I get this question in almost every class: what's with all the goats? It started as a way to say thank you — cartoon GOAT stickers and a handwritten note for detectives who did great work. It ended up teaching me something about science-based interviewing. One good opening question once got 14 minutes of lies from a man now serving 30 years for murder. Every one of those lies was information. Statements are evidence. Here's why that changes how you interview — and how you lea

Spies gather intelligence, but someone still has to decide—usually without certainty. From the Prussian war game to the Catholic Church's Devil's Advocate, Israel's "Tenth Man," and the red teams that stress-tested the bin Laden raid, history shows that the most dangerous moment in any investigation isn't when the file is thin and everyone's arguing. It's when the file feels complete and everyone agrees. Are you red teaming your case—or one unchallenged assumption from disast

Most suspects walk into an interview braced for an accusation. The Strategic Use of Evidence flips the script: instead of confronting a suspect with what you know, you ask first and reveal later. Guilty suspects, unaware of the evidence against them, talk themselves into contradictions the innocent never produce. It's not about reading twitches or chasing nerves—it's about letting the gap between a story and the facts speak for itself. Here's how SUE works and why the science

Most active listening training teaches performance, not the real skill. After years in hostage negotiation and homicide investigations, I can tell you — nobody in those rooms cared whether I was nodding. What actually determines whether someone talks or shuts down has nothing to do with what any listening module ever taught. Here's what real active listening costs, why dismissing it as a soft skill is a dangerous mistake, and what it actually looks like when the stakes are hi

Peer review can keep homicide investigations from going stale by bringing fresh eyes, diverse disciplines, and red-team thinking into major case reviews. This article explains how multidisciplinary case reviews help challenge assumptions, identify missed leads, strengthen evidence, improve interview planning, and keep investigative momentum alive before time, workload, and competing priorities weaken a case.

What investigators often call luck is usually better information gathering. Science-based interviewing helps create that edge through better questions, stronger rapport, and Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE). Statement evidence gives context to every case, helps locate more witnesses and evidence, and moves investigators closer to the truth. Good interviews do more than confirm theories. They build a fuller picture of events and help define the case.

Science-Based Interviewing puts investigators back in control by grounding interviews in peer-reviewed research rather than intuition, tradition, or pseudoscientific lie detection. This article shows where to find open-access research on interviewing, interrogation, memory, deception, and false confessions—allowing investigators to read the evidence for themselves, verify claims, reduce investigative risk, and strengthen decision-making through transparent, evidence-based pra

Interviewing can be one of the most intimidating parts of an investigator’s job, especially for those who are new to their role. Whether you're a detective working a violent crime or a Boosting Interview Confidence Through Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) Techniques compliance officer leading a workplace inquiry, it’s normal to feel unsure. The goal of any interview should be to uncover the truth, not to trap someone with a clever question or rely on “gotcha” moments, manipul

Success in high-stakes situations, such as criminal cases, compliance interviews, or HR investigations, requires more than just asking the right questions. It’s about asking the right questions for the right reasons, in the right way. That requires more than instinct or experience; it calls for strategic preparation. Integrating red teaming, setting clear interview objectives, and crafting a strategic questioning plan can elevate any investigation from routine to remarkable.

In science-based interviewing, mastering the art of questioning is not just a skill—it's a necessity. How do you ensure that the...

Strong interview and interrogation planning starts with knowing what must be proven. Jury instructions can provide investigators with a practical roadmap for identifying key elements, building better questions, and avoiding assumption-driven interviews. By using the legal elements as an interview guide, investigators can gather more relevant, reliable, and complete information while strengthening the overall case.

Detective Geyer’s relentless pursuit of justice unraveled Holmes’ web of deceit, leading to his conviction and execution.

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.

Evidence rarely explains itself. Investigative interviewing gives physical, digital, and testimonial evidence context, meaning, and investigative value. Through open-ended questions, corroboration, strategic questioning, and careful testing of competing explanations, investigators can strengthen evidence, uncover new leads, challenge assumptions, and distinguish meaningful connections from coincidence. Evidence guides the interview—and the interview gives meaning to the evide

In law enforcement and investigative work, acronyms are more than shorthand—they shape how information is shared, interpreted, and acted upon. From incident command to interviewing and evidence handling, understanding common law enforcement acronyms helps reduce miscommunication, improve clarity, and support sound decision-making. This reference breaks down frequently used terms to help investigators, analysts, and leaders better navigate the complex language that influences

Red Teaming is critical thinking on purpose. It deliberately challenges assumptions, confidence, and early conclusions to strengthen investigations before decisions harden. While this may feel counterintuitive, it helps investigators check themselves and reduce bias before interviews, evidence interpretation, and case direction are shaped. When paired with science-based interviewing, Red Teaming improves information gathering, decision quality, and investigative integrity.