An investigator is asked to make findings based on the evidence gathered during an investigation. An investigation report that does not make findings and determine whether policy or statute has been violated represents a failed investigation. A major reason investigators fail to reach conclusions is that they have not conducted a proper assessment of the credibility of those interviewed and the reliability of their evidence.
Very rarely does an investigation reveal little dispute amongst the facts. An investigation may be a “he said / she said” type investigation with no independent witnesses and where the parties provide conflicting accounts of events. Other times, evidence is more nuanced, with the parties and witnesses agreeing on much of what occurred, but disagreeing on a material detail.
As a consequence, the investigator must assess the evidence on each material fact and determine what evidence to accept, reject or give greater weight.
It is not sufficient, however, that the investigator merely states what evidence is preferred. For an investigation to appropriately withstand scrutiny, the investigator must present a coherent and defensible account as to why certain evidence was accepted, rejected or given greater weight.
This exercise is explained in the credibility assessment – the foundation of every investigation report.
An important part of that analysis is understanding the distinction between credibility and reliability. A witness or party may be entirely credible — honestly recounting what they believe occurred — but their evidence may not necessarily be reliable. Memory is imperfect. Time may have passed. Alcohol may have been involved. Someone’s opportunity to observe an event may have been limited. Their recollection may also be inconsistent with more reliable contemporaneous evidence.
Similarly, an inconsistency does not necessarily mean that a witness is being dishonest. The investigator must assess the nature and significance of the inconsistency in the context of all of the evidence.
Ultimately, the investigator must consider the evidence of every person interviewed and assess the credibility and reliability of their evidence on the facts material to the key allegations. That reasoning must be put to writing. The credibility assessment lets the reader understand why the investigator made the findings they did and, ultimately, why a violation was or was not found.
The credibility assessment is the foundation upon which the analysis and conclusions of the investigation report rest.