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.

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

In 1930, inventor Helene Shelby patented a bizarre police interrogation device—a life-sized talking skeleton with glowing red eyes, designed to scare criminal suspects into confessing. Hidden cameras and microphones recorded the suspect’s reaction as the skeleton "spoke," creating what Shelby believed would be a foolproof confession tool. Though never used, this eerie interrogation tactic highlights a strange chapter in the history of confessions and coercive police technique

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.

If I could go back and talk to my younger self as a new police officer, I'd have some words of advice: Slow down. Listen more. Police work is all about the interview (especially then!). When I started out, I wanted to chase and catch the bad guys. I wanted to clean up the mean streets and I was lucky enough to work in the same Patrol Bureau where I grew up. That meant something to me. If I am able to apprehend sufficient offenders and bring them into the county jail, I will h

Interrogation is a term loaded with negative associations, often conjuring images of rapid questions, an aggressive tone, and a power-driven agenda. This misconception is reinforced by misguided advice online, with Google AI's search suggestions promoting techniques like "dominance" and "direct confrontation," which belong to outdated, confession-focused accusatory practices. They legacy practices risk contaminating evidence, producing fake case information, and reinforcing b

Miranda v. Arizona reshaped modern interrogation by recognizing that custodial questioning creates psychological pressure that can compel statements. The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment requires suspects to be advised of their right to remain silent and to an attorney before custodial interrogation. These protections safeguard voluntary statements, reduce coercion, and preserve the integrity and reliability of evidence obtained during interviews.

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

This article provides a practical reference to key U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) cases that shape modern interviewing and interrogation. Rather than legal analysis, it offers short narratives explaining what happened in each case and why statements matter. Together, these decisions highlight concerns about custody, pressure, and voluntariness. Science-Based Interviewing aligns with this framework by prioritizing ethical, research-driven information gathering over coercive inter

History and legacy of the Wickersham Commission and how it helped change criminal justice, interviewing, and third degree interrogation.

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

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