The Devil and Too Many Details

It’s Not the Count — It’s the Content

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

Investigators are sometimes warned that a person who provides “too many details” may be trying too hard to sound convincing. That is an attractive shortcut, but it risks sending the interviewer in exactly the wrong direction. The more useful question is not How many details did I hear? but What kind of details did I hear, and what can I do with them? The Verifiability Approach offers a much more productive way to think about statement content. Three ideas are particularly useful for investigators: first, verifiable details give the interviewer information that can be tested against reality; second, those details increase the investigative value of a statement regardless of whether the speaker is a suspect, victim, or witness; and third, places where verifiability suddenly disappears may identify exactly where the interviewer needs to concentrate follow-up questions.

Verifiable Details Give the Interviewer Something to Test

A verifiable detail is information that potentially leaves a footprint outside the statement itself. A person may identify a location, describe who was present, mention a telephone call, name a business, recall an object, describe a transaction, identify a vehicle, or place an event at a particular time. None of those details automatically proves that the statement is true. A deceptive person can certainly provide accurate information, and truthful people can make mistakes. The value is that the interviewer now has something capable of independent examination. Instead of asking whether the person appears believable, the investigation can ask whether the account corresponds with records, witnesses, video, digital evidence, physical evidence, or other independently established facts. That moves the interviewer away from impression and toward information that can actually be tested.

The Value Is in the Content, Not the Quantity

This is where the “too many details” idea can become particularly misleading. Detail by itself is not the issue. A long statement filled with vague description may contain far less investigative value than a shorter statement containing several specific, checkable facts. Conversely, a highly detailed account should not automatically become suspicious simply because it contains a lot of information. What matters is the quality and utility of the content. Does the statement provide context? Does it identify people, places, actions, sequences, conversations, or events that can be compared with outside evidence? Stronger statements tend to give investigators more opportunities to test the account. Reliability does not emerge because an interviewer counts a certain number of details. It develops as different parts of the statement begin to fit together and those details survive comparison with reality.

Pay Attention When Verifiability Disappears

The absence of verifiable information may be just as useful as its presence. That does not mean a vague answer proves deception. Memory varies, some events are difficult to describe, and people do not encode every part of an experience with equal precision. But when an otherwise specific account suddenly becomes thin, generic, or difficult to check, the interviewer has found an area that deserves attention. Instead of labeling the speaker deceptive, the interviewer can explore the gap: Who specifically was there? What happened next? Where did that occur? What did you do after that? Is there anyone who could confirm that? Would there be a record of it? Those questions do more than challenge the speaker. They populate the statement with information that can later be examined against independent evidence.

Follow the Details Into the Evidence

The Verifiability Approach gives investigators a practical alternative to trying to diagnose truth or deception from isolated behaviors or from arbitrary ideas about how much detail a person “should” provide. The objective is not to reward a statement for being long or punish it for being detailed. It is to identify information that can be tested, recognize where that information becomes weak or absent, and use those areas to guide better questioning. A reliable statement gradually gives the investigator more pieces that can be compared with reality. Some will be confirmed, some may require clarification, and some may fail. That is precisely the point. Reliability is diagnosed in the statement. Confirmation comes from the evidence.

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

© Copyright 2026 by Stan B. Walters  All Rights Reserved
Brief excerpts may be quoted with attribution and a link to the original article. Reproduction, redistribution, or use in training materials requires written permission.