World War I was not started by a single bullet or by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.

World War I was not started by a single bullet or by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.

It is about this time every now and again, upon the anniversary of the fateful beginning of things, that news media love to claim that a single bullet changed the history of the world forever. This approach is not however an entirely honest approach to an entirely complex matter. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was no more the catalyst of the First World War than September 11, 2001 was the catalyst for the American invasion of Iraq. The American invasion of Iraq was based on the false premise, upon the propaganda, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The First World War was created through a similar opportunistic propaganda coup. Just as the September 11 was readily made use of to make war more palatable for the American cafeteria of voters, the powerful empires that went to war, merely used the assassination as an excuse to expand their own overwrought power upon the theatre of the global stage.

Certainly, with tensions stoked high, and alliances between empires holding a ready importance in a world prior to the United Nations, the assassination played a role often overstated in the beginning of the global war. But in truth, it was merely a convenient tool which the allies of the Duke used fully to their advantage.

Could the assassination of John F. Kennedy have been used as a pretext for America to invade Russia? Could any amount of assassinations by radical groups validly be called the cause of a war? What caused the First World War was not a bullet but a premeditated utilisation of a propaganda coup which ingenious opportunists found in the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand.

A single bullet is never the cause of a war. A single missile, or even a nuclear bomb is never to blame. The cause of the war is the decision of those high up in government to make a war. It is the decision not only of those who go out to war and invade another nation, but also the decision of those others to intervene or defend such nation. The assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand certainly could have further stoked tensions.

Those tensions were already past breaking point. There is a difference between a cause of something and a convenient scapegoat upon which to launch a campaign into the bowels of Hades. A refusal to accept recompense or negotiation, a refusal to lay down arms or find a solution, an attitude aimed at war are far more to blame than the bullet which ended Ferdinand. It was the choice of the nations of the world to escalate a small event and to continue to escalate ever growing tensions, with bullet upon bullet causing the war, each bullet like the ticking of the clock: each bullet continuing the war, each bullet the cause of the war for that moment in time! One bullet did not cause the First World War. A thousand bullets did.

Each bullet drew the war further in. Each charge, each digging of a trench, each launching of an aircraft, each poster for propaganda caused the war. A war is like a fire, it is a hungry thing and does not burn itself. A war must be constantly maintained and carefully stoked at every moment. The natural state of man is not war but peace. It takes courage and resources to fight a war. It does not simply happen. Human beings make a choice to go to war: a brave choice or a foolish choice, a good choice or an evil choice: a choice nonetheless. Archduke Franz Ferdinand did not cause the war. It is the world who decided to go to war, each single individual which fought. Treaties and the words that are of politicians are but that, they are words. It is not words alone or stylistic and useful events, but actions which sustain a war. War is not a natural disaster, it is a human choice. Wars do not naturally happen, people have to make them occur and it is people that are needed to keep the fires of hell well stocked with human remains. The death of one man did not cause the deaths of thousands by chemical weapons and bayonets, and through starvation and disease in the man-made trenches dug by those sacrificed by the empires whose rulers' propaganda gleefully put them there in pursuit of opportunity and loss.

Those who fought and died for their kings and for their countries, for the empires which they held dear: these men caused the First World War and continued fighting it bravely. Their sacrifice is a far more potent cause than the extremism of the wayward assassin. May the men and women on both sides of the devil's own war be remembered with the high and sombre, deep and lasting respect and honour which they no doubt deserve, may they rest in peace knowing that they served their countries whatever the motives of their leaders. It was not the assassination but that which preceded and followed it which undoubtedly was the cause of so many deaths of a plenitude of honourable men and women. May they rest in peace.

Discovering truth without losing trust. A guide to the soft science of conducting a sensitive interview.

Who will this article be of use to?

This article might be of some use to individuals engaging in fact finding, to journalists desiring to gain the truth out of an interviewee, to lawyers who are interviewing their own client or a potential witness, to people who desire to know how to interview or interrogate another individual in order to find the truth in a manner that is not rude or too cumbersome.

How to read this article to gain what is most useful to you? This article is written from the perspective of a lawyer interviewing their client or a potential witness, the second part relates to signs of falsehood or problems, while the first part of this article consists of advice on how to conduct an interview so as to enable the second part to be of use. Parts of this article are geared more towards the law, but can be easily adapted in substance or spirit to use in other professions. What is essential in the first part is how to take positive steps to avoid preventing the second part from being nullified by a lack of good interviewing in the first part. If you are not physically interviewing a person then the procedural steps to assist such would be of little use. In that case skip to the second part of this article below.

Why did I write this article?

I wrote this article to assist people who desire to effectively, courteously and efficiently enquire of the truth from another individual. It is designed to assist the person to gain specific clarity as well as some indication as to the real world value of what has been communicated to them verbally and nonverbally.

An introduction.

One of the first things they teach you at law school is not to confuse the law with your own moral standards. Saying that something is terrible or immoral does not get you marks in legal essays. I shall start with how you should not interview a client.

The origin of the modern lawyer in South Africa is not what you might think. In Great Britain matters were settled by duels to the death. At some stage champions were permitted. People were hired to fight duels for other people. Gradually the fighting became words. The words became arguments. The arguments became opening and closing statements mixed amongst the interviewing of relevant witnesses. A lawyer is a practical thing: they are an expert in fighting with the words. Their advice on whether or not an argument might result in victory or defeat is essential to a client. Like a good translator a good lawyer tells the truth and then advises a client on their best and other options based on the truth. The service you go to a lawyer for is remarkably different from the service you go to a barman or a psychologist for. It is also remarkably different from the service you go to a friend for and the service you go to a priest or pastor for. Lawyers used to be paid by the word: now lawyers tend to be paid by the hour or by the activity they engage in or by their results. When writing an essay for a lecturer an ordinary person might waffle. The art of interviewing a client consists of getting exactly what is needed from the client and nothing less than that while not wasting the client's time. While the interview of a client to gain instructions should by no means put off the client, it should certainly gain the facts as they actually are in order to assist the client and not hinder them. There is a fine line which legal practitioners must walk: between a good bedside manner which is appealing to a client and good for business, and the necessity of gaining information which will be of use to a client. Both of these aspects are essential and are not disparate but can be made to become complimentary. I often found that a client appeared to me, to be saying one thing until I properly interviewed them, and it is only upon this proper interview that the truth in such a case sometimes emerges. Clients also might not realise that they are protected by both legal privilege and confidentiality: it often takes proper interviewing skills to discover the real situation on the ground, which the opponent would certainly bring up in court, but which can be dealt with properly if the legal practitioner is properly informed.

Empathy can be useful, but too much empathy can prevent the truth from coming out and leave the client disenchanted and without a solution to their problem.

When I worked in the family law and divorce unit at the University of the Witwatersrand Law Clinic, I would always try to bring tissues with me for the client. I would also be certain to treat my client with human dignity. This is the useful type of empathy.

There is a different type of empathy that lawyers sometimes display. They might listen to the client go on and on about a story saying that something is 'terrible': all the while not understanding at all what the client's actual problem is.

An effective lawyer should ask incisive questions, questions which discover the truth of what the client intends to convey. You could well listen to your client speaking for half an hour about the problem while charging them all the while for the time: as they remain no closer to solving their problem. Make no mistake I advocate therapy and assistance for a client should they require it: but a lawyer is not a psychologist. Yes, have empathy. Yes, do not judge a client harshly. However, what a client goes to a lawyer for is not a shoulder to cry upon: it is a champion to fight a battle or a wise guide to assist them on the path forward.

Questioning a client and clarifying what they are saying while narrowing down on what their actual legal problem is and whether you can assist them with it can save both your time and their time. If you do not get the full story from the client it could be very embarrassing on the witness stand for both you and your client who might subsequently face perjury charges. The job of a lawyer is to find the truth and then advise their client as best as they can based upon this finding of truth. Have empathy, but make sure that you ask direct questions of your client which have direct answers. If your only words to your client are 'go on' or 'that is terrible' then your client could get the same service for free from their local barman. A client comes to a lawyer for legal advice that is what they expect. There are many things which you would tell your doctor which you would not tell any other individual. If your doctor asks you personal questions you are liable to give honest answers because these questions are necessary for them to assist you. Yes, a doctor with a good bedside manner is a good thing: yet that bedside manner should not get in the way of them healing you. This is the same fine line that lawyers must walk.

Lawyers are creatures of instruction.

Lawyers are creatures of instruction. If I sit across from a client and hear their story and write up their instructions about what the predicament is, there is a reason why they came to me. A person goes to a lawyer for advice and assistance. What type of advice am I to give them?

Some people might look at their client and tell them that they would be stupid to follow a certain path. Such a practitioner might well inform clients that they are making a major mistake and to follow their advice, shouting the client down like an angry father.

A better approach might be to inform the client of all the practical options including their nonlegal options such as mediation or dropping the matter entirely. The practitioner might then inform the client of the consequences which might come about from each of the actions and the legal principles which might govern their path forward. It would be advisable to inform a client both of the legal and the practical consequences of whatever path forward they choose. The difference between the first and the second approach is that in the first approach it is the lawyer who is instructing the client. In the second scenario the client is instructing the lawyer in an informed manner. It is the job of a lawyer to guide a client, not to parent a client. Clients have parents just as they have barmen, psychologists, and other professionals who are best able to assist the client in that manner. The lawyer is merely a guide, it is the client who determines their own path forward. A lawyer can always recuse himself from a client at an early stage if they believe it would be inadvisable to take the case further. The advantage of advising a client of the different options is that it covers a lawyer in the event that the client subsequently decides to litigate against them. If a lawyer believes the client is making the wrong decision they can inform them of this quietly and respectfully by informing them of the consequences of the decision and the likely outcomes: both verbally and in writing. In that event then the client if they go ahead with an ill-advised course, cannot say that the lawyer did not inform them of the consequences of their actions. There is a vast difference between informing a client of the consequences of their actions and making decisions for a client in contrast to the will of the client. The lawyer is a creature of instruction. A lawyer is a servant of the client. Yes, a lawyer is also an officer of the court and is bound by the ethics of the profession. The case is the client's case not the lawyer's case.

Thou shalt not deceive the court.

It is not entirely rare in South Africa that a client might bring a problem to a lawyer for the enforcement of something unlawful. A lawyer is an officer of the court. A lawyer may not deceive the court. If there is no legal solution to a client's problem the best approach is to inform the client of this, and why this is the case. Sometimes then a nonlegal solution might emerge to assist the client. If the client is in an illegal relationship it might be possible for the client to leave that relationship. Mediation might assist a problem where the law cannot enforce something.

However, assisting a client in deceiving the court is not only risky and unethical and patently illegal: it also prevents other lawful solutions to a problem from being pursued. The appropriate dispute resolution mantra has caught much ground in South Africa lately. Where there is a potent solution to a problem that does not waste the time of the court: a client should be made aware of this.
Lawyers have been punished by the courts for the action of taking matters which should have been mediated before a judge.


You're an officer of the courts before anything else.

Every now and then a client emerges, who believes that threatening a legal practitioner will get what they desire. Lawyers are protected by international law precisely because so many lawyers are executed or injured by untoward parties. If a client is unsatisfied with your advice then in that event the best approach is simply to be polite to them and cordial, and to advise them as any other clients might be advised. If they choose to leave as you are unwilling to compromise your integrity, politely allow them to do so. In addition it might be best to write the client a written version of your advice in case they subsequently become ill-advisedly determined to litigate against you.

There are also clients who might consider your good legal advice to not assist them in their cause, who might inform you that you have not assisted them afterwards: where there's nothing that you as a lawyer can do to assist them. The best approach is to be polite to the client, to wish them well on their way and to cover yourself in the event of litigation, by giving the client a written form of your opinion if necessary.

I stated that the first part of this work would focus on what not to do with the client. While I certainly stated what you should do with the client also: the purpose was to display the type of behaviours which would be inadvisable to engage in.

The second part of this work is about truth finding. It is essential in interviewing your own clients and witnesses that you discover what the truth actually is. A good understanding of the real world is a good start in discovering this. How far can a person see at night with perfect vision when an event occurred 100 feet away? What is the likely response of a person to another individual pulling a gun on them? How is a person likely to act after a trauma has occurred? How likely is an event to have occurred? These are all points upon which additional questioning might be necessary. If something does not feel right to you: it is often that your subconscious mind has discovered a hole in testimony. Discovering whether or not something might be a falsehood: does not mean for certain that it is a falsehood. For instance: pigs fly, they do: in the cargo holds of aeroplanes. What is essential is that if something comes up which might be a cue to your discovering a relevant deception: that an additional effort is placed on a particular point in order to wring out the truth of the matter. It is always advisable to ask enough questions and to clarify enough in order to gain a good mental picture of the events which might have taken place. It is also essential to ask what did not happen, and other such questions which a truthful person might easily be able to answer. Remember to trust your gut instinct: the gut instinct is often the working of experience and your picking up upon subconscious cues that something is not right.

Micro-expressions. There are only between 20 and 30 expressions which the human face is capable of making. You may observe images of these expressions from various studies. There are less than 10 simple expressions such as anger or contempt, and the combination of these universal expressions: such as surprised and angry or surprised and scared or surprised and happy: make up a mere 20 to 30 expressions. While most human beings have a good control of their own expression of emotion: these expressions nonetheless often appear for split seconds when a person is deceiving another as to their emotions. With practice an individual can catch micro-expressions. If a person should be feeling contempt for you but they are feeling anger at you: if a person should be feeling love for you but they are feeling contempt for you: or for another individual: this might go across their face for a moment at a time: and it certainly is an important cue to question the individual more on the aspect that they are speaking upon.

Consistency of a story. There's nothing more consistent than a madman's delusion. If he says that everyone is out to get him and you say: why don't we ask them if they are out to get you: he shall say that people in a conspiracy will generally not admit to the conspiracy. I read this logic problem years ago in the works of Chesterton. Looking for an internal consistency in a thing can certainly be helpful but it can also be distracting. If something is internally consistent it does not mean that it is true. However, there is a different type of consistency: whether something survives becoming big. For instance: why would these individuals have a conspiracy against the madman: that is to say how did this come about and to what purpose. Things such as motive and opportunity and the means to perform an action might certainly discount a false but consistent story. The desire of liars to tell consistent stories certainly assists in another matter further on, and getting a liar to tell the story in such a way that inconsistencies emerge certainly can be advantageous. It is the big consistency of a statement: whether it holds up in the real world that determines whether it is simply a false model of the world or the real thing that is being described.

Falsehood is generated in a different part of the brain than truth is. It also requires more mental energy than simply telling the truth. For some reason human beings do not like lying. A person is more likely to equivocate or avoid a question than lie. Often a liar might therefore take the approach of attacking the person who is attempting to discover the truth. They might also attempt to implicate someone else or else otherwise throw an unprepared or naive person off their track and onto a false track created for their own purposes. This approach is similar to the approach used by military forces to avoid tracking parties sent to discover their position: a false trail is set out quite clearly, so clearly an uninformed person might follow it into an ambush. Picking up the real trail sometimes requires more skill, experience and additional effort. A liar might also tell the truth in such a way that they know they will not be believed. This false sign of falsehood is intentional and there to mislead. When a person does lie it often causes emotions of guilt, sadness, powerlessness, shame, or other such negative responses within the liar. Lie detector tests are designed to detect fear via the autonomous systems of the human body. Not every liar experiences negative emotions as a result of their lie. Some liars might feel contempt, display superiority, or otherwise enjoy telling a lie. There are two approaches to lying which are generally adopted by liars: one which sees it as a last resort, as something necessary in order to avoid some evil or gain some good when honesty would not gain such a result. Such a person might feel weak in their lying. They might consider themselves to have been forced to resort to force. Such a person would be experiencing negative emotions. In contrast a liar might enjoy lying, they might take great glee out of misleading and manipulating other individuals. Such a liar might in fact unintentionally show positive emotions that should not be present or lack of negative emotions where these should be present.

While this is only a small model of the world and I am told it would not be comprehensive for psychological purposes: it is useful to turn emotions into mathematical models. Happiness objectively speaking should refer to a gain while sadness should refer to a loss. Fear should refer to the possibility of a loss or a lost opportunity while anger could well be a response to either loss or fear of loss: when an individual believes another is responsible for this situation. Frustration in contrast might refer to a situation similar to anger but where the other individual is not considered guilty but simply an obstacle. When an individual tells a story and their emotions do not match with what objectively should be there: this might be a sign that additional interrogation of a witness or additional instruction taking from a client is required. These sorts of emotions not only appear in speech and body language but additionally they also appear on the face of an individual by their micro-expressions in many cases.

If you watch movies on television you might notice that characters are separated by physical obstacles when they are at odds. A character who is weak might be portrayed as shorter. This type of visualisation plays upon basic human animal psychology. People have a desire subconsciously to separate themselves from their enemies and to associate themselves with those whom they like. This probably comes all the way from primitive man who had to avoid his predators and competitors, and gain advantage from his allies, and sought to bring himself closer to his prey items. A person who is lying might attempt to distance himself from the truth finder at points where they lie. They might attempt to avert their gaze, or place a physical object between them and the truth finder, or separate them from their self via the gestures of their hands. Expressions might also appear on the face of a liar at this point. A high-pitched voice has been known to be associated with the loss of control, while a voice which goes below its ordinary pitch suggests that an individual is attempting to keep control of their self. Again looking at basic psychology of human beings and animals: a liar is the enemy of the truth finder as far as the liar is concerned. They might very well be lying for the sake of the truth finder. However, their voice might betray this evolutionary response in as much as the placing of an object or averting of eye contact can be a cue as to falsehood in some instances. Direct eye contact suggests a lack of a barrier between two individuals. Language also picks up on this basic psychology. If someone is an enemy of yours you might refer to a task you did together as a task done by 'enemy and I' rather than as a task done by 'we' or 'us.'

Parts of speech are also vital in detecting a lie. A truth teller is more likely to refer to himself or herself in a sentence. A truth teller is more likely to use the word 'I' or the word 'me.' The liar is more likely to refer to others than themselves. A truth teller might say that they locked the door. A liar however is more likely to distance themselves from their own actions. The liar might say the door appeared locked or the door was locked. The liar therefore is not in their false story which makes the liar feel more comfortable about telling the lie. If an individual equivocates or is vague it might be a sign that the equivocation itself or the vagueness itself is truthful but that there is more to the story which they desire to hide from the truth finder. If an individual attempts to divert attention such as via an intentional approach of answering a question via another question or by attempting to alter the topic or through avoidance or attack this might be an indication of deception. A liar not only attempts to distance themselves from the false story they are informing you of, they are also more likely to express negative emotions in the telling of their story in order to mask their own negative response to their own act of lying whether consciously or subconsciously, this can be discovered through the use of negative adjectives in the description of how an individual was feeling in a moment.

The tense in which a story is told can also be an indicator of deception. The part of the brain which relates to memory when accessed: usually comes to be expressed in the past tense. The part of the brain which relates to deception: however operates in the present tense. A person who is engaging in falsehood might tell a story all in the past tense until such points where they are telling a falsehood. A person also might accidentally through their use of the past tense reveal their belief that a missing person is in fact dead. Watching carefully and at all relevant times for the tense in which an individual person explain something in can often reveal a point which requires more interrogation or better instructions in, in order to avoid embarrassment at trial. A liar is also more likely to use simpler sentence structure: the lie itself takes up a certain degree of mental acuity which is then not available for the use of more complex sentences. For instance a liar is more likely to use basic action words such as 'walk' or 'go' or 'run' and less likely to use words such as traverse, or sentences such as 'I missed the bus and thus had to proceed on foot.' A truth teller is more likely to inform you of what did not happen. Words such as 'but' or 'however' which relate to what did not occur are far more likely to be used by a truth teller. For instance: 'I took Fourth Street rather than Fifth Street because there was a traffic jam on Fifth Street!' It is more difficult to lie about what did not happen than to lie about what did happen. The lie by its very definition is a false small model of the world. The lie might be very consistent within itself by the ingenuity of the lie teller. A lie or falsehood however is small by its very definition because it is a model of the world rather than a retelling of actual events within the real world. It is because of the vast brainpower demanded to create such a small model of the world with consistency: that liars sometimes contradict themselves and use simpler language and simpler stories. The mere consistency of the lie can sometimes reveal it to a focused truth finder. The liar needs to remember their lie and therefore requires a degree of consistency and simplicity in their story. A lie therefore often involves a scarcity of important detail. A truth teller might relay a full inventory of their senses. They might refer to the smell of something and the taste of something, the colour of something, the size of something and so forth. The liar has to be careful in how much detail they give. Practised liars might intentionally give detail in order to appear not to be working off a false model of the world. The false truth in such a case can often be brought to contradict itself through intelligent and thoughtful interrogation or gathering of instructions. As most people do not have perfect memories, their lies are often something which can be dug out and discovered.

Human beings often lie throughout the day. A lawyer is bound by their ethics to be a truth teller. A witness on the stand is likewise is bound to tell the truth. It is not a favour to a client to allow them to get away with the lie to you only to find that your opponent on the stand has succeeded in causing your client to visibly perjure themselves. It is essential that a lawyer discovers what the actual truth is. A proper but respectful interview of a client as to the facts is therefore essential. Awareness of signs of falsehood, and proper interviewing skills are an important part of the lawyer's profession. It is better to be prepared for bad news and to be able to better control the narrative, than to be caught surprised in cross-examination.

I find it essential to know the type of subject which emerges in a specific type of case. There are certain types of questions which you are required to know the answers to: to proceed with a specific type of case. Euphemism can at times be essential, but it can also create false impressions in the mind of the practitioner. Bedside manner is essential, but if it prevents proper fact-finding: it is not a service to the client but a hindrance to their cause.

These are just some of the techniques I use to come to the truth of a situation. The first part referred largely to the type of interview approach and bedside manner which is or is not acceptable if you desire to properly gain instructions which will be useful moving forward. The second type referred to fact-finding and discovering the truth, it is better that a client to be embarrassed in front of you than in front of the entire world on the witness stand. A non-judgemental but intelligent and honest attitude when you have discovered a falsehood the client has revealed to you could go a long way in preventing the breakdown of a relationship between you and your client.

In the information technology business in most cases what a client desires and what the client is delivered is not congruent. In law the same could also happen if a client is not properly interviewed. Clarification is essential, and discovering facts relevant to the case which need to be dealt with in a different way than other facts: is essential. It is better that your client admit to some weakness to you than have it discovered on the witness stand and your client be exposed to an opponent and possible jail time.


Parts of speech such as 'his' or 'her' or their can also cause a lot of problems.

Whenever an individual is speaking about an issue it is important to determine what objects are involved, what people are involved, and what part each person and each object plays specifically and separately from all other objects and people involved. While parts of speech such as 'he' and 'she' do in fact assist in detecting falsehood, it can be very necessary to ask a client to clarify. For instance: a client might say that a person known as 'he,' shot another individual. One might assume that he is a specific individual, it is advisable however to clarify who that individual is and how they relate to the events and to the client in question. If the client has personal animosity towards the person in question and a reason to lie on the stand: it could well destroy your case against that individual.

If something a client says does not make sense make sure to ask more about it.

If a person's story is not consistent this is often because they are attempting to hide something or brush over it: the thing they are attempting to hide may or may not be as bad as you think it is, but it is essential to discover what this thing is as it might have a bearing on the moving forward of the case.

When interviewing a client it is of great importance to not only get their full contact details and to verify these details with the client, but to get alternative contact details for the client, and the details of an individual they trust who can get hold of them if they are not available. It is also essential to gather the right information for pleadings, to satisfy statute, to satisfy the rules of court, and to satisfy the government statistics office. I find it especially useful to ask yourself the question: does what my client is saying make sense? If it does not make sense to you, you cannot expect to make sense to the court.

While paying due accord to the value of bedside manner in interviewing a client or a witness, it is important to make sure that the information gleaned is not only accurate but reliable and useful in further pursuing the matter with the client.

Lawyers might often simply make a summary of what they believe the client was saying to them. In some ways this is useful, but only if the summary is made in addition to extensive word for word notes. Systems such as Teeline shorthand notation, good typing skills, and the use of good interviewing skills can allow the making of a good record of exactly what the client actually said which can then be reviewed and investigated to ensure the client is served to the best of your abilities. A summary accompanying this would only be an asset adding to it, but the original instructions which the client actually gave might contain vital information that a summary missed altogether to the detriment of the client's case.

At all times a lawyer must realise that they are the servant and the tool of their clients: there is not a place for their own ego but only a place for their own integrity in dealing with a client. Staying objective on a matter rests upon this principle.

I hope that this article has been useful to you. It could be useful both to a practitioner of the law and to anyone hoping to discover the truth. An interview with a client needs to be a combination of truth finding and good manners and good courtesy and etiquette.

Thank you very much for reading this article. I hope it assists as a reference work for you in your pursuit of better interviewing clients and witnesses and engaging in fact-finding. These techniques are methods I've used both in law and in journalism. In law they are all the more important: the consequences of making a mistake can end your career for ever.

About the author and disclaimer.

At present I am not a practising attorney, nor am I a practising advocate. In accordance with South African definitions of what the lawyer is: I am a lawyer. A lawyer is everything from a paralegal to a judge, it refers to anyone who engages in providing legal services within the law. My time at the Witwatersrand University Law Clinic was as a student counsellor under the supervision of an admitted attorney. This entailed interviewing clients, writing documents and pleadings, and relaying advice to clients and so forth but while under the watchful eye of an admitted attorney. My experience of interviewing clients at present is mainly gained from journalism and from my time at the University of the Witwatersrand Law Clinic over a period of about a year and additionally of three weeks as part of compulsory practical coursework subsequent to my graduation, as a compulsory part of the Legal Education and Development programme of the Law Society which replaces a year of articles with six months of coursework and exams. I took this position at the University of the Witwatersrand Law Clinic essentially twice: one day per week for about a year as part of a compulsory subject in my final year at Wits and subsequent to this I took the same position at the Witwatersrand University Law Clinic for a much shorter second time as part of a course requirement when I was completing the statutory postgraduate six-month practical legal training course at the Law Society. I hope to write the board exams in a month or two. Nothing I've stated is legal advice, nor is it advice on the ethics of the profession. It is simply the way in which I believe an interview should best be completed. Nothing I have said is to compare myself to other lawyers or individuals practising any type of legal service. I do not state that I'm better or worse than any other legal practitioner, I am merely relaying methods which I believe might well be effective in the correct circumstances. I do not guarantee that these methods are effective or the best course of action. I do not accept liability for harm incurred in following the above methods. This article should not be considered to encompass all aspects of an interview and is merely meant to add to your own extensive interviewing knowledge. External verification methods are still an important aspect of verification of witness statements.

Danger: Why you should reconsider using AirBnB and crowdsourced services.

We have emerged from a world of the Venetian masked ball, to our current world where some people wear masks with their own face upon the mask. Simply because some people act in a trustworthy manner online and appear to have their own face upon the mask, does not mean that the same characters who previously used anonymity do not use the anonymity of a false identity to engage in the same activities.

AirBnB, and other applications are crowdsourcing all things from accommodation to lift clubs. To many this is a new era in social media, founded upon trust, transparency and open honesty.

The core of this entire movement however comes down to one word: that word is trust. People apparently use their real identities and thus are accountable.

Unfortunately in many cases there still exists a world of trolls, sociopaths, false profiles, criminals masquerading and other such things online. If credit card details are not safe, then systems using banking details to verify a person are not safe. If identity numbers or social security codes are not safe, nor are systems which use these to identify a person. As it is most systems use aspects such as a person's Facebook account to verify a person. It is very easy to set up a fake Facebook, and just as easy to populate it with false friends. In fact, studies show just that: a massive portion of Facebook accounts are set up by cybercriminals and untoward characters. Another important detail is that many people use weak passwords. Often genuine social media accounts are compromised and then used for nefarious activities.

We have emerged from a world of the Venetian masked ball, to our current world where some people wear masks with their own face upon the mask. Simply because some people act in a trustworthy manner online and appear to have their own face upon the mask, does not mean that the same characters who previously used anonymity do not use the anonymity of a false identity to engage in the same activities.

It is the same people who are honest and used anonymity as a protection who have come out of the woodwork and have decided to utilise their own birth names. The criminals, trolls and other undesirables have not determined to follow the same path necessarily. I certainly am not engaging in activities such as air B&B. The Internet remains a wild wild West: crime only continues to increase online. Such a movement comes down to one word: and that sole word is trust. Trustworthiness is an entirely different matter.

If companies hire individuals to write good reviews of their products online, and bad reviews of their opposing forces: why would criminals not do likewise? Due to a false sense of security individuals are opening up their homes and motorvehicles to complete strangers. Even relatively honest people steal towels from hotel bathrooms, or run off with scented shampoos: this is why hotels only offer tiny shampoo bottles. Gated communities create a similar false sense of security, which is why crime statistics show these to be high crime areas, criminals simply buy a house within the community or rent it and suddenly have access to unknowing victims. Holidaymakers have a similar false sense of security and are thus favourite targets for criminals.

Just as classifieds are used to post fake job openings to facilitate rape and murder, these other movements are inviting to criminal psyches.

The CIA has joined Twitter...

listen to ‘The CIA has joined Twitter... ’ on Audioboo

With an ominous start, the Central Intelligence Agency waded into the social media:

We can neither confirm nor deny that this is our first tweet.
— CIA (@CIA) June 6, 2014

Thank you for the @Twitter welcome! We look forward to sharing great #unclassified content with you.
— CIA (@CIA) June 7, 2014

That is all for now... And they seem largely just to be following their own government for now... Binding their time before tweeting anything actually excitingly declassified (a.k.a. Wikipedia minus the Snowden and Wikileaks leaks common knowledge stuff?)... Oh well!

In South Africa, Unions have become intertwined with terrorism and organised crime? #NUMSA #Bombings

 The Roman Democracy became a dictatorship because of the force of unions. The Plebeians would stop working and strike until their demands were met. To appease them the office of Tribune was constituted, the very office which would one day become that of emperor. Unions can be a great force for good if they look after worker rights, and interests while not destroying the employers of these workers financially, or the very economy of the country.

However, when unions begin to make unreasonable demands and to use murder and violence to achieve these, they have ceased to be unions, and have become an other.

 For years major unions have used intimidation to force workers to turn on their employers and strike. Streets would be filled with garbage, motor vehicles burnt, people would be beaten to death, children would be harmed and dragged out of school classrooms... but with the AMCU NUM war which started with murder and continues Today, and following that the Marikana clash between police and AMCU members, something has changed.

Something has become more violent. Reports from Rustenburg have the miners wanting to return to work but absolutely terrified to do so for fear of being killed by AMCU enforcers, by people who did not fear to cut police officers and security guards into little pieces with machetes, and who ran at a police line armed, and unto death.

We cannot say for certain that the deaths of people who get in the way of AMCU are done with official sanction, but the union certainly benefits from each death and seems uninterested in opposing the violence done in their interests. Now, NUMSA (or their affiliated or unaffiliated enforcers) have taken a similar approach. Non-striking workers' houses have been bombed, and their cars burnt, in ten attacks against workers not participating in the NUMSA strike.

Post by Business Report.

When a group commits bombings against people who do not obey it, is it not terrorism? When a group attacks people to inspire terror, is it not terrorism? When unions are used to blackmail employers: that those in charge must be obeyed or their staff will be terrified away from work, is that the intention of the law or is that closer to organised crime and blackmail under the guise of the law?

Perhaps it is time that the government stops pandering to such forces, which seek to kill, terrorise, ruin the very workers they claim to support...

Perhaps it is time the government finally heard the voices of business and world economists and change the laws relating to labour: to make it easier to rely on contracts with workers, to hire and fire... globally such freedom has caused other nations to spew out employment for the masses. Perhaps it is time government started treating South Africans as an asset to corporations rather than as a burden that companies must bare. Perhaps then foreign investment would not be so terrified as to avoid so much as touching South African deployment of funding.

An Error with our news topics Twitter service!

I just noticed now that a number of our news topic twitter services have not been publishing their contents. I hope this is now resolved. Please contact the twitter you subscribe to and inform us if this happens again.

Justin Bieber supports KKK in video obtained by The Sun.

listen to ‘Justin Bieber supports KKK in video obtained by The Sun.’ on Audioboo

One Less Lonely Girl... has had a remix, by its creator Justin Bieber, in which he changes the lyrics to 'One Less Lonely N@$$!#', and in which video he also suggests he would like to join the Ku Klux Klan, a white supremacist group.

The Canadian born singer is often labelled a punk, and is thought to often emulate the gangster culture often associated with so-called 'African American' rap music artists in his adoptive nation, the United States.

The ungrateful brat's mentor is a black man, and his former girlfriend is of mixed white and Latin American race. Justin Bieber has also been involved in alleged reckless driving, drinking, drug use, and multiple assaults on people in his proximity.

The punk singer just recently apologised for another racist video in which he used the same word and where he graphically fantasized about a black person running for their life away from a chain saw, something he found hilarious. His black fans and friends have come out strongly in support of Justin Bieber, perhaps showing just how little the Civil Rights Movement has come to mean to many in his adopted country, The United States. A cookery show host was recently dismissed for using a similar word decades ago, it is unlikely anything whatsoever will happen to Justin Bieber, who seems quite impervious to the rules governing ordinary men.

Source: The Sun 'Watch Bieber’s sick Ku Klux Klan N-word vid ' by RICHARD WHITE, Chief Showbiz Reporter at 12:47PM BST 05 Jun 2014

Why Ukraine changes everything and nothing at once

listen to ‘Why Ukraine changes everything and nothing at once’ on Audioboo

I have always had a natural dislike of America's very badly done foreign policy, ever since they invaded Iraq on false pretences and proved that we were all wrong about them. When Al Jazeera came on South African Television, and we all discovered they were not the devil, many of us altogether swore off allegiance to the global conscience and its so-called and self-imposed smaller than it sounds 'international community'.

With my journalism work I began studying propaganda channels. I studied RT believing it was just that based on American portrayal of the channel. It reported on ethnic cleansing in Georgia and Russian troops going in to stop a genocide. Western media mocked this, until BBC news night investigated and found it was 100% the truth. Something similar was admitted with Syria: that it was a civil war from the start not protests. But by then I had realised that the Russians were not lying on Syria. In fact the Russian state media have won awards for unbiased coverage time and again. Whenever America goes into conflict mode, their media backs their politicians 100%. What was okay for America is wrong for other nations.

I had thought as a consolation prize that perhaps it was not just America permitted such freedom but Russia as well. Alas, it is not so. America created a coup d'état in Ukraine, overthrowing an elected President because the president supported Russia. What happens? A monstrous crackdown on free Ukrainians or anti-Coup protesters to use Western language, becomes an 'Anti-terrorist' operation. Putin is compared to Hitler for refusing to accept and endorse a coup. Russia has sanctions against its economy and dignitaries. And American media join the fray just as strongly as they did against Iraq, with no consequences. Like Justin Bieber's racist video, drink, drugs, theft, periodic assault of innocents proving that in American terms he is above the law, in the same sense American gunmen also are.

I guess what really is on display is that America and her allies can do any evil deed, and be forgiven instantly. They can spy on all of us. They can blackmail, they can lie, they can betray. They can call the sky red and green, and have it reported as so. They can get away with everything, because they are powerful, and because so many media outlets are nothing but their cute little fans, believing all the way. We live not in God's world, but America's world... no wonder America spends so much time and money trying to reduce the population of every nation but their own... think about their expensive initiatives for population control in the third world for a moment. We in Africa are not worthy of an opinion, or our own culture, or own point of view. We are not even worthy of democracy as Egypt and Somalia prove. Only Western nations have these rights. Like Justin Bieber, they are immune to criticism. We cannot say a single word that would have any impact on the pseudo-divine West. If they want to overthrow a government, it is those who support democracy who get sanctions, and criticism, and hateful treatments... It is Putin who is the bad guy... not Barack Obama the conqueror, who sees every non American life as not worth a mention in his foreign policy. Was the assassination of Osama Bin Laden not an extra-judicial killing? What right in the name of Heaven and Hell does America have to utter a single word criticising any nation on the planet for doing exactly the same with their own claimed enemies? After all, if extra-judicial killings or overthrows, or collateral damage, or bombing women and children with drones or other means is wrong or right: it must be due to principles, not due to the expediency of a nation that only ever looks after its own interests, and drops its allies like flies the moment they are no longer useful.

Ukraine changes everything in that sense. America does not keep its double standards with only weak pariahs. It has exactly the same game with world leaders such as Russia. And the 'world media' continue to believe they only exist to justify its every choice, the ultimate type of yes man crew.

Why I myself would really and truly not want to work at Google at any future point.

Maybe it is because I am African, but to me when I burn the midnight oil... when I work, that is what I want to be doing. I would rather have that money spent on my future, my career development, or tools to better assist me to do my job.

I love to read business articles on the LinkedIn network. I really enjoy to read about all the sort of things executives do to improve how their business works and to advance their own career. What I find strange is the obsession certain groups of people have with Google, as though they were some kind of perfect employer, rather than one with a few gimmicks that distract from the sort of benefits an individual might better enjoy in the long run.

I certainly would not want to work at Google, and not simply because I am in law and journalism. My reason is simple enough: all of these 'great things' Google employees get to access are in their very essence like a politician's promise.

Free food? I would rather make more money. I could then eat better gourmet food elsewhere.

Sleep at work? No thanks, I would rather take a nap at home.

If you truly desire to use money on resources to aim at my motivation: You can put that extra bit on my pay cheque thank you, or better yet on the time it takes to give extensive feedback on my performance review. That way I can do my job even better and grow as a human person.


Such an approach of respecting employees as adults truly improves their actual position in the world. Bean bags at a work place do not.

We could even spend it on better technology and training to make me even better at my job.

Maybe it is because I am African, but to me when I burn the midnight oil... when I work, that is what I want to be doing. I would rather have that money spent on my future, my career development, or tools to better assist me to do my job.

All of these sorts of ideas about playful perks at work, seem to confuse work and play. If I am at work I want to be at work. Sure... have a nice coffee machine, but I would rather be doing something important and gaining something important than be catered to as though I were in kindergarten.