Red Teaming Assumptions: "No one would ever confess to a crime they did not commit"

One of the most persistent assumptions in interrogation culture is the claim that “no one would ever confess to a crime they did not commit.” This belief is often framed as common sense and repeated by proponents of legacy interrogation systems. Yet repetition does not make an assumption true—it merely makes it familiar.

In this article, that assumption is red teamed using a Key Assumptions Check, a structured analytic technique designed to expose flawed thinking, bias, and risk. Red teaming is not academic nitpicking; it is a practical safeguard for investigations. When paired with Science-Based Interviewing (SBI), red teaming becomes a powerful tool for protecting case integrity, decision-making, and justice.

What Are False Confessions?

False confessions are admissions of guilt for crimes not committed by the individual confessing. They occur under a range of circumstances but are most commonly associated with coercive, misleading, or high-pressure interrogation practices. Psychological vulnerabilities, such as youth, intellectual disability, trauma history, or mental illness, can dramatically increase susceptibility to these pressures.

False confessions matter because they are a series of harmful investigative errors that are often preventable. They lead to wrongful convictions, divert investigative resources, erode public trust, and allow the true perpetrator to remain free. In short, they represent investigative failure.

Red teaming assumptions helps investigative integrity and interview planning and reduces risk.

How Assumptions Undermine Investigations and Integrity

Unchecked assumptions are hazardous in any complex system, but they are especially dangerous in criminal investigations. Research consistently shows that interrogation tactics involving accusation, pressure, fatigue, and psychological manipulation increase the risk of false confessions. Kassin et al. (2010) identified coercive tactics and individual vulnerability as central risk factors in police-induced confessions.

Legacy interrogation models, rigid, step-based systems taught by some vendors and academies, prioritize confession production over information quality and truth (even if it says it in their marketing materials). Techniques such as minimization, where the seriousness of an offense is downplayed, can create a psychological escape hatch for an overwhelmed suspect, resulting in a false admission (Leo, 2008).

Psychological research further demonstrates that certain individuals are more suggestible and more likely to comply with authority figures. Gudjonsson’s work on suggestibility explains how leading questions and feedback can alter an individual’s account—even when that account is false (Gudjonsson, 2003).

Importantly, false confessions do not just harm the accused. They contaminate cases, ruin reputations, stall investigations, and undermine the search for truth. This is why some jurisdictions now require full recording of interrogations, an acknowledgment that process matters as much as outcomes (Drizin & Leo, 2004).

What is Red Teaming?

Red teaming originates from military and intelligence analysis, where structured challenge is used to identify vulnerabilities before they become failures. In investigative contexts, red teaming is a deliberate method of questioning assumptions, testing interpretations, and exposing cognitive bias.

One of the most effective red teaming tools is the Key Assumptions Check, which asks whether foundational beliefs are logical, accurate, evidence-based, and resilient under stress. Other red teaming methods—such as Devil’s Advocacy and Alternative Futures Analysis—serve similar functions: slowing thinking, preventing groupthink, and protecting decision quality.

When integrated into Science-Based Interviewing, red teaming helps investigators resist confirmation bias, guilt presumptive thinking, and confession obsession.

Red Team Strategy - Photo by cottonbro studio

Red Teaming the Core Assumption About False Confessions

"No one would ever confess to a crime they didn't commit."

1. Is this logical?

At face value, the assumption seems intuitive. Why would someone admit guilt for a crime they did not commit? Yet intuition is not evidence. As of 2020, approximately 29% of DNA exonerations involved false confessions, demonstrating that this behavior not only occurs, it occurs with troubling frequency.

2. Is this accurate?

No. According to the Innocence Project, roughly 25% of DNA exonerations involved false confessions (Innocence Project, 2023). Decades of psychological and legal research confirm this reality (Kassin et al., 2010).

3. Is this based on bias or preconceived notions?

Yes. The assumption relies on a belief that people always behave rationally and that investigative systems are immune to error. It ignores stress, power dynamics, fatigue, fear, and human vulnerability.

4. Is this based on historical analogy and is it relevant?

Not meaningfully. The assumption reflects a simplistic narrative rather than a historically grounded understanding of interrogation failures.

5. What would have to be true for this assumption to hold?

Every individual would need to resist pressure flawlessly, investigators would never use coercive tactics, and psychological vulnerability would have no effect on decision-making, conditions that are demonstrably unrealistic.

6. How confident should investigators be that this assumption holds?

Confidence should be low. Even a single verified false confession invalidates the assumption. The empirical record contains hundreds.

7. Would this assumption hold under all conditions?

No. Stress, isolation, fatigue, threat perception, and authority pressure fundamentally alter human behavior.

8. If this assumption is false, how should investigative strategy change?

Investigations must shift away from confession-centric models and toward information-gathering approaches, corroboration, and evidence-based interviewing practices. This is precisely where SBI and red teaming intersect.

Why SBI and Red Teaming Matter

Legacy coercive and accusatorial systems have produced false confessions and catastrophic miscarriages of justice—imprisoning the innocent while leaving the guilty free to reoffend.

At Insight & Integrity, we teach Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) because it removes known risk factors for false confessions and prioritizes accurate, reliable information over admissions (being adaptable). SBI emphasizes rapport, active listening, open-ended questioning, Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE), cognitive interviewing, and continuous and purposeful critical thinking.

Red teaming, particularly Key Assumptions Checks, is embedded into this approach. It forces investigators to ask: What if we’re wrong? What would the evidence look like then?

That question protects cases, investigators, and the truth.

What assumptions are going unchallenged in your investigations?

Red Teaming and False Confession Resources

Drizin, S. A., & Leo, R. A. (2004). The Problem of False Confessions in the Post-DNA World. North Carolina Law Review, 82, 891–1007. https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol82/iss3/3/

Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook. John Wiley & Sons.

Hoffman, B. G. (2017). Red teaming: How your business can conquer the competition by challenging everything. Random House Audio Publishing Group.

Innocence Project (2023). https://innocenceproject.org/

Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6

Leo, R. A. (2008). Police Interrogation and American Justice. Harvard University Press.