Don’t Ask for More Details. Execute Better Retrieval.

(3 min read)

By Stan B. Walters – The Lie Guy®
ORCID 0009-0002-1063-0519

Investigators frequently tell witnesses, victims, and suspects to “give me more details” as though additional information can simply be produced on command. The problem is that memory does not operate like a recording. A person may have experienced an event accurately and still fail to report important information during the first account. Some details were not the focus of attention, others may not initially appear important, and still others require a different retrieval route before they become accessible. I was reminded of that recently while recording an episode of Inside the Interview Room. An unexpected interruption occurred, and when I later tried to reconstruct exactly what happened, the complete account did not immediately return. I had to mentally revisit the setting, sequence, and what happened before and after the interruption. More information emerged as I changed the way I searched my own memory. That experience illustrates three common interview problems: incomplete initial recall, overreliance on generic requests for “more detail,” and evaluating credibility before sufficiently developing the statement.

The first problem is assuming that an incomplete first account means the information does not exist. Free recall should remain the starting point because it allows the person to provide an uninterrupted narrative without unnecessary direction from the interviewer. But free recall is only the beginning of retrieval. Research associated with Cognitive Credibility Assessment shows that additional retrieval procedures can produce information not reported during the initial narrative. The solution is to give the interviewee additional opportunities to access the event from different cognitive directions. The investigator can reconstruct context, revisit sequence, explore what happened immediately before or after an event, and examine sensory, semantic, spatial, and cognitive details where appropriate. The objective is not to manufacture detail. It is to create conditions that allow genuinely available information to surface.

The second problem is believing that repeating “What else?” or “Tell me more” constitutes an effective retrieval strategy. Those questions may occasionally help, but they do little to change the cognitive task facing the interviewee. Better retrieval requires changing the route. Techniques examined in Cognitive Credibility Assessment research include additional free recall, reverse-order recall, and sketching while describing the event. Think about trying to remember where you left something. You rarely solve the problem by simply demanding that your brain “remember harder.” Instead, you reconstruct where you were, what you were doing, what you touched, and what happened next. Each step creates another route back to the missing information. Investigative interviews should operate similarly. Better interviewing does not necessarily mean asking more questions. It means executing better retrieval.

The third problem occurs when investigators begin interpreting credibility before they have fully developed the account. Sparse information, hesitation, uneven detail, or difficulty recalling sequence may be treated prematurely as signs of deception when they can also reflect normal characteristics of memory, attention, stress, or retrieval. The solution is to pressure-test the statement through continued retrieval and subsequent verification rather than rushing to judgment. As additional context, sensory information, semantic detail, sequencing, cognitive information, and complications emerge, the investigator has more material to compare against the rest of the statement and against independently established evidence. Follow-up should clarify reliability, not force conformity. A credible account should generally become more understandable as effective retrieval methods are applied and verifiable details are examined.

Effective investigative interviewing is not a contest to see how many questions an investigator can ask or how much pressure can be placed on someone to “remember.” The task is to create systematic opportunities for reliable information to emerge and then test that information against reality. An initial narrative provides the foundation. Additional retrieval methods expand the available information. Follow-up clarifies uncertainty. Independent evidence provides confirmation. That sequence changes the interviewer’s role from someone searching for signs of deception to someone methodically evaluating statement reliability. The goal is not to look for deception—it is to confirm credibility. The next time an interviewee reaches the end of an account, the most productive question may not be, “Can you give me more details?” The better question for the investigator to ask is: What retrieval route haven’t I tried yet?

Choices made in the interview room eventually play out in a courtroom™

© Copyright 2026 by Stan B. Walters All Rights Reserved.