Case File 281 · Investigation Psychology

Can Someone Confess to Something They Do Not Remember Doing?

By Murder Book Editorial TeamPublished by Gungrounds, the studio making Murder BookPublished 3 October 2026Updated 3 October 2026

Yes, it is possible for someone to confess to something they do not remember doing, and research shows this happens more often than most people expect. These are known as coerced-internalised false confessions, a category identified by Kassin and Wrightsman (1985). In these cases, suspects do not simply comply to end an interrogation; they come to genuinely believe they may have committed the act. The psychological mechanisms behind this include memory distrust, suggestibility and the power of authoritative suggestion. Laboratory research has demonstrated that people can be led to develop detailed false memories of events that never happened, including criminal acts. This does not mean every such confession is false, but it means that a confession from someone who says they cannot remember is not straightforward evidence.

Key takeaways

Coerced-internalised false confessions occur when suspects come to believe they committed an act they have no genuine memory of.
Laboratory research has shown that participants can develop rich, detailed false memories of committing crimes that never happened.
Sleep deprivation, stress and prolonged questioning can increase memory distrust and suggestibility.
A confession from someone who cannot remember the event requires careful corroboration, not automatic acceptance.
Memory distrust, where a person loses confidence in their own recall, is a key mechanism.

What is a coerced-internalised false confession?

Kassin and Wrightsman (1985) identified three types of false confession: voluntary, coerced-compliant and coerced-internalised. The coerced-internalised type is the most counterintuitive. In this category, an innocent person comes to believe, at least temporarily, that they actually committed the crime. This typically happens during prolonged or psychologically intense interrogations, where the suspect's confidence in their own memory is undermined.

Gudjonsson (2003), in The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions, described how certain interrogation techniques can systematically attack a suspect's trust in their own recollection. When an authority figure insists that evidence proves the suspect did something, and the suspect already has a weak or absent memory of the relevant time period, the suspect may begin to doubt themselves. For more on the different categories, see what the three types of false confession are.

Can people really develop false memories of crimes?

Shaw and Porter (2015), in a study published in Psychological Science, demonstrated that university students could be led to develop rich, detailed false memories of committing crimes during adolescence, including crimes involving police contact. Over three interviews totalling about three hours, 70% of participants in the criminal condition generated a false memory. These were not vague acquiescences. Participants described sensory details, emotional reactions and narrative sequences for events that had never occurred.

The researchers used a combination of accurate personal details (obtained from family members) and suggestive interviewing techniques. Shaw noted that the results showed how "false memories of committing crime with police contact can be surprisingly easy to generate" in a friendly interview setting. The study raised important questions about the reliability of confession evidence when suspects report memories that may have been shaped by the questioning process.

This connects to broader research on how interrogation pressure can change what someone believes happened.

What makes someone vulnerable to this?

Several factors increase the risk that a person will come to believe in a false account of their own actions:

Memory distrust. Gudjonsson (2003) described memory distrust syndrome, in which a person fundamentally distrusts their own recollection. This can be triggered by an interrogator telling the suspect that evidence contradicts their account, or by the suspect's own uncertainty about a period they cannot clearly recall.
Sleep deprivation and fatigue. Prolonged interrogations, particularly those lasting many hours, can impair memory and increase suggestibility. Research on how interrogation length affects false confession risk shows that extended sessions raise the probability of unreliable statements.
Youth and cognitive vulnerability. Young suspects are more vulnerable to false confessions partly because their memory and decision-making processes are still developing.
Alcohol or substance use. If the suspect was intoxicated at the time of the alleged offence, they may have no genuine memory of the period in question, making them more susceptible to suggestions about what happened.

How does this differ from a coerced-compliant confession?

In a coerced-compliant confession, the suspect knows they are innocent but confesses anyway to escape the pressure of the interrogation. They expect to retract the confession later and believe the truth will eventually emerge. In a coerced-internalised confession, the suspect genuinely comes to doubt their own innocence. They may say things such as "Maybe I did it and I just cannot remember" or "I must have blacked out." The distinction matters because an internalised confessor may not retract their statement afterwards, and may even provide additional details drawn from suggestion rather than genuine memory.

Gudjonsson (2003) noted that internalised false confessions are especially difficult to identify because the confessor appears sincere. They are not performing compliance. They have, at least for a time, accepted the narrative presented to them. This sincerity can make the confession appear more credible to investigators, prosecutors and juries.

Does a confession like this mean the person is guilty?

Not necessarily. The research is clear that people can confess to acts they did not commit and can develop false memories of those acts. At the same time, genuine guilt is also possible. The point is that a confession alone, especially one where the confessor says they do not remember the event, requires independent corroboration.

Kassin (2005) argued that confessions are among the most potent forms of evidence, capable of shaping the interpretation of all other evidence in a case. This makes it especially important to verify the details of a confession against facts that were not disclosed during the interrogation. For more on this verification process, see how investigators check whether a confession is reliable.

The risk of confession contamination is also relevant here. If crime-scene details were introduced during questioning, a suspect may incorporate them into a constructed memory, making the confession appear more credible than it is.

How does this connect to Murder Book?

Murder Book: The Art of Interrogation is an upcoming narrative interrogation game from Gungrounds. Players examine unreliable stories and behavioural changes, and development screenshots show an in-game casebook listing behaviours such as Fabrication and Avoidance. The game does not treat any single statement as proof. Instead, players weigh narrative gaps and contradictions across focused 5-10-minute cases, deciding for themselves whether an account holds together or falls apart.

The research above shows why that kind of scepticism matters. A detailed, emotional confession can be entirely sincere and still be wrong. Murder Book is in development for PC (Steam) and mobile, with release currently planned for the end of Q2 2027.