The Art of Storytelling: First Person vs. Third Person in Investigative Report Writing

Storytelling plays a crucial role in report writing, especially in fields like investigations where precision and detail are extremely important. As an investigator, you are essentially hired to serve as the client’s eyes and ears. This role demands not just the collection of facts and evidence, but also the ability to present findings into a coherent and accurate narrative. The art of storytelling in your reports enables you to convey the sequence of events, interactions, and the environment in a manner that is engaging, factual, and informative. There are many ways to tell that story, but there are only two ways to present a story: First Person or Third Person. (I’m going to intentionally ignore Secon Person because that’s a writing style for Choose-Your-Own-Adventure stories).

In a recent post within our Private Investigator Group on Facebook, a very lively debate emerged regarding the use of first person versus third person narratives in investigative reporting. This spirited exchange, which involved over 30 investigators, shed light on diverse viewpoints within our field. Experienced investigators championed the third-person style, citing its traditional approach, while newer investigators leaned towards the first-person narrative, advocating for a more modern and direct reporting method. The debate was passionate, at times even leading to spirited exchanges between proponents of the old school and advocates of change.

Opting to stay away from the argument, I chose to articulate my thoughts through this article, aiming to present a more balanced view for the topic.

A Look Back: The Shift in Narrative Style in the Late 1980s

Before we can dive into this, we have to go back to the ’80s, a period marked by a notable shift in law enforcement reporting practices. There was a growing preference for first-person narratives, transitioning from the impersonal “The Investigator observed” to the more direct “I observed.” This reporting change wasn’t about one preference over another; it was a strategic move to enhance clarity and immediacy in reports. The legal arena, particularly in courtroom settings, welcomed this approach, finding that it provided a more transparent account of actions and responsibilities.

This article is about report writing, not legal documents BUT:

In legal documents and court proceedings, the style of communication often varies depending on the context, the nature of the document, and the legal tradition of the jurisdiction. Generally, both first-person and third-person perspectives can be used:

1. First-Person Language: This is commonly seen in affidavits, declarations, and witness statements, where the individual is providing a personal account of events or stating their opinion. For example, a witness statement might begin with “I saw…” or “I believe…”. Some investigations will fall under this category – “I saw the claimant…” or “I saw the subject do XYZ” – this is what you’re reporting on: YOUR observations.
2. Third-Person Language: Court opinions and judgments, are written in the third person. This style is also common in formal legal writing and drafting, where parties may be referred to in the third person by their roles (e.g., “the plaintiff”, “the respondent”) or by their names. In court opinions, judges often use the third person, referring to themselves as “the court” (e.g., “the court finds…”) rather than using “I” or “we”.

The choice between first and third person depends on the purpose of the document and the conventions of the specific legal system. For instance, legal briefs and arguments might mix first and third person, using first person for direct appeals or arguments (“We argue that…”) and third person for presenting facts or legal principles.

When it comes to the investigations field, both reporting styles have a place in the field. One is not better over the other, as long as you stick to one throughout the report. Don’t mix and match.

First-Person Reporting

Pros:

1. Immediacy and Engagement: The first-person narrative creates a sense of immediacy, engaging the reader directly with the events as they unfold. It makes the report feel more vivid and urgent.
2. Personal Credibility: Statements like “I witnessed XYZ” offer a personal touch, making the account appear more credible and genuine. The investigator’s direct involvement lends authenticity to the report.
3. Clarity: First-person narratives often provide clearer and more concise descriptions. By directly stating what the investigator observed or did, it minimizes ambiguity and confusion for the reader.
4. Responsibility and Accountability: Using “I” in reports emphasizes the investigator’s responsibility and accountability for the observations and actions described, which can be particularly important in legal or judicial contexts.

Cons:

1. Subjectivity Risk: First-person narratives can unintentionally reflect the investigator’s personal biases or perspectives, potentially affecting the objectivity of the report.
2. Over-Personalization: There’s a risk of the report becoming too centered on the investigator’s experience, which might overshadow other crucial aspects of the investigation.
3. Limited Perspective: This style often limits the narrative to the investigator’s viewpoint, potentially omitting a broader perspective on the events.

Third-Person Reporting

Pros:

1. Objectivity and Professionalism: The third-person narrative inherently creates a sense of detachment, which can impart an objective and professional tone to the report.
2. Formality and Structure: This style is well-suited for formal situations, providing a structured and systematic approach to reporting.
3. Unbiased Perspective: By detaching the person from the immediate investigation, third-person reports can offer a more unbiased and holistic view of the events.

Cons:

1. Impersonality: The detachment in third-person reports can sometimes result in a less engaging and more impersonal narrative.
2. Complexity in Narration: In scenarios with multiple investigators or complex situations, third-person reports can become convoluted, making it hard for the reader to follow.
3. Lack of Directness: This narrative style might lack the directness and immediacy of first-person reports, potentially diluting the impact of the account.
4. Perceived Distance from Events: The objective tone might give the impression that the investigator is more of an observer than a participant, which could reduce the perceived immediacy and urgency of the report.

Illustrating the Differences: Comparative Examples

To understand these styles better, let’s consider some examples:

Observing a Scene

• First Person: “I arrived at the residence and observed three vehicles parked in the driveway.”
• Third Person: “The investigator arrived at the residence and observed that there were three vehicles parked in the driveway.”

Interviewing a Witness

• First Person: “I interviewed the witness about the evening’s events, they seemed agitated.”
• Third Person: “The investigator interviewed the witness about the evening’s events, observing the witness’s agitation.”

Decision Making in the Field

• First Person: “I decided on an overnight stakeout, assessing the subject’s likely return.”
• Third Person: “The investigator decided on an overnight stakeout, based on the assessment of the subject’s likely return.”

Complex Scenario: Deciphering the Styles

In complex scenarios, choosing the right narrative perspective is vital. You’re going to have a harder time presenting a story. More often than not, third-person accounts can become complicated or muddled. Look at these two examples:

• In the third person narrative: “The lead investigator, along with Investigator Jones and Investigator Malcolm, arrived at the residence. The lead investigator chose a parking spot with a clear view of the residence, while Investigator Jones parked two blocks north and Investigator Malcolm positioned himself to the south. From their strategic locations, the lead investigator established communication with Investigator Malcolm, who was monitoring the southern approach. The plan was for the lead investigator to use a radio signal to alert Investigators Jones and Malcolm if the subject was spotted leaving the residence. If the subject headed north or south, the lead investigator would promptly inform Investigator Jones or Investigator Malcolm, respectively, to respond accordingly.”
• In a first-person narrative: “I, arrived at the residence along with Investigators Jones and Malcolm. I parked my car where I had a direct view of the residence. Meanwhile, Jones positioned himself two blocks to the north, and Malcolm took a spot to the south. After settling in, I contacted Malcolm, who was stationed to the south, to coordinate our surveillance. I planned to use a radio signal to alert Jones and Malcolm if I saw the subject leave the residence. If the subject headed towards either the north or south, I would immediately inform Jones or Malcolm, depending on the direction, to take the necessary action.

First person report writing is often perceived as shorter and easier to write compared to third person report writing. This is primarily because first person narratives allow the writer to directly convey their observations and experiences, using a straightforward and intuitive style that mirrors natural speech. Such reports tend to focus closely on the writer’s personal perspective, which can streamline the content and reduce its length.

In contrast, third person writing requires a more detached viewpoint, often incorporating multiple perspectives or a broader scope of information. This can lead to longer, more complex reports as the writer needs to keep an objective tone to ensure clarity across different viewpoints, which can be more challenging and time-consuming to achieve effectively. Unless you’re a writer – this is going to be hard.

Courtroom Preferences and Reader Perspective

In court settings, the first-person narrative is often preferred for its directness, presenting facts in a clear-cut manner. However, for readers not involved in the investigation, third-person narratives can offer a more objective view of someone else’s experiences since it makes it read like a story.

Regardless of what you pick, and what hill you’re ready to die on, whether you’re writing in first person or third person, the goal is this: Craft a concise and factual report that effectively communicates to others. There is a podcast called, “Thinking in Words and Pictures.” It’s all about this cool idea that even though we picture things in our heads, we’ve got to put them into words when we share them with others – whatever style you’re good at, it. The goal is to communicate effectively.

There’s one big exception to all of this: What does your client want?

If they specifically ask you to write in either first person or third person, that’s a request you’ve got to take seriously. Keeping your employer or client satisfied is key in this line of work. Remember, they’re the ones who need to understand and use the information you’re providing. So, if they have a preference for how they want that information presented, it’s our job to adapt and deliver. This might mean setting aside our personal preferences or the general norms we’re used to. It’s all about flexibility and meeting the needs of those we’re working for.

After all, effective communication in reporting isn’t just about following a set of rules; it’s about ensuring that the end-user (in this case, your client) can effortlessly grasp and utilize the information you put down on paper.