What Is Cross-Examination During an Investigative Interview?

Cross-examination during an investigative interview refers to the practice of testing a subject's account by probing it for weaknesses, contradictions and unsupported claims. Unlike cross-examination

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

Cross-examination during an investigative interview refers to the practice of testing a subject's account by probing it for weaknesses, contradictions and unsupported claims. Unlike cross-examination in a courtroom, which follows formal rules of evidence and procedure, cross-examination in an interview is less structured. The interviewer may challenge specific statements, ask the subject to explain inconsistencies, or revisit parts of their account from a different angle. The goal is not to trick the subject but to test whether their story holds up under scrutiny. Research on investigative interviewing shows that effective challenging requires preparation, knowledge of the available evidence, and an understanding of why honest accounts can also contain inconsistencies.

Key takeaways

Cross-examination in an investigative interview means testing the subject's account by probing contradictions, gaps and unsupported claims.
The PEACE model's "Challenge" phase provides a structured framework for this, distinct from the confrontational approach of accusatorial methods.
Effective challenging depends on preparation: the interviewer needs to know the evidence well enough to identify genuine inconsistencies.
Honest people can also give inconsistent accounts because of normal memory limitations, stress or misunderstanding.
Research shows that trained interviewers who use structured challenge techniques elicit more useful information than those who rely on intuition alone.

How does cross-examination fit into an investigative interview?

In the PEACE model of interviewing, which is used in England and Wales and has been adopted in various forms internationally, the interview has five phases: Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain, Account, Clarify and Challenge, Closure, and Evaluation. Cross-examination falls within the Account, Clarify and Challenge phase.

During the Account phase, the interviewer typically allows the subject to give their version of events with minimal interruption, often using a free-recall approach. Once the account is on the record, the interviewer moves to Clarify and Challenge. Clarification involves asking for more detail about parts of the account that are unclear. Challenge involves putting inconsistencies, contradictions or evidence that conflicts with the account to the subject and asking them to explain.

This structure matters because it separates listening from testing. The interviewer gathers the full account first, then systematically examines it. For more on how the PEACE model compares with the Reid approach, see PEACE model vs Reid technique.

What does an effective challenge look like?

An effective challenge is specific, evidence-based and gives the subject a fair opportunity to respond. Rather than making a general accusation such as "You are not telling the truth," the interviewer identifies a particular point where the subject's account conflicts with other evidence or with something the subject said earlier.

For example, if a subject says they were at home all evening but a witness places them near the scene at 9 p.m., the interviewer might say, "You told me you were at home from 7 p.m. onwards. I have information that you were seen near the high street at 9 p.m. Can you help me understand that?" This approach does three things: it specifies the inconsistency, it presents the conflicting information, and it invites the subject to explain. The explanation may resolve the inconsistency, it may deepen it, or it may raise new questions.

Research by Bull and colleagues on investigative interviewing of suspects has found that specialised training in structured interviewing, combined with thorough preparation, is judged by experienced detectives to be among the most important factors in dealing with uncooperative subjects.

Why is preparation so important?

The quality of a challenge depends entirely on the interviewer's knowledge of the case. A poorly prepared interviewer who challenges a subject on a point that turns out to be consistent with the evidence loses credibility and may make the subject less cooperative. A well-prepared interviewer who has reviewed all available evidence, witness statements and timelines can identify genuine contradictions and pursue them precisely.

This is why the PEACE model begins with Preparation and Planning. Before the interview starts, the interviewer identifies the key points to cover, the evidence that supports or contradicts the subject's expected account, and the topics where challenge may be necessary. For more on how investigators find inconsistencies in accounts, preparation is the foundation.

How is this different from accusatorial interrogation?

In an accusatorial approach, such as the traditional Reid technique, the interrogation phase begins with a direct accusation of guilt. The interrogator then works to overcome the subject's denials. Challenging statements in this context often serves the goal of breaking down resistance rather than testing the account for accuracy.

In an information-gathering approach, the challenge phase serves a different purpose. The interviewer is not trying to confirm a predetermined conclusion. They are testing whether the account is supported by the evidence and whether the subject can explain apparent inconsistencies. This distinction matters because research has found that accusatorial approaches can increase the risk of false confessions, while information-gathering approaches tend to produce more reliable information.

Aspect	Accusatorial challenge	Information-gathering challenge
Starting assumption	Subject is believed to be guilty	Account is being tested
Purpose of challenge	Overcome denials	Examine inconsistencies
Interviewer stance	Confrontational	Firm but open
Subject's role	Expected to confess	Expected to explain
Risk	Higher false confession risk	Lower, but inconsistencies may have innocent explanations

For a detailed comparison, see accusatorial vs information-gathering approaches.

Can an honest person fail under cross-examination?

Yes, and this is well documented. Memory is reconstructive, not a recording. Honest people routinely give slightly different accounts of the same event when asked on different occasions, because each retelling involves partial reconstruction. Stress, fatigue, the passage of time and the wording of questions can all affect what someone remembers and how they describe it.

Research by Granhag and Strömwall on the "repeat versus reconstruct" hypothesis found that truth tellers sometimes show more inconsistency than liars across repeated interviews. Their explanation is that liars actively try to repeat a rehearsed story consistently, while truth tellers reconstruct from memory each time, introducing natural variation. This means that an inconsistency flagged during cross-examination may reflect normal memory processes rather than deception. For more on this, see why truthful accounts can be inconsistent.

The practical implication is that a skilled interviewer treats an inconsistency as something to explore, not as proof of lying. There may be a good reason for the discrepancy: the subject may have been confused about the sequence of events, they may have initially forgotten something and later remembered it, or they may have misunderstood the question.

What role does evidence play in challenging?

The Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique provides a framework for how evidence should be introduced during challenges. Developed by Granhag, Hartwig and colleagues, the SUE approach recommends withholding evidence until after the subject has committed to their account, then introducing it to see whether the account is consistent with the evidence.

This is directly relevant to cross-examination. An interviewer who reveals all the evidence at the start gives a deceptive subject the chance to tailor their story around it. An interviewer who lets the subject commit first and then introduces evidence creates a fairer and more informative test. The 2005 study by Hartwig and colleagues found that this late-disclosure approach raised deception detection accuracy meaningfully compared with early disclosure.

How does Murder Book approach challenging suspects?

In Murder Book: The Art of Interrogation, an upcoming narrative interrogation game from Gungrounds, players examine suspects' accounts and choose how to respond. Development screenshots show a technique menu that includes Confrontation alongside other approaches such as Build Trust, Bluffing and Baiting. The game also shows an evidence board where statements are linked to physical evidence, giving players the material they need to identify contradictions.

The challenge for players mirrors the challenge for real investigators: deciding when an inconsistency is meaningful and when it has an innocent explanation. Murder Book is in development for PC (Steam) and mobile, with release currently planned for the end of Q2 2027.