By Jon Rappa

When constructing a timeline during an investigation, one of the most critical rules is to avoid revealing what you already know. Whether the case involves murder, robbery, sexual harassment, domestic violence, or shoplifting, disclosing evidence—such as surveillance footage, fingerprints, witness testimony, or phone records—can lead the other party to tailor their story around the information provided. Instead, it’s often better to play “stupid” and act as though you know less than you do. This approach keeps the suspect in the dark and prevents them from crafting a narrative that aligns with the evidence you’ve already gathered.

The goal is simple: either uncover the truth or lock them into a provable lie. A provable lie, also known as a false exculpatory statement, is a statement that can be disproven through evidence and is admissible in court. Prosecutors can use these lies as evidence to demonstrate consciousness of guilt, strengthening the case against the suspect. The bigger the lie, the harder it is for them to recover. By withholding evidence during the initial phases of the interview, you create opportunities for suspects to expose inconsistencies in their story. When their timeline inevitably shifts or collapses under the weight of concrete evidence, it not only aids in the investigation but also becomes a powerful tool during trial.

By following this method and avoiding the temptation to reveal too much, investigators can maintain control over the interview, elicit valuable admissions, and ensure that every lie serves a purpose in building the case.

If you would like to learn more about conducting better interviews, check out our classes at Advanced Police Concepts.