by Stan B. Walters - The Lie Guy®
Interested in hosting a Mastering Investigative Interviews course for your agency? Contact Stan to discuss dates and arrangements.
An Easier Admission Is Not a More Reliable Account
“Did you do it on purpose, or was it just an accident?” “It wasn’t supposed to go that far, was it?” “You were going to put it back.” These statements offer a subject a less serious explanation for their conduct before they have supplied their own. The interviewer may intend to encourage conversation or move beyond a denial. An admission may follow, making the approach appear successful. But making an admission easier to obtain does not make it more reliable. When an interviewer supplies the explanation, the resulting agreement can conceal serious conduct, suggest favorable treatment, or give an innocent person a way to escape pressure.
Your Explanation Can Conceal Their Intent
A person who acted deliberately may readily accept an explanation that makes their actions sound unintended. “It wasn’t supposed to go that far” provides a convenient account without requiring the subject to describe what they actually intended. Once the interviewer accepts that explanation, subsequent questions may reinforce it rather than examine it. The subject’s agreement becomes the foundation for an account the interviewer helped construct. An admission has been obtained, but the decisions, intentions, and actions central to the investigation may remain unresolved. The interviewer may leave knowing that the subject accepted a suggested explanation without knowing whether it describes what happened.
Minimizing Conduct Can Imply Lesser Consequences
Minimizing the conduct can also communicate something the interviewer never intended to offer. “Was it just an accident?” may sound like a useful question to the interviewer, while the subject hears a choice between greater and lesser consequences. “You were going to put it back” supplies an innocent-sounding intention that the subject has not independently described. The implied message can become, “Accept this explanation, and you won’t be treated as seriously.” An explicit promise is not necessary for the person to perceive an advantage in agreeing. The resulting admission must then be examined for what motivated it: an accurate account of the incident, or an expectation about what accepting the interviewer’s explanation might accomplish.
An Innocent Person May See a Way Out
An innocent person may find a different advantage in the same explanation: a possible end to the interview. During a prolonged or pressured exchange, someone who has repeatedly denied involvement may become increasingly concerned with escaping the immediate experience. “It was just an accident” can begin to sound like a way out, even when there was no involvement to explain. The interviewer may interpret agreement as a breakthrough without recognizing why it occurred. If the person accepts the supplied account to obtain relief, the apparent success conceals a serious reliability problem. The person may be telling the interviewer what will end the interview rather than what happened during the incident.
Obtain Their Account. Then Test It.
Stop supplying the explanation. Ask the person to describe what happened, then explore their thinking, intentions, and actions through questions grounded in their account. “What did you expect would happen?” invites an explanation without supplying one. If the person describes an accident, ask them to explain what they mean and describe the circumstances in detail. Examine the account against the evidence, seek independent corroboration, and pursue information that challenges your understanding. A subject’s own explanation still requires scrutiny, but it gives the investigator an account to test rather than an agreement to defend. Before deciding that minimization “worked,” ask: Did you discover the subject’s account, or persuade the subject to accept yours?
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.
Related Video