top of page

How to Interrogate: Google and Artificial Intelligence are Dead Wrong.

Writer's picture: CoryCory

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with Google AI's search suggestions promoting techniques like "dominance" and "direct confrontation," which belong to outdated, confession-focused accusatory practices.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 bias. Research and real-world successes demonstrate that these accusatory models undermine true investigative goals. Modern science-based interviewing emphasizes building rapport, sound questioning, and gradual evidence disclosure to gather quality information. Techniques such as the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) allow investigators to preserve statement integrity, detect inconsistencies naturally, and avoid leading suspects to predetermined answers. Moving beyond legacy methods is essential, not only to protect individual rights but to ensure accuracy, ethics, public trust in investigations, and future-proofing for AI. This shift honors the commitment to truth that investigative interviewing, in both the public and private

Robot conducting a bad interrogation

sectors, deserves.

 

How to Interrogate: A Late Night Search

When someone says they’ve been “interrogated,” it’s rarely meant in a positive light. They picture rapid-fire questions, a judgmental tone, and a controlling figure with an agenda. My recent late-night curiosity search for "How to interrogate" on Google, led to AI-powered results that were shockingly misguided. The search and AI promoted top-ranking terms like “dominance,” “alternative themes” (often fabricated), “the alternative question” (which is typically leading), “suggesting leniency for confessions” (minimization), “bait questions,” “bluffs,” and even “hypothetical evidence.” The advice on handling evidence? "Direct confrontation," where you reveal all of it at once and invite the suspect to confess on the spot—an approach that risks contaminating the statement evidence from the start. Google’s AI overview neatly sums up what should be a poorly rated interrogation as “the process of asking someone a lot of questions over a long period of time to get information,” a definition that misses the precision and integrity that true investigative interviewing requires. Law enforcement has long relied on confrontational, accusatory models that prioritize confessions over information. Yet, research and a myriad of successful interviewers now tell us these methods contradict the fundamentals of sound human communication. It’s high time to retire these outdated practices from not just law enforcement but from our public understanding as well.

 

What’s So Bad About Google’s Interrogation Recommendations?

Wrong From the Start

Confrontational or accusatory interrogation styles are fundamentally flawed in their overall approach. They prioritize and set the goal of securing a confession over gathering comprehensive quality information that can be corroborated. To make it worse they also rely invalidated methods such as behavioral analysis interviewing and neurolinguistic programming to decide on veracity and guilt (research indicates you may as well flip a coin for this decision). This narrow, confession-focused strategy is often rooted in a presumption of guilt (often using other dubious means), which can lead the interrogator to overlook or disregard potentially exculpatory evidence and other valuable information that could corroborate the suspect’s account. Such an approach is a breeding ground for confirmation bias, where the interrogator's sole aim becomes affirmation of guilt, rather than an objective search for the truth. This self-imposed and case-handicapping tunnel vision undermines the integrity of the overall investigation, limiting its effectiveness, wasting resources, and potentially compromising the reliability of any confession obtained, denying any form of actual justice.


Minimization Techniques

Minimization techniques in interrogations involve downplaying the severity of the offense or providing moral justifications for it, often encouraging suspects to view their actions as understandable or less harmful. While these techniques may help obtain confessions, they can and have led to false admissions, particularly from vulnerable individuals, as they create a psychological environment that suggests leniency if the suspect confesses. Research has shown that minimization can imply promises of leniency without directly offering them (Luke & Alceste, 2020), increasing the risk of unreliable statements. Experts advise caution with these methods, emphasizing a balanced approach to avoid unintended consequences in suspect statements. Do you have the power to make deals within criminal justice system as a fact-finder?


Showing All the Evidence

Direct confrontation, where all evidence is immediately presented to the suspect, is often counterproductive and contrasts sharply with the heavily researched and highly effective Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) approach. This technique risks contaminating the interrogation by allowing the suspect to tailor their story to the evidence, minimizing the potential for genuine disclosures. Research suggests that revealing evidence gradually or strategically—rather than upfront—enables interviewers to gain a more comprehensive account of the incident, without the influence of known evidence, making it easier to detect statement-evidence inconsistencies and gauge absolute veracity (something that will actually hold up in court). Direct confrontation, by contrast, can lead to rehearsed or manipulated responses and hinder the effectiveness of the interrogation, reducing the quality of the information obtained and making it more challenging to distinguish truthful statements from deceptive ones.


Alternative Questions

The “alternative question” technique, where an interviewer presents two options—one less severe—to encourage a confession, poses significant risks in investigative interviewing. For instance, “did you plan this entire thing for month or was this just done in the moment?” cold-hearted person or was this just an accident?” Agreeing to either is an admission. This method is designed to get the subject to choose the less nefarious or “positive” option to get to the admission, so in turn you can more easily get to a full confession. Do not be fooled, both choices imply guilt. Also don’t be fooled, both choices are chosen by the interviewer and could have nothing to do with the incident itself, making them leading questions. This interjects false information into your statement evidence whether they are “saving face” or not. This is not the "truth" promised in the marketing for these classes; this is textbook manipulation to satisfy the goal of confession. Research has shown that alternative questions can and have encouraged false confessions, particularly among vulnerable or suggestible individuals, even to actions they did not commit, in hopes of receiving more lenient treatment. By limiting the suspect’s responses to predefined choices, the alternative question also restricts the flow of case relevant information, which isn’t the goal of an accusatory interrogation anyhow. Read that again; the goal of an accusatory interrogation is not information.


It is About the Truth, Allegedly

The phrase "seeking the truth," or some similar wording, is prominently featured in the marketing literature of companies that continue to promote accusatory and coercive interrogation methods. This slogan or seaming goal does not absolve them of the ethical responsibility to stop teaching pseudoscientific and harmful techniques. Claiming to seek the truth while peddling outdated, psychologically coercive methods leads to false information and, more tragically, false confessions that ruin lives and erode public trust in the criminal justice system. We now have better, evidence-based methods for collecting statement evidence that are proven to yield more and more reliable information without resorting to manipulation. Just as law enforcement agencies no longer rely on 1950s cars due to advancements in safety and efficiency, it is time to move beyond outdated interrogation practices from the same decade in favor of approaches rooted in modern research. It’s time for an update that prioritizes accuracy, integrity, information,and the real pursuit of truth.

 

The Future of Interrogation

They Did Not Provide a Confession

The goal in any investigation should be to gather as much case-relevant information as possible—both in quality and quantity—rather than focusing solely on securing a confession. Building a strong case means collecting detailed statement evidence, identifying inconsistencies, corroborating facts, and managing the investigation with precision and an open mind. In my experience as a homicide detective, I had a year where none of my murder cases had circumstances where the suspect(s) provided admissions or confessions. Yet, each case was cleared, and all suspects were found or pleaded guilty. This outcome wasn't due to focusing on confessions at all, but rather the result of assembling strong cases using relevant information, cultivating negative statements (false exculpatory statements), and maintaining good case management. Prioritizing the gathering of solid, case-relevant information over short-sighted confession-seeking builds an investigation that can stand on its own merits and withstand legal scrutiny. Confessions are not bad, but what is contained in your interview plan when it doesn’t happen?

 

How to Interrogate with Better Tools

While traveling to train or consulting with other law enforcement or private sector investigators on the topic of interviewing and interrogation, I always ask about the strategic use of evidence (SUE). The majority of the time, most practitioners have never heard of it much less have used it. Unlike traditional confrontational and accusatorial approaches that often rely on coercion, pseudoscience, and psychological pressure to gain a confession, the strategic use of evidence (SUE) takes a different route. SUE uses a different method of evidence disclosure and strengthens your statement evidence through the structure of the technique itself. Instead of overwhelming a suspect with evidence or disclosing it early so your impatience can be satiated, SUE uses calm as a superpower. A late disclosure provides several enhancements to the statement you are taking. It locks in a statement from the get go using a free narrative strategy aimed at gaining information. Second, it allows an investigator an opportunity at an uncontaminated statement by not allowing an individual to see/hear about the evidence then allowing them to speak to it. Finally, it allows an investigator to make an absolute judgment about a subject's veracity in light of actual evidence. This is directly opposed to a psychic-like pseudoscientific NLP guess b/c the subject’s knee moved, they looked up and to the left, you saw a “cluster”, it was on YouTube, and today is Thursday. The aforementioned is established “lie detection” except the Thursday bit, I made that up, bad interviewing techniques are used everyday of the week.  


Memory-compatible questioning strategies, and active listening techniques to build rapport to maximize not only the amount of information gathered but the quality of the information. This approach minimizes the risk of false confessions by eliminating those techniques that are known to produce false confessions and allowing investigators to objectively assess all available information rather than pushing for predetermined answers. Supported by the latest peer-reviewed research, the information-gathering paradigm not only produces more reliable statement evidence, making it a more effective standard. As more top investigators and agencies embrace these evidence-based methods, the focus shifts from securing a confession to uncovering the full truth, the real ground truth, which ultimately strengthens the integrity of the investigative processes. Here is the final kicker, science-based interviewing doesn't see a drop in confessions compared to accusatory methods. Ouch! It really is a no-brainer when it comes to interview and interrogation training.


Closing

When a person’s job, freedom, or even life, can depend on the accuracy of their statements, we can no longer afford to teach or practice interrogation techniques that are scientifically unsound, psychologically coercive, and likely to produce false information, much less a false confession. It’s no longer acceptable to rely on outdated methods that research has shown to be less effective and harmful. Since the establishment of the FBI’s High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), which has funded extensive research since 2009, we’ve entered a new era grounded in evidence-based practices. Hundreds of peer-reviewed studies and practical field validations now guide us toward ethical and more reliable techniques for interviewing and interrogation that respect the truth—and the people involved. If we wouldn’t want our loved ones subjected to outdated, coercive tactics, we shouldn’t settle for them as the norm in law enforcement or in society’s collective understanding of effective interrogation. The future of investigative interviewing demands integrity, precision, and an unrelenting commitment to the truth, a commitment that Google search and AI have yet to understand.


Google and AI professionals, Insight & Integrity is happy to help these computers learn good interrogation methods. Bad ideas from the 20th Century need to stay there!




Luke, T. J., & Alceste, F. (2020). The mechanisms of minimization: How interrogation tactics suggest lenient sentencing through pragmatic implication. Law and human behavior44(4), 266–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000410

Comentarios


bottom of page