Interview the Cat! Ask about the Mouse.

You Don’t Begin With the Crime. You Begin With the Person.

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

An investigator enters an interview with a purpose. There’s an incident to investigate, evidence to examine, and questions that need answers. But what happens when the investigator’s understanding of the incident becomes an assumption about the person? The famous thought experiment involving Schrödinger’s Cat offers an unusual analogy for three fundamental interviewing principles: avoid preconceptions, understand the individual, and remain receptive to unexpected information. Because sometimes, what you think you know can prevent you from discovering what you need to learn.

Never Make Assumptions About the Cat

Schrödinger’s thought experiment illustrates a concept from quantum mechanics, but it also provides a useful metaphor for investigative uncertainty. Until we examine the evidence, we shouldn’t pretend to know what’s inside the box. Investigators routinely encounter allegations, witness statements, investigative reports, and preliminary evidence before conducting an interview. That information is necessary for preparation, but it can also create expectations that influence questioning and interpretation. Confirmation bias can cause investigators to pursue information supporting their existing theory while overlooking potentially contradictory details. Don’t let what you THINK you know interfere with what you NEED to learn. Effective interviewing requires keeping alternative explanations open and allowing the information obtained to challenge existing assumptions.

You Don’t Know What the Cat Has Been Through

A subject’s history, experiences, perceptions, and personal circumstances may provide essential context for understanding their account. Yet investigators sometimes rush directly into the alleged offense without taking sufficient time to understand the person sitting across from them. Rapport development isn’t simply a technique for encouraging cooperation. It creates opportunities for individuals to communicate information that might otherwise remain undisclosed. Open-ended questions, attentive listening, and appropriate follow-up allow the interviewer to discover what the subject considers significant. Importantly, understanding someone’s experiences doesn’t establish their credibility or excuse their behavior. It helps the investigator avoid imposing assumptions on an unfamiliar personal history. You can’t understand the story until you understand who’s telling it.

Now, Let’s Discuss the Mouse

The alleged incident remains the investigative objective, but it shouldn’t become an artificial boundary restricting information gathering. In 1999, I was asked to interview Danny Bible concerning a sexual offense investigation in Louisiana. During our initial interview, I concentrated on getting to know him and understanding his personal history. While exploring that history, the conversation unexpectedly led to disclosures concerning additional homicides. Those discoveries weren’t the result of confronting him with accusations about those offenses. They emerged as the interview developed. The lesson isn’t that rapport guarantees disclosures or that every interview should become an unrestricted exploration of someone’s life. Rather, the interviewer must recognize when unexpected information deserves further investigation. Such disclosures must subsequently be evaluated and independently corroborated.

The Person Before the Problem

Investigative interviewing isn’t simply a process of obtaining answers to predetermined questions. It’s a disciplined effort to discover, evaluate, and verify information. Preparation provides direction, but curiosity, cognitive flexibility, and effective questioning allow investigators to recognize information they didn’t anticipate. The objective isn’t to abandon the investigation or ignore existing evidence. It’s to avoid allowing preliminary conclusions to dictate everything the interviewer hears. You don’t begin with the crime. You begin with the person. Before deciding what happened to the mouse, perhaps you should get to know the cat.

© Copyright 2026 by Stan B. Walters  All Rights Reserved