Worse or Worser: Compromising Reliability
Making an admission easier to obtain does not make it more reliable. Explore how minimization can leave serious conduct unresolved, imply leniency, and lead an innocent person to agree simply to escape interview pressure.
Interview the Cat! Ask about the Mouse.
What does Schrödinger’s Cat have to do with investigative interviewing? Discover how preconceptions can limit information gathering—and why understanding the person may reveal what investigators never expected to find.
Don’t Ask for More Details. Execute Better Retrieval.
Investigators often ask for “more details” when what they really need is a better retrieval strategy. Effective interviewing uses structured recall methods to help reliable information emerge, then tests that information against the evidence.
If You Know SUE – Then You Know When to Hold
Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) is about more than what investigators know—it’s about when they reveal it. Holding evidence can preserve investigative leverage, protect victim and witness statements from contamination, and provide a better way to test the reliability of suspect accounts.
The Devil and Too Many Details: It’s Not the Count – It’s the Content
The problem is not “too many details.” It is whether those details can be tested against reality. Learn how verifiable information strengthens statement reliability and helps investigators identify where better follow-up questions are needed.
Truth Spotting vs. Lie Spotting: Why the Search for Deception May Be Pointing Investigators in the Wrong Direction
For decades, investigators have been taught to search for signs of deception. But research increasingly points toward a better question: what makes a statement reliable? Truth spotting shifts the focus from behavioral guesswork to information that can be examined, tested, and verified.