I get it.  The priority here is not to determine whether or not the file has enough evidence to go forward to the prosecutors and so that police can actually lay  a change. The priority here is to provide comfort --through attitude and language--for the complainant.  Got it.  

Superintendent: “Our approach is to be objective."  Good to know.  It could be argued that you are NOT approaching the case in an objective, manner by believing the complainant before you walk into the interview room.  You start by investigating, weighing the facts (if, indeed there are any.)  AFTER the investigation, you might conclude that the complainant is credible, i.e.: believable.   

If there's not enough solid evidence to advance the case, what then?  Forward the file to the prosecutors because you "believe" the woman is telling the truth? Sorry.  "Belief" is not enough...but it might be a comfort.  If that is what this is about--how the woman feels--then, okay.  But a no-go is still a no-go, right?