You can't learn from your mistakes—because anxiety-based lie detection training never lets you count them. No batting average, no save rate, and no field goal percentage: it records only the hits. I trusted NLP, microexpressions, and baselining once, and they pointed me at an innocent man while the real evidence sat on a phone I'd turned off. Human deception detection runs about 54%—barely better than a coin flip. Here's why the science-based fundamentals beat the pseudoscien

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 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 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.

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.

Workplace investigation interviews built on behavioral lie detection create legal liability. Learn why junk science fails at depositions, why step-by-step systems break down, and what defensible investigations actually require.

Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) must come before Artificial Intelligence (AI) in policing. Pseudoscientific lie detection and accusatory tactics feed garbage into investigations, and AI will only amplify those errors. Evidence-based SBI—rapport, active listening, open-ended questions—produces reliable, information-rich statements. That’s the data AI can actually use to strengthen cases and build trust in the information age of policing.

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 can we tell if the story parents gave about a broken leg or a brain bleed is plausible? We lean on child abuse specialist pediatricians, especially in physical abuse cases, to help us solve these and other quandaries. These skilled physicians are invaluable members of the multidisciplinary team (MDT). I consult with our local specialists on

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.

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.

The cognitive interview is a cornerstone of Science-Based Interviewing and modern investigative practice. Grounded in cognitive psychology, it improves memory recall by using open-ended questions, context reinstatement, and multiple retrieval pathways. Research shows it produces significantly more accurate information than traditional interviews, making it essential for law enforcement interview and interrogation training focused on reliability, ethics, and bias reduction.

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

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

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.