Narrative or Accusatory? One Builds a Case. One Breaks It.
Narrative and accusatory interviewing are more than different techniques—they represent two fundamentally different investigative philosophies. One is designed to gather and evaluate information. The other often begins with the objective of obtaining admissions or confessions. Those choices influence the quantity, quality, and reliability of the evidence investigators ultimately present in court.
The Crime Before the Crime?
Most investigations begin with the crime. The better question is: When did the crime really begin? Long before the act itself, offenders often progress through a series of decisions involving distorted thinking, planning, preparation, and commitment. Understanding that sequence can change how investigators conduct interviews—and how they build stronger cases.
Yackey Yak Will Cost You the Facts
Many investigators believe talking demonstrates control. In reality, excessive talking suppresses the subject’s narrative, increases the risk of contamination, and reduces statement reliability. Learn why disciplined silence is one of the most powerful—and overlooked—skills in investigative interviewing.
The Risks of Echo Chamber Training: “Beam Us Up, Scotty”
Unsupported ideas can spread through interview and interrogation courses simply because they are repeated. This article examines how echo chamber instruction takes hold, why repetition is mistaken for proof, and the risks it creates for investigators.
Navigating Body Language Signs: Compass or GPS?
One wrong nonverbal read can send your interview off course. Body language may point investigators in a direction, but verbal content provides the clearer route. Learn why behavioral cues work more like a compass, while reliable verbal details work more like GPS.
When Interview Methods Are Challenged, Reliability Has to Answer
When interview methods are challenged, confidence is not enough. Reliability depends on whether the process can be explained, supported, documented, and defended. This article examines how questioning methods, contamination, agreement, and classroom-taught habits can follow an interview into reports, hearings, testimony, and courtroom scrutiny.