If I were interviewing Manti, I would try to ask as few direct questions as possible.  Instead, I would simply ask him what happened, and then continually follow up with “then what.”  In essence, I would want him to tell me the entire story with very little interruption from me.  Only once he’s told me the entire story would I go back and ask more direct questions for clarification.  If someone is lying, it’s more difficult for them to lie when forced to tell the entire story, rather than simply having to provide short answers to a series of closed-ended questions.

Reverse-Order Storytelling

At some point, I might also ask him to tell me the story, or at least portions of the story, in reverse order. Studies have shown that it can be difficult for people who are making up a story to tell the story in reverse order.  If you’re accessing your memory of an actual event, your mind can fairly easily recall the story in reverse order.  However, if you made up an event, it’s much harder for you to tell this fictitious story in reverse order.

Details

Manti provides a lot of detail in his interview with the ESPN reporter about what occurred.  This actually suggests that he may be telling the truth.  Details are the enemy of the liar.  Any detail he introduces is a detail that the interviewer may be able to contradict him on.  Also, liars normally try to avoid including lots of details in their story because they may forget a detail when questioned later.

Additional Questions I Would Ask

Because Manti provides lots of details, I think it would be fairly easy to determine if he’s being truthful, because we could check up on the details he provided.  If I were interviewing him, I would have asked the following additional questions:

1.  Can we see a copy of your phone records?  

T’eo says that for a period of time he spoke with the woman for hours at a time every day.  He said he would speak with her at night and when he woke up they would still be on the phone together.  If this is true, his phone records would show this.

2.  Can we see your phone and look at your text messages?

T’eo references text messages, including a text message he supposedly received from a friend of the fictitious woman earlier this month.  I’d ask to see his phone to see if the text message was still there.  If it was, it would lend some credibility to his story.  If it’s not there, he may say that he previously erased it.  If he says that, I would look to see what his normal practice is with erasing text messages.  Is he someone who frequently erases them, or is he someone, like me, who never thinks to erase text messages.

Of course, the press can’t require him to release cell phone records or show them the text messages on his phone.  But if he’s telling the truth, you would think it would be in his best interest to do so.

In any event, for T’eo and his family’s sake, I hope the evidence turns out that he is telling the truth and was not in on the hoax.

In a particular investigation, an employer may be able to order employees to maintain confidentiality, but only if the employer can show a “legitimate business justification that outweighs employees’ Section 7 rights.” The employer cannot rely on a “generalized concern with protecting the integrity of the investigation.” Instead, the employer must first determine if the confidentiality order is necessary to protect witnesses or to prevent the destruction of evidence, the fabrication of testimony, or a cover up.

The ruling applies to unionized and non-unionized employees, as both are covered under Section 7 of the NLRA. Employers can continue to order all management employees to not discuss investigations with others, as they are not covered by the NLRA.

In light of this ruling, employers should:

• Remove blanket confidentiality orders from their investigation policies and procedures
• Establish a procedure to determine for each investigation whether there is a legitimate business justification for issuing a confidentiality order
• Train all investigators on the nuances of this Board decision and the law of investigations generally

For a review of your investigation policies or to learn more about our internal investigations training, please contact us.

For most employers, however, you are not required to tape-record your interviews, but you may nevertheless choose to do so.  The decision to tape record an interview depends on the circumstances of each case.  Depending on the witness, tape recording may make the person more uncomfortable and less likely to talk.  That said, tape recording interviews does offer several advantages:

• you have a verbatim recording of what was said in case the witness later tries to dispute what he or she said;
• you may not need to worry as much about taking copious notes, which can free you to more actively listen to the witness;
• with an exact recording of what was said you can use advanced content analysis techniques to look for signs of deception or truthfulness.

Except in those circumstances, the employer can inform the employee that he or she must cooperate in the investigation and may not be represented by counsel during the investigative interview.