Plato's prisoners mistook shadows for the world. Most interview and interrogation training does the same thing — 1950s confrontation repackaged as "non-accusatory" and "research-based." Here's how to tell the difference and why the upgrade to science-based interviewing is worth your training dollars.

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

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.

Science-Based Interviewing is not new, but the evidence supporting it is stronger than ever. While research consistently shows that information-gathering approaches outperform accusatory, confession-driven tactics, outdated interrogation methods continue to dominate training rooms. This article examines why legacy practices persist, the risks they create, and how evidence-based interviewing improves accuracy, cooperation, and investigative outcomes.

Science-Based Interviewing gives law enforcement investigators and police executives a modern framework for gathering reliable information in today’s evidence-rich investigations. Built on research, not tradition, Science-Based Interviewing moves beyond confession-driven tactics and focuses on rapport, free narratives, and Strategic Use of Evidence. The result is stronger case context, fewer investigative risks, and statements that withstand legal, scientific, and community s

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 remarkable.

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

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.

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

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.

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