumble or tend to go back to their own language for comfort or to make sense of reality that is put before them. Far being it from saying that all native speakers are perfect speakers, but it’s not unusual that non-native speakers, regardless of their erudition, mumble or insert words from their own language during the interview.
Naturally, you cannot, under any circumstances put /blabbing/ or /mumbling/ in your transcript. It’s demeaning, elitist and disrespectful. There was a case where a defense lawyer of an African subject accused the transcriber of racial discrimination because transcriber put /mumbling/ every now and then in the transcript.
However, it does happen that non-native speakers inadvertently invent words.
XX: So, how did you guys do that?
YY: Concertly.
XX: I’m sorry, what?
YY: Concertly. We did it together.
The subjects may not always speak proper English. Investigator who interviewed them already knows that. The question is should you tag every single time the subject did not express himself in proper English? My bet is that their un-proper speech will be obvious from the transcript whether you tagged it or not.
XX: So, how did that go?
YY: When I dided that the first time, ehm, actually, we was together all the time, but then, at certain point in times, I was went alone.
However, there are times when transcribers have obligation to tag information that, to their knowledge stemming from the question or from earlier parts of the interview, seems not to be accurate. It is best to tag these with /sic/.
XX: So, you went there with Johnny?
YY: Yes.
XX: Tell me, what did you and Allen /sic/ do there, then?
ZZ: Me and Johnny were just sitting there.
XX: And you didn’t do anything else?
ZZ: No.
Or:
XX: So, you prepared their financial report?
YY: Yes.
XX: And after you prepared that technical report /sic/, you, obviously, gave it to them?
ZZ: Yes.
XX: Was that the only financial report you prepared for them?
The fact of the matter is that you don’t know if something went wrong. Maybe the investigator did not invent Allen, maybe Allen does exist and investigator wants to know about Allen or maybe investigator did want to know about technical reports, as well. But, if you think something went wrong, you must inform investigator who commissioned transcript about that.
Should you have received proper glossary, there is no excuse for you not to spell all names, locations and specific terms exactly.
Remember: tags are not leeway. The less of any of these tags you put in the transcript, better the transcript.
Accents
Colleagues who transcribe major languages know that their clients are usually not native speakers. This means that these speakers tend to put stress on different words, they will not necessarily stop the sentence where you would normally expect them to stop, they will use uncommon expressions and they will have accents.
Brace yourself for sudden drops and rises in their tones of voice, do not be puzzled before uncommon expressions and use your judgment when deciding whether or not they finished the sentence.
As for accents, when it comes to English language, accents are normally spotted in words requiring pronunciation of [ð], [θ], [ʃ], etc. or when it comes to vowel length (our vs. are, live vs. leave, this vs. these). In addition, non-native English speakers use much more filler expressions like: “you know,” “man,” “that is,” “actually,” but also some that they invented themselves (one speaker kept on saying “means”).
As stated before, be on a lookout for possible insertions in the speakers’ native language. It has long been fashion in formerly colonized countries to insert words from colonizing language when speaking for affectation.
Nowadays, it is also likely that the Arabic native speaker who is interviewed in English, for example, will suddenly say: “ya3ani” (that is, that means, i.e.), “walla” (really), “khalas” (enough already, drop it), “yallah” (come on, let’s go, bring it on), etc. Urdu speakers would say “acha” (okay, right), French speakers like to say “bon” (fine, okay), Dutch speakers say “effe kijken” (let’s see) or “ja” (yes).
XX: So, you lived in Doha at that time?
YY: I used to live in Amman, ya3ani, but then I moved to Beirut after that incident.
XX: Are you sure?
YY: Khalas! I am telling you the same thing for two hours.
XX: We’re just trying to establish some facts here.
YY: Yes, ya3ani, you are. And I am telling you the truth, walla.
XX: Please bear with me for a second until I find this one photo I wanna show you.
YY: Yallah, fine.
You are not expected to know any of these and it is perfectly appropriate to transcribe them as /non-English language word/.
It can sometimes happen that speakers use common knowledge words that, due your erudition and the fact you weren’t really raised by wolves in a cave, you should know and transcribe:
XX: So, was he his supervisor or not?
YY: Strictu senso, yes.
XX: Are you sure?
YY: When it comes, ehm, vis-à-vis, his duties we talked about, yes.
You are not expected to speak a foreign language when hired to transcribe and it is perfectly appropriate to transcribe every utterance in foreign language as /non-English language word/.
XX: Well, what do you mean like that?
YY: Well, like we say in my language it was /non-English language expression/.
XX: Okay.
YY: Yes.
If the investigators didn’t bother to find out what that means, you shouldn’t either.
Embellishing
Absolutely no embellishing allowed in any transcript.
Native English speaker didn’t speak properly? If the native English speaker said wanna, gotta, hefta, put it down as wanna, gotta, hefta, etc.
The speakers were yelling at each other? Reflect it in a transcript with an exclamation mark!
The speaker said something you consider vulgar? Please, spell it out. Please, don’t put little stars, c**t can mean so many things.
Irony or stress is often untranscribable, but it does read in the transcript. Underline the word when the speaker is obviously stressing something and if the speaker said “No” seven times, do write it down seven times:
XX: So, you prepared their financial report?
YY: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I assisted in preparation, I didn’t prepare it.
Consistency
After you have finished your transcript, you need to revise it yourself. You need to listen to the transcript the second time. Just put on your headphones and listen to it again correcting mistakes you made as you go along.
Before you start listening to your transcript, correct most frequent mistakes by series of simple “find” and “replace” commands. For example, when identifying speakers, it often happens that you wrote “XX;” instead of “XX:”, “..” instead of “...”, “okay” throughout or “ok” throughout. Also, check all the names and locations against the glossary provided by the investigator. They will be easy to find because they will probably be highlighted in red in your Word document. Do not start the sentence with the number, spell it out. Likewise, all numbers up to ten, including ten, are spelled in English.
Advice to investigators
Recording device
Please put the recording device in front of the subject or between the two of you, not in front of you. You’re often taking notes with “loud” pen or shuffling paper and the sounds you make are both really hard on ears and they overpower the sounds of the ongoing conversation.
Please turn up the volume on the recording device. Please do take time to check the sound. Subjects are often afraid or bashful and it’s very hard to hear them when they almost whisper as it is.
Pause
Do not forget to turn off the recording device when you make a break. You and your client going “You want coffee? No, I’m fine. How about some juice? No, that’s okay. Great weather we’re having today. I don’t know.” etc. for duration of the break is confusing for the transcriber. Do I transcribe this or not? Transcriber, a non-police professional, should not be put in situation to have to decide what to transcribe and what to omit from the transcript.
Transcript
You are making the transcript, not the subject and not the transcriber. This means it is not sufficient to merely inform the subject of his obligations towards the transcript. Please, enforce them too.
So, please take time and tell your subject to speak up. So, please take time and make the subject stop while you’re speaking and vice versa. If you’re conducting interview over Skype and you both keep on speaking in the same time, because of the natural sound travel and overlapping between the two of you, that transcript will be impossible to make. As far as face-to-face interviews, as an interpreter who interpreted during many police interviews, I often found it very helpful just to raise a finger and point at the recording device while speaking. Surprisingly, people do stop talking 98% of the time. “Please, let me finish” works just fine, too.
In addition, enforcing obligations towards the transcript shows you are asserting your dominance and sending a clear message who is the boss, which is, as you know, always a good thing to have out in a clear during the interview.
Substance
Do not forget to provide your transcriber a glossary. It should contain all the specialized terms, acronyms, names and locations mentioned in the interview. If you provided one, you don’t really have to bother with making the subject spell stuff on tape just for the transcribers’ sake and that, as you know, saves time.
Non-verbal communication
Do acknowledge on tape that the subject is nodding yes or no or shrugging his shoulders or rolling his eyes and ask him to confirm. This is important because, if you don’t, the transcript reads as if you’re going on and on and on without giving your subject a chance to answer. Don’t forget: readers of the transcript weren’t there to know.
Suggestion to speed things up
You are more than welcome to forward the list of preliminary warnings and allegations as you put them to the subject so the transcriber doesn’t have to lose at least 30 minutes transcribing them.
Comments