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

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.

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.