How Investigators Assess Credibility

During an investigation, it’s common for investigators to encounter allegations involving conflicting narratives. When there are no direct witnesses and few pieces of corroborating evidence, such as video footage, text messages, or emails, it might feel impossible to address a “they said, they said” dilemma, with each party offering completely different accounts of an allegation. How do you reach a fair, defensible conclusion when direct evidence or information is scarce?

At Prism Investigations, our process is built on a foundation of objectivity and thoroughness. When faced with conflicting narratives, our investigators utilize established, objective criteria to assess credibility.

Moving Beyond the Dilemma 

In general, workplace and educational investigations rely on the preponderance of evidence standard, meaning an allegation is more likely than not to be true. To reach this threshold in a scenario with complex and conflicting narratives, investigators must meticulously evaluate the reliability of all the parties involved.

Evaluating Inherent Plausibility 

One of the investigator’s tasks is assessing the plausibility of the accounts they are provided and determining if the narrative makes logical sense. We examine whether the timeline of events is physically possible, how the individuals behaved before, during, and after the alleged incident, and whether the story aligns with common sense and the context of the environment. If one party’s account requires a highly improbable sequence of events, their overall credibility may be diminished.

Assessing Motive to Falsify 

Investigators must also neutrally consider whether any party has a motive to fabricate, minimize, or exaggerate their claims. For example, if an employee is currently undergoing a rigorous performance improvement plan managed by their supervisor, there might be a motive to falsify a grievance against that supervisor to stall disciplinary action. Exploring these dynamics helps investigators paint a complete, unbiased picture as they move through an investigation.

Finding Corroborating Evidence 

Even when an incident happens behind closed doors, people often leave a trail. When direct evidence is scarce, circumstantial and corroborating evidence becomes vital. Did the complainant text a friend immediately after the incident to report what happened? Did the respondent's demeanor noticeably shift in the days following the event? Contemporaneous notes, communication logs, and sudden changes in routine behavior can all help tip the scale and corroborate one version of events.

Reaching an Objective Conclusion 

Navigating a scenario with differing and conflicting statements requires specialized training and an impartial lens. By utilizing best-practice interviewing techniques and rigorously assessing credibility, our team ensures the final determination is based on a well-reasoned evaluation of the facts, not guesswork or assumptions.

At Prism Investigations, we embrace the opportunity to deliver professional and unbiased investigations, even in the most complex cases. Reach out to the Prism Investigations team for help with conducting fair, thorough, and objective investigations.