Scientific Interrogation: The Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) Technique

Mayoral, Eduardo Pérez-Campos; Severino, Mark; Deeb, Haneen; Granhag, Pär Anders; Perez-Campos, Eduardo L.; Hartwig, Maria; Fallon, Mark

doi:10.2478/ep-2025-0010

Abstract

The Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique represents a method of scientific interrogation** that entails the strategic management of case information and evidence. The technique offers guidance to interrogators on the utilization of available information, encompassing pre-interrogation planning, the formulation of strategic questions based on the evidence and the strategic disclosure of evidence***.

The primary objective of this technique is to enhance the likelihood of discerning deceit by detecting inconsistencies in the statements or comments made by suspects****.

Numerous studies have shown that the SUE technique enhances the precision of deception detection in various contexts, such as police investigations, employment interviews, and security screening. Police trainees who received SUE training were able to detect deception with an accuracy rate of 85.4%, compared to 56.1% for untrained trainees.

The Strategic Use of Evidence technique is designed to highlight discrepancies between a suspect’s statement and the available evidence, exploiting the differing cognitive processes of truth-tellers and liars. This technique is predicated on the assumption that individuals who engage in deception are prone to offering contradictory statements when confronted with evidence that challenges their narrative. This phenomenon occurs when suspects who are deemed to be guilty are compelled to modify their narrative, which often results in discrepancies. Conversely, suspects who are innocent and truthful maintain consistency in their explanations, which align with both the evidence and their original account.

The SUE technique has the potential to detect deceit and has been widely employed by law enforcement agencies and other organizations worldwide.

Some of the essential advantages that SUE offers are:

–
Surpasses conventional deception detection methods, such as relying on body language cues, in terms of effectiveness.
–
– With appropriate training, this technique is user-friendly and straightforward to learn and implement.
–
Has versatile applications, suitable for a wide range of settings.

References

Alison, L. J., Alison, E., Shortland, N., & Surmon-Bohr, F. (2020). ORBIT: The science of rapport-based interviewing for law enforcement, security, and military. Oxford University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Anderson, B. J. (2011). Recognizing character: A new perspective on character evidence. Yale LJ, 121, 1912.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Blinkhorn, V. (2023). Witness testimony. In Forensic Psychology, Crime and Policing (pp. 324–329). Policy Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bull, R., & Dando, C. J. (2010). Detecting verbal deception: Strategy versus tactics. Paper presented at the Annual American Psychology and Law Society, 18th–20th March 2010, Vancouver, Canada.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Canter, D. V., & Alison, L. J. (Eds.). (1999). Profiling in policy and practice, networks (pp. 157–188). Offender Profiling Series Vol II. Aldershot.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cassell, P. G., & Hayman, B. S. (1996). Police interrogation in the 1990s: An empirical study of the effects of Miranda. University of California Law Review, 43, 839–931.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Clemens, F., Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L. A., Vrij, A., Landstrom, S., Hjelmsater, E. R. A., & Hartwig, M. (2010). Skulking around the dinosaur: Eliciting cues to children’s deception via strategic disclosure of evidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(7), 925–940. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1597
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Clemens, F. (2013). Detecting lies about past and future actions: The Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique and suspects’ strategies (Doctoral dissertation). Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Clemens, F., Granhag, P. A., & Stromwall, L. A. (2013). Counter‐interrogation strategies when anticipating questions on intentions. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 10(1), 125–138.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Clemens, F., & Grolig, T. (2019). Innocent of the crime under investigation: Suspects’ counter-interrogation strategies and statement-evidence inconsistency in strategic vs. non-strategic interviews. Psychology, Crime & Law, 25(10), 945–962.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C., Memon, A., Woods, D., & Michlik, P. M. (2006). Strategies of impression management among deceivers and truth-tellers: How liars attempt to convince. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 24(2), 31–38.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Deeb, H., Vrij, A., Hope, L., Mann, S., Granhag, P. A., & Stromwall, L. A. (2018). Police officers’ perceptions of statement inconsistency. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(5), 644–665.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Feather, N. T. (1999). Judgments of deservingness: Studies in the psychology of justice and achievement. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 86–107.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fisher, R. P., Vrij, A., & Leins, D. A. (2012). Does testimonial inconsistency indicate memory inaccuracy and deception? Beliefs, empirical research, and theory. In Applied issues in investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment (pp. 173–189). New York, NY: Springer New York.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ford, J. D., Grasso, D. J., Elhai, J. D., & Courtois, C. A. (2015). Posttraumatic stress disorder: Scientific and professional dimensions. Academic press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological science, 19(4), 378–384.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gilovich, T., Savitsky, K., & Medvec, V. H. (1998). The illusion of transparency: Biased assessments of others’ ability read one’s emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 332–346.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Granhag, P.A. (November 18–19, 2010). The Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique: A scientific perspective. High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG; FBI). HIG Research Symposium: Interrogation in the European Union, Washington, DC.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Granhag, P. A., Andersson, L. O., Stromwall, L. A., & Hartwig, M. (2004). Imprisoned knowledge: Criminal’s beliefs about deception. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 103–119.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2008). A new theoretical perspective on deception detection: On the psychology of instrumental mind-reading. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14(3), 189–200.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Granhag, P. A., Clemens, F., & Stromwall, L. A. (2009). The usual and the unusual suspects: Level of suspicion and counter‐interrogation tactics. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 6(2), 129–137.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Granhag, P.A., 2010. The strategic use of evidence (SUE) technique: a scientific perspective. Presented at the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (FBI) Research Symposium: Interrogation in the European Union, Washington, DC.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Granhag, P. A. (2010, November). The Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique: A scientific perspective. In Washington, DC, USA: High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG, FBI). HIG Research Symposium: Interrogation in the European Union.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L. A., Willen, R. M., & Hartwig, M. (2013). Eliciting cues to deception by tactical disclosure of evidence: The first test of the Evidence Framing Matrix. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(2), 341–355.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2015). The strategic use of evidence technique: A conceptual overview. In P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Detecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive approaches (pp. 231–251). Wiley-Blackwell.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Granhag, P. A., Kleinman, S., & Oleszkiewicz, S. (2016). The Scharff technique: On how to effectively elicit intelligence from human sources. International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, 29(1), 132–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/08850607.2015.1083341
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hafer, C. L., & Begue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 128–167.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hartwig, M. (2005). Interrogating to detect deception and truth: Effects of strategic use of evidence.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2023). Strategic use of evidence: A review of the technique and its principles. In G. E. Oxburgh, T. Myklebust, M. Fallon, & M. Hartwig (Eds.), Interviewing and interrogation: A review of research and practice since World War II (pp. 299–318). Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118510001.ch10.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hartwig, M., & Voss, J. A. (2017). Lie detection guide: Theory and practice for investment professionals. Career Resources.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L. A., & Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: when training to detect deception works. Law and human behavior, 30(5), 603.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hartwig, M., Anders Granhag, P., & Stromwall, L. A. (2007). Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during police interrogations. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13(2), 213–227.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L. A., & Doering, N. (2010). Impression and information management: On the strategic self-regulation of innocent and guilty suspects. The Open Criminology Journal, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.2174/1874917801003010010
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L., Wolf, A. G., Vrij, A., & Hjelmsater, E. R. A. (2011). Detecting deception in suspects: Verbal cues as a function of interview strategy. Psychology, Crime & Law, 17(7), 643–656. http://doi:10.1080/10683160903446982
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P.A. (2023). “Strategic Use of Evidence: A Review of the Technique and Its Principles”, in Gavin E. Oxburgh, Trond Myklebust, Mark Fallon and Maria Hartwig (editors), Interviewing and Interrogation: A Review of Research and Practice Since World War II, Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, Brussels.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., and Luke, T. J. (2014). “Strategic use of evidence during investigative interviews: the state of the science,” in Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research an Applications, eds D. C. Raskin, C. R. Honts, and J. C. Kircher (Oxford: Academic Press), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394433-7.00001-4
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L. A., & Doering, N. (2010). Impression and information management: On the strategic self-regulation of innocent and guilty suspects. The Open Criminology Journal, 3(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874917801003010010
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L. A., & Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: When training to detect deception works. Law and Human Behavior, 30(5), 603–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9053-9
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Heller, K. J. (2006). The cognitive psychology of circumstantial evidence. Michigan Law Review, 241–305.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hilgendorf, E. L., & Irving, B. (1981). A decision-making model of confessions. In Psychology in legal contexts: Applications and limitations (pp. 67–84). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hindi, I., Mordi, H., Tener, D., & Katz, C. (2022). How does religiosity affect the richness of child forensic testimonies? Comparing the narratives of sexual abuse victims from three Jewish groups in Israel. Children and youth services review, 137, 106488.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Justice, B. P., Bhatt, S., Brandon, S. E., & Kleinman, S. M. (2010). Army field manual 2-22.3: Interrogation methods: A science-based review. Washington, DC (Draft, September).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kassin, S. M., & Norwick, R. J. (2004). Why people waive their Miranda rights: The power of innocence. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 211–221.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lacy, J. W., & Stark, C. E. (2013). The neuroscience of memory: implications for the courtroom. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(9), 649–658.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world. New York, NY: Plenum.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Luke, T. J. (2021). A meta-analytic review of experimental tests of the interrogation technique of Hanns Joachim Scharff. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 360–373. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/yxpja
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Luke, T. J., & Granhag, P. A. (2021, September 7). The Shift-of-Strategy (SoS) approach: A laboratory test. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MFUS8
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Luke, T. J., & Granhag, P. A. (2022). The Shift-of-Strategy (SoS) approach: Using evidence strategically to influence suspects’ counter-interrogation strategies. Psychology, Crime & Law, 1–26. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2030738
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Luke, T. J., Hartwig, M., Brimbal, L., Chan, G., Jordan, S., Joseph, E., Osborne, J., & Granhag, P. A. (2013). Interviewing to elicit cues to deception: Improving strategic use of evidence with general-to-specific framing of evidence. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 28(1), 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-012-9113-7
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Luke, T. J., Hartwig, M., Brimbal, L., & Granhag, P. A. (2017). Building a case: The role of empirically based interviewing techniques in case construction. In H. Otgaar, & M. Howe (Eds.), Finding the truth in the courtroom: Dealing with deception, lies and, memories (pp. 187–208). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190612016.003.0009
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Luke, T. J., Dawson, E., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2014). How awareness of possible evidence induces forthcoming counter‐interrogation strategies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 876–882.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Luke, T. J., Hartwig, M., Joseph, E., Brimbal, L., Chan, G., Dawson, E., Jordan, S., Donovan, P., & Granhag, P. A. (2016). Training in the Strategic Use of Evidence technique: Improving deception detection accuracy of American law enforcement officers. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 31, 270–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-015-9187-0
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Masip, J., & Herrero, C. (2015). New approaches in deception detection II. Active interviewing strategies and contextual information. Papeles del Psiclogo, 36(2), 96–108.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
May, L., Granhag, P. A., & Tekin, S. (2017). Interviewing suspects in denial: On how different evidence disclosure modes affect the elicitation of new critical information. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1154.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
McDougall, A. J., & Bull, R. (2015). Detecting truth in suspect interviews: The effect of use of evidence (early and gradual) and time delay on Criteria-Based Content Analysis, Reality Monitoring and inconsistency within suspect statements. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21(6), 514–530.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Murillas, G. G. M. (2022). Crime Scene Reconstruction. Manual of Crime Scene Investigation, 15–48.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Neequaye, D. A., & Luke, T. J. (2018). Management of disclosure-costs in intelligence interviews. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.240635
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nieuwkamp, R., & Mergaerts, L. (2022). Alibi assessment and believability across different legal systems and cultural contexts. In Alibis and corroborators: Psychological, criminological, and legal perspectives (pp. 75–86). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Oleszkiewicz, S., Granhag, P. A., & Cancino Montecinos, S. (2014). The Scharff-technique: Eliciting intelligence from human sources. Law and human behavior, 38(5), 478.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Oleszkiewicz, S., & Watson, S. J. (2021). A meta‐analytic review of the timing for disclosing evidence when interviewing suspects. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 342–359.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Polman, S. (2021). The Influence of Evidence Disclosure Timing and Strength on Statement-Evidence Inconsistencies, Within-Statement Inconsistencies and Information Disclosure by Mock Suspects (Master’s thesis, University of Twente).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Savitsky, K., & Gilovich, T. (2003). The illusion of transparency and the alleviation of speech anxiety. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39618–625.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Shepherd, E & Griffiths, A (2013). Investigative Interviewing: The Conversation Management Approach. OUP Oxford.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Soufan, A. H. (2011). The black banners: The inside story of 9/11 and the war against Al-Qaeda. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Srivatsav, M. (2019). Determinants of Guilty Suspects’ Behavior in Investigative Interviews: Evidence-Disclosure Tactics and Question Content.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Srivatsav, M., Luke, T. J., Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L., & Vrij, A. (2019). What to Reveal and what to Conceal? An Empirical Examination of Guilty Suspects’ Strategies. Unpublished manuscript.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Strömwall, L.A., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P.A. (2006). To act truthfully: Nonverbal behaviour and strategies during a police interrogation. Psychology, Crime and Law, 12, 207–219.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Suchotzki, K. (2018). Challenges for the application of reaction time-based deception detection methods. In J. P. Rosenfeld (Ed.), Detecting concealed information and deception: Recent developments (pp. 243–268). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812729-2.00011-2
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tekin, S. (2016). Eliciting admissions from suspects in criminal investigations. Student thesis: Doctoral Thesis.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tekin, S. (2022). Interviewing suspects with the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique. In The Future of Forensic Psychology: Core Topics and Emerging Trends (pp. 105–113). Routledge.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tekin, S., Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L. A., Mac Giolla, E., Vrij, A., & Hartwig, M. (2015). Interviewing strategically to elicit admissions from guilty suspects. Law and Human Behavior, 39, 244–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000131
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tekin, S. (2016). Eliciting admissions from suspects in criminal investigations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Available at https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/44452/4/gupea_2077_44452_4.pdf.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tekin, S., Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L. A., and Vrij, A. (2016). How to make perpetrators in denial disclose more information about their crimes. Psychol. Crime Law 22, 561–580. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2016.1168425
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Verigin, B. L., Meijer, E. H., Bogaard, G., & Vrij, A. (2019). Lie prevalence, lie characteristics and strategies of self-reported good liars. PloS one, 14(12), e0225566.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Verigin, B. L., Meijer, E. H., Vrij, A., & Zauzig, L. (2020). The interaction of truthful and deceptive information. Psychology, Crime & Law, 26(4), 367–383.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vorauer, J. D., & Claude, S.-D. (1998). Perceived versus actual transparency of goals in negotiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 371–385.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vredeveldt, A., van Koppen, P. J., & Granhag, P. A. (2014). The inconsistent suspect: A systematic review of different types of consistency in truth tellers and liars. Investigative interviewing, 183–207.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vredeveldt, A., van Koppen, P. J., & Granhag, P. A. (2014). The inconsistent suspect: A systematic review of different types of consistency in truth tellers and liars. In R. Bull (Ed.), Investigative interviewing (pp. 183–207). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9642-7_10
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and its implications for professional practice. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2011). Outsmarting the liars: Toward a cognitive lie detection approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410391245
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2016). Which lie detection tools are ready for use in the criminal justice system? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(3), 302–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.06.014
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2006). Interviewing to detect deception. Offenders’ memories of violent crimes, 279–304.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2012). Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(2), 110–117.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., Ashkenazi, T., Ganis, G., Leal, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2022). Verbal lie detection: its past, present and future. Brain Sciences, 12(12), 1644. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12121644
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., Leal, S., Fisher, R. P., Kleinman, S. M., & Ashkenazi, T. (2023). The Present and Future of Verbal Lie Detection. In D. DeMatteo & K. C. Scherr (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Psychology and Law (p. 0). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197649138.013.33
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walsh, D., & Bull, R. (2015). Interviewing suspects: Examining the association between skills, questioning, evidence disclosure, and interview outcomes. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21(7), 661–680
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walton, D., & Reed, C. (2008). Evaluating corroborative evidence. Argumentation, 22, 531–553.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Scientific Interrogation: The Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) Technique

Abstract

Paradigm

My account