Science-Based Interviewing focuses on gathering accurate, unbiased information—but some common questions quietly sabotage that goal. Self-handicapping questions like “Were you a witness?” embed assumptions that cause people to self-exclude, cutting off valuable information before it emerges. This article explains how these questions harm investigations, why they persist, and how open-ended, information-generating prompts protect investigative integrity.

Interviewing can be one of the most intimidating parts of an investigator’s job, especially for those who are new to their role. Whether...

For years, we’ve discussed interviews and interrogations, and that legacy techniques were the standard. We have relied on these outdated methods for too long. In fact they actually undermine our ability to gather reliable information. This is especially true in confession-driven approaches. The idea behind these tactics is that if a suspect denies involvement early, they’re less likely to confess later. But the problem here isn’t just the techniques; it’s the overall strategy

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 remarkab

How can we tell whether a child died from co-sleeping or if she was smothered intentionally by a parent who had tired of her crying? How...

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

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.

The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) serves as a critical interagency effort within the U.S. government, bringing together intelligence professionals, operational interrogators, and academic researchers to advance the science and practice of interrogation. Established in 2009 under the direction of Barack Obama, the HIG was created to ensure that interrogation practices are effective, ethical, and grounded in empirical research. Since its creation, the HIG has su

Mastering the art of ethical interrogation requires a blend of skill, strategy, and dumping of antiquated interrogation techniques....

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

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

Confirmation bias is predictable—but not unavoidable. Left unchecked, it distorts interviews, weakens investigations, and jeopardizes outcomes. Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) offers a practical path forward by using red teaming to challenge assumptions, test hypotheses, and counter confirmation bias and other cognitive errors. Through structured critical thinking, SBI strengthens objectivity, protects case integrity, and supports ethical, evidence-driven decision-making.

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.