Understanding Forensic Interview Errors: Insights from New Research and Implications for Professional Investigations

Forensic interviews are a cornerstone of many investigations. But when they’re mishandled, the consequences can be serious.

A new academic paper by O’Donohue, Gupta, and Hunley (2024) offers one of the most comprehensive attempts to date at categorising common errors in forensic interviews with adults reporting sexual abuse.

Their typology identifies 32 distinct errors, grouped into four categories:

• failures in interview preparation

• rapport and trauma-related errors

• biased or suggestive questioning

• and uncritical decision-making.

While many of these challenges are familiar to experienced investigators, the value of this paper lies in its systematic breakdown of what can go wrong and, crucially, why.

For those managing or conducting investigations into sensitive misconduct, safeguarding, or whistleblowing concerns, it’s a timely and important contribution.

Key Areas of Concern Identified in the Typology

The typology provides structure to what are often difficult-to-name investigative pitfalls.

Below is a brief summary of each category:

1. Preparation Failures

• Not reviewing prior interviews or available information

• Failing to assess interviewee readiness or psychological state

• Overlooking specific needs (e.g. language, disabilities, legal accompaniment)

• Not clarifying the purpose of the interview

2. Rapport and Trauma-Related Errors

• Poor rapport-building techniques

• Lack of trauma-informed practice

• Interview environments that feel unsafe or culturally insensitive

• Failing to give appropriate breaks or explain ground rules

3. Biased Questioning

• Using leading or repetitive questions

• Confirmation bias

• Reinforcing assumptions or overlooking earlier influences

• Language rooted in rape myths

4. Uncritical Interviewing and Decision-Making

• Not resolving contradictions or unusual details

• Failing to establish a coherent chronology

• Overlooking the need to clarify consent

• Inadequate summarising, analysis, or evidence integration

Why This Matters for Workplace Investigations

The relevance of this research extends far beyond law enforcement.

Increasingly, HR, compliance, safeguarding, and ethics teams are being asked to conduct interviews in complex, sensitive, and potentially litigious situations.

Missteps in interviewing don’t just damage the credibility of a case. They can also cause serious harm to the people involved. Survivors and complainants may be retraumatised by confusing, rushed, or biased interviews. Witnesses may withdraw or feel unsupported. And those accused may face serious consequences without a fair opportunity to respond to concerns.

This paper provides a useful framework for reviewing interview practices against an evidence-based standard. It acknowledges the emotional, ethical, and procedural responsibilities involved.

It also reinforces a key principle behind our work at EthicsVision. The ability to carry out a fair, trauma-informed, and procedurally robust interview is a skill. It must be actively developed.

Training Investigators to Avoid These Pitfalls

EthicsVision offers specialised training in investigative interviewing designed to help professionals avoid the kinds of errors identified in this research.

Our training supports interviewers to:

• Prepare and plan effectively

• Build rapport while maintaining forensic neutrality

• Ask questions that elicit reliable, uncontaminated evidence

• Navigate complex issues such as consent, power imbalance, and credibility

• Document and analyse interviews to withstand internal and external scrutiny

Whether your team is managing workplace complaints, whistleblowing disclosures, or safeguarding concerns, this kind of skillset is essential.

Final Thoughts

This new typology is a significant step forward in understanding what can undermine a forensic interview, and the broader investigation it informs. But beyond procedural failure, these errors have human consequences.

When interviews are mishandled, it is often the survivor, complainant, or witness who pays the price. Poor interviewing can erode trust, compound trauma, and result in critical information being missed or misrepresented.

Improving investigative interview practice is not just about protecting the process. It’s about protecting the people at the centre of it.

To learn more about how EthicsVision can help improve your investigative interview practice, explore our training programme here.