Investigative Red Team Toolkit
Most wrongful convictions aren't caused by one bad decision — they're the product of a chain of small, connected errors that quietly compound inside an ordinary case. The Investigative Red Team Toolkit gives detectives and supervisors a fast, structured way to challenge a live investigation before that chain hardens into a failure. Work through the interactive checklist and pre-mortem, then generate a red team finding you can drop straight into the case file. It's free to use, built for working investigators, and grounded in peer-reviewed research on how criminal investigations go wrong.
What is investigative red teaming?
Red teaming means assigning someone whose job is to argue that your case is wrong — to build the strongest alternative theory and hunt for evidence that would clear your suspect. It's the direct antidote to confirmation bias and tunnel vision, the two thinking errors that sit at the center of most investigative failures. This toolkit turns that discipline into a repeatable process any unit can run.
Who is Red Teaming for?
Detectives, investigators (public and private sector), and supervisory and command staff who want to protect case integrity, reduce the risk of wrongful convictions, and build independent challenges into their major-case workflow. Red teaming pairs naturally with science-based interviewing training.
How the toolkit works
Learn the science in five minutes, run a three-pass challenge across the catalysts, brokers, and warning-light factors behind failed investigations, then complete a pre-mortem on your active case. The toolkit compiles your answers into a personalized red team finding with a clear go, hold, or redirect recommendation.
Grounded in research
The framework is adapted from Rossmo, Bouchard, and Summers' 2026 network analysis of 50 real criminal investigative failures—most of them wrongful convictions—published in Justice Quarterly. It maps the factors that drive failure and, crucially, when to intervene.
Rossmo, D. K., Bouchard, M., & Summers, L. (2026). Criminal Investigative Failures: A Network Analysis. Justice Quarterly, 43(4), 1001–1031.
Better Investigative Thinking Before Better Questioning
Richard Feynman warned, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” That principle sits at the heart of red teaming and effective interview preparation. Good investigators challenge legacy interviewing. Great investigators also challenge themselves.
A well-prepared interview is not simply a list of questions. It is a deliberate effort to understand what is known, what is assumed, what remains uncertain, what alternative explanations may exist, and what information is still needed. Premortem analysis helps investigators pressure-test that thinking before the interview begins by asking where the plan could fail, what evidence may have been overlooked, and how bias or premature conclusions could shape the conversation.
That is also the foundation of Science-Based Interviewing: the goal is more accurate, relevant, and reliable information—not simply confirmation of what we already believe. More information gives investigators more opportunities to test competing explanations, identify inconsistencies, develop corroboration, discover new evidence, and make better decisions. Red teaming strengthens the thinking behind the interview; Science-Based Interviewing strengthens the way information is gathered. Together, they help investigators remain curious longer, challenge assumptions earlier, and build conclusions that can withstand scrutiny.