There is a heat map for the cereal aisle, the ad, the landing page, and your résumé. Entire professions test, measure, and upgrade to move a number two percent. The interview room—where we decide what is true—still runs on a method whose first famous case produced a false confession.

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

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

Science-Based Interviewing gives companies a better way to conduct internal investigations, workplace investigation interviews, and corporate security interviews. Instead of relying on accusatory tactics, pseudoscientific lie detection, or premature evidence disclosure, investigators can gather reliable information, protect statements from contamination, test accounts against evidence, and make better decisions.

Workplace investigations depend on more than policy and paperwork. They depend on communication, sound interviewing, and the ability to gather reliable information when tensions are high. This article explains how science-based interviewing helps HR, corporate security, compliance, and internal investigators conduct fairer, more thorough, and more defensible investigations through better questions, active listening, rapport, and evidence-based methods.

Modern interview and interrogation training is failing because it still relies on accusatory methods, lie detection myths, and a confession-first mindset. Decades of research now show Science-Based Interviewing gathers more information, strengthens case integrity, reduces bias, and even increases confessions. It’s time to replace broken tools with evidence-based skills that actually uncover the truth.

Body language and lie detection are often linked, but research does not support many popular claims. This article explains why nervous behavior, eye contact, baselining, and microexpressions are weak indicators of deception and why investigators should focus on statement evidence, corroboration, and science-based interviewing instead.

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.

Sherlock Holmes would be a disaster in a real interview room. Fictional detectives aren't a training manual — but every so often, the novelists got something right. A fun look at their sharpest lines, plus the real investigation skills that actually close cases.

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.

Investigators rely on memory as evidence, yet memory is vulnerable to distortion through post-event information and poorly framed questions. Research on the misinformation effect shows how leading questions, social influence, and timing can alter recall. Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) protects memory integrity by prioritizing early interviews, witness separation, free narratives, and the strategic use of evidence to gather accurate, reliable statement evidence.

Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) is an information-gathering approach to interview and interrogation based on peer-reviewed behavioral and cognitive science, including research funded through the FBI-administered High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG). SBI emphasizes accurate, reliable, and corroborated information through open-ended questioning, active listening, rapport, Strategic Use of Evidence, and cognitive interviewing.

How the active listening skill of reflecting helps increase rapport and information disclosure.

The misinformation effect shows how easily memory can be altered by post-event information, language, and suggestion. Research by Elizabeth Loftus demonstrates why Investigative Interviewing must avoid leading questions, premature evidence disclosure, and interviewer opinions. Science-based investigative interviewing practices protect memory integrity, reduce contamination, and ensure statements remain reliable, corroborated, and defensible in court.

Science-based investigative interviewing is the modern standard for truth-seeking. Interviews remain the primary engine of information gathering, beginning with patrol and continuing through complex investigations. Rapport and active listening are not “soft skills” but high-stakes tools proven to increase cooperation and disclosure while reducing error. Great interviews discover evidence, expose contradictions, identify witnesses, and provide vital context. Information is the