We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

Evidence – A Deciding Factor

One of the ways we can greatly increase our success in obtaining truthful admissions from suspects is by having sufficient evidence against the person who committed the crime. The logic is fairly straight forward – the more evidence you have against someone, the more likely you are to obtain incriminating admissions about the crime. If we have fingerprints, DNA, video of the suspect committing the crime, eye witnesses who have identified the suspect, recorded pretext telephone calls, and recovered stolen property, it’s going to be much easier to obtain a confession. The less evidence we have, the process becomes exponentially more difficult.

The problem is, no one is going to walk into our office and hand us a box of incriminating evidence against the suspect. For most law enforcement agencies, the Crime Scene Unit is only going to respond to homicides and very high profile crimes. With that said, how in the world are we to gather the evidence needed to increase our likelihood of success in the suspect interview? The answer is relatively simple – we’re going to have to seek it out and dig for it.

Knowing that no one is going to hand us the evidence we need means realizing the onus is on us to obtain it. We’ve got to get off our butts and knock on doors to look for eye witnesses who could be helpful to our case. We have to contact business owners who may have video surveillance of the crime in progress. We have to search for latent fingerprints, DNA evidence, cell phone records, GPS intelligence, bank statements, obtain search warrants, and be utterly driven in obtaining physical evidence.  The more we have, the smoother things will go in the interview room subsequently.

In our investigations, we frequently use pretext telephone calls between the victim and suspect to obtain incriminating statements we can later use against the suspect. Interestingly enough, we’ve never had to actually play the recording of a pretext call to a suspect to prove to him we actually had it. Merely alluding to it and one or two details from the conversation is sufficient to convince the suspect we actually have it. This tells us that there’s something in our demeanor that convinces the suspect we actually have this evidence without having to physically show it to him. What would happen in cases where we have no physical evidence if we conducted ourselves in the same confident manner that we do in cases in which we do have the evidence? This is something to be mindful of in your upcoming suspect interviews.

As a parting shot, more evidence is better than none, but having no evidence does not preclude you from succeeding in your suspect interviews. Enter the interview process with confidence in your ability to convey to the suspect that there is no other option but to tell the truth and you might be pleasantly surprised by the result.



  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department
  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police
  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office
  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department
  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau
  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC
  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator