What does trolling a teenager who loves Taylor Swift have to do with interrogation? More than you’d think. This article uses dad-level provocation, eye rolls, and pop-culture mischief to expose a serious problem in interviewing: tactics that rely on pressure, emotion, and reaction-hunting instead of listening. By contrasting accusatory methods with science-based interviewing, it shows why provoking people doesn’t produce truth—it produces noise.

Red teaming is a structured approach investigators use to challenge assumptions, counter confirmation bias, and strengthen investigative decision-making. Rather than reinforcing early conclusions, red teaming introduces disciplined skepticism, helping teams test working theories, evaluate evidence more critically, and explore alternative explanations. When applied intentionally, red teaming improves accuracy, reduces risk, and supports more defensible investigative outcomes.

False confessions are not rare anomalies. They are predictable outcomes of coercive, accusatory interviewing and pseudoscientific lie-detection practices. This article examines the history, psychology, and risk factors behind false confessions and their role in wrongful convictions. It contrasts confession-driven interrogation with Science-Based Interviewing, an evidence-based approach that prioritizes reliable information, corroboration, and sound questioning to reduce inves

False confessions persist because flawed assumptions go unchallenged. This article uses red teaming to critically test the belief that innocent people never confess, exposing how coercive tactics, bias, and psychological vulnerability undermine investigations. Grounded in research and real-world cases, it shows how Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) and key assumption checks strengthen critical thinking, protect memory and decision-making, and produce more reliable, ethical inv