On 16 April 2025, CSI Africa was contacted by a well-known kindergarten in Gauteng with a request for assistance. The institution required two polygraph examinations following a suspicious incident that had taken place just two days earlier, on 14 April.
During the pre-test briefing, the owner and principal explained to our examiner, Johan Griesel, that the kindergarten’s Kitchen Manager had witnessed unusual behaviour from two of her staff members. When she entered the kitchen, both employees appeared visibly startled and behaved strangely in her presence.
Trusting her instincts, the Kitchen Manager inspected the work area and discovered something concerning: several chicken fillets wrapped in translucent plastic had been hidden inside a white bucket, which was buried beneath other buckets in the refrigerator. When questioned, the staff members claimed that the fillets were intended for the infants in the baby classes. However, the manager immediately knew this wasn’t true—chicken wasn’t on the menu that day, and the fillets were fresh, not frozen.
CCTV footage was later reviewed, showing the two employees lingering near the freezer area. Unfortunately, the camera angle didn’t provide a clear view of their actions. Still, their behaviour raised enough suspicion to warrant polygraph testing.
The First Examination
During the first polygraph session, the examinee exhibited high levels of stress, including visible micro-expressions and physical tension. The test results confirmed deception.
When confronted, the examinee eventually admitted she had spoken with her colleague earlier that morning. During that conversation, the colleague had confessed to attempting to steal the chicken fillets and said she intended to tell the truth during the upcoming test.
Although the first examinee did not participate in the theft, she withheld this “guilty knowledge” during the examination – an omission significant enough to impact her results. She was asked to provide a written statement confirming her account.
The Second Examination
Armed with a written confession, Mr. Griesel proceeded with the second polygraph – without disclosing any prior findings.
The second examinee displayed similar signs of stress and avoided direct answers, even claiming she couldn’t remember what had happened just two days prior. Unsurprisingly, the test indicated deception.
When questioned about the results, she insisted she had done nothing wrong and saw no reason she would fail the test. Only after further questioning did Mr. Griesel present her with the earlier confession. At this point, her demeanor shifted to anger, and she accused her colleague of lying to get her into trouble, claiming personal dislike as the motive.
She was asked to submit a written statement of her own, which directly contradicted the earlier testimony.
The Turning Point
Faced with conflicting accounts, Mr. Griesel called both examinees back for a joint discussion. Over the course of two hours, he conducted a careful and persistent interrogation. Eventually, the second examinee broke down and confessed: her colleague’s original statement was true, and her own had been a lie.
In a final written statement, she admitted that she had, in fact, attempted to steal the chicken fillets on 14 April – and that this was not her first offense. She revealed that as a single mother, she struggled to make ends meet. Most of her salary went to her child’s guardian, leaving her with very little for herself. Driven by desperation, she had resorted to stealing food to survive.
Conclusion
This case was a sobering reminder that not all workplace misconduct is rooted in malice – sometimes, it stems from genuine hardship. Nonetheless, theft remains a serious offense with consequences.
The investigation was successfully concluded with clear and corroborated evidence, thanks to the diligence of Mr. Griesel and the structured polygraph process.
