Questions to Ask in an Interrogation
Questions for an investigative interview, written for workplace and internal investigations: open the account, probe one topic at a time, test what a person could actually have seen, and close without leading them. Criminal interrogation is governed by law and by formal training, and nothing here replaces either.
The questions
Open any question for the note
Before we start, do you have any questions about why we're here?
Why ask it
Settles what the person believes is happening, which is often wrong and shapes every answer afterwards. It is also the point at which someone may ask for representation, and that request needs to be dealt with before anything else.
Tell me everything you remember about that day, from the beginning. I won't interrupt.
Why ask it
Uninterrupted free recall produces more detail and fewer errors than a run of short questions. The difficulty is silence: most interviewers speak at the first pause, and the account stops there.
You said things changed at some point. Can you take me back there and go slowly?
Why ask it
Echoing the person's own words and asking them to expand keeps you inside their account rather than substituting your version of it. Slowly is doing real work in that sentence.
Take me to the moment you walked in. What did you see?
Why ask it
Anchoring on a physical moment retrieves more than asking someone to summarize. Answers about layout, position, and light are also checkable against the place itself.
Who else was there, and where was each person standing?
Why ask it
Names give you further interviews; positions let you test the account later against the room itself. Ask for position explicitly, because it is rarely volunteered and it is the detail hardest to reconstruct after the fact.
How do you know it was that time?
Why ask it
Asks for the basis rather than accepting the claim. A shift change, a message, or a train usually anchors it. If the answer is only that it felt like it, the timeline is soft and should be treated that way.
What were you doing there?
Why ask it
Gets at purpose without alleging anything, which is why it works better than asking why someone was there. Answers that arrive over-explained, with justifications nobody requested, are worth noting rather than acting on.
You mentioned a conversation. What words were used, as close as you can get?
Why ask it
Reported gist is where accounts quietly diverge. Asking for actual wording distinguishes what was said from what the person concluded, and the difference matters if this ends up written down.
What did you do straight after?
Why ask it
The hour after an incident produces the checkable facts: messages, badge records, who was called. It is also where behavior that does not fit the account tends to show up.
Who have you spoken to about this since?
Why ask it
Two people who have discussed an event produce two similar accounts, which looks like corroboration and is not. You need to know this before you weigh the second interview.
From where you were, what could you actually see?
Why ask it
Separates observation from inference, and much of what people report in good faith turns out to be inference. Ask about angles, doors, and distance rather than challenging the conclusion directly.
Which parts are you certain about, and which are you filling in?
Why ask it
Most people will separate these honestly if you invite it, and the invitation costs you nothing. It is far better to hear it now than to have a confident statement fall apart under scrutiny later.
Is there anyone who could confirm any of this?
Why ask it
Turns an account into something you can check, and gives a person who is telling the truth a route to help you. A blanket refusal to name anyone is a data point, not a conclusion.
Is there a record of that: a message, a swipe, a receipt?
Why ask it
Moves the interview towards evidence that does not depend on memory. Ask before you reveal what records you already hold, or you have taught them what to say.
Is there anything you're not sure about in what you've told me?
Why ask it
Offers a way to correct the record without embarrassment, and people take it more often than interviewers expect. Withdrawn detail is more useful than detail you later have to disprove.
I've been told something different about that hour. Can you help me understand the difference?
Why ask it
The neutral form of a challenge: it puts the discrepancy on the table without alleging a lie. Save it until the account is complete, because using it early replaces their memory with your framing.
Why do you think someone would describe it another way?
Why ask it
Sometimes produces an innocent explanation nobody had considered, sometimes an accusation, sometimes an admission. Ask it once, without a tone attached to it.
If you were in my position, what would you check next?
Why ask it
A cooperative person usually gives you something specific and useful. Deflection here is not proof of anything, but it does tell you where the interview goes next.
What haven't I asked about that I should have?
Why ask it
Interviewers work from a theory and theories have blind spots. This is the question that most often surfaces a person, a document, or a prior incident nobody had mentioned.
Is there anything you want to add or correct before we finish?
Why ask it
Closes the account formally, so the record shows they were given the chance. Late additions are common and normal; treat them as information rather than as evidence of bad faith.
Conducting an investigative interview
Practical guidance for the conversation itself
Order matters more than wording
Free recall first, questions second
Let the person give a complete account before you ask anything specific. Interruptions cut the account short and train them to wait for your prompts, after which you are collecting answers to your theory rather than their memory.
Write your probes after the account, not before
Take notes during free recall and mark the points you want to return to. A question list prepared in advance leads the interview towards what you already suspect.
One topic at a time, then close it
Exhaust the timeline before moving to the people, and the people before the documents. Jumping between topics lets inconsistencies pass unnoticed and makes the record hard to use.
How to phrase a probe
- Start with tell me, explain, or describe. They open; anything else narrows.
- One question at a time. A two-part question gets one answer and you will not know which part it addressed.
- Use the person's own words back to them rather than your summary of them.
- Ask how they know something, not whether they are sure.
- Avoid labels for people and actions. Say what happened, not who was aggressive.
- Let silence run for a few seconds after an answer. It is the cheapest way to get more.
What contaminates an account
Leading and closed questions
A question containing the answer will often get it back, and once a detail has been supplied you cannot tell whether it was remembered or adopted. This is the most common way a well meaning interview becomes worthless.
Showing evidence too early
Once someone knows what you hold, their account adjusts to fit it. Get the full version first, then test it against what you have.
Repeating a question until the answer changes
Pressure produces compliance, not accuracy, and repeated questioning of the same point is a known route to unreliable statements. If you need to revisit something, say so and explain why.
Letting people talk to each other first
Interview separately and as early as practical. Accounts that have been compared are no longer independent, however honest everyone involved is.
Obligations and limits
The rules here are not optional and they vary by jurisdiction and setting. In a criminal context, warnings, access to a lawyer, recording requirements, and the treatment of minors and vulnerable adults are set by law, and an interview conducted outside them can be inadmissible and unlawful. In a workplace investigation, an employee may have a right to be accompanied or represented, and notice, note-taking, and data handling are usually governed by policy or by agreement. Say plainly at the outset who you are, what the interview is about, whether it is being recorded, and what happens to the notes. If the matter starts to look criminal, or if the person says anything that suggests they need medical help, a lawyer, or an interpreter, stop and take advice before continuing. Do not offer inducements, and do not suggest what an answer ought to be in exchange for the interview ending sooner.
Afterwards
- 1Write the record up the same day, separating what was said from what you inferred.
- 2Read the account back or provide a copy where policy allows, and note any corrections.
- 3List the checkable items the interview produced: names, records, times, and who holds them.
- 4Note what you did not ask and why, so the gap is visible to whoever reads the file next.
- 5Keep the notes in the form they were taken. Tidied notes are worth less than untidy contemporaneous ones.