Purpose Suspect interviewing in North America has evolved from coercive tactics to guilt-presumptive methods and, more recently, to information seeking dialogue-based (ISDB) approaches such as the PEACE model. Such approaches prioritize open dialogue and comprehensive suspect accounts over confession-driven strategies. These methods have been shown to reduce the risk of false confessions and enhance the quality of investigative information, though they are sometimes criticized for being “too soft” or insufficiently tested in real-world settings. This paper aims to explore the real-world application of an ISDB approach in the high-stakes interview of Adam Strong, who was ultimately convicted of first-degree murder and manslaughter. Design/methodology/approach Using PEACE as a framework, the authors detail how Detective Paul Mitton skillfully used rapport-building, strategic evidence presentation and open dialogue to elicit admissions without coercion or confrontation. Findings Although Strong did not confess to the homicides or discuss how the victims died, the admissions he provided during the 12-h interview were central to the court’s guilty rulings. Research limitations/implications Though a single-case analysis, this paper underscores the necessity for further empirical research on ISDB approaches across diverse real-world scenarios. Practical implications This case highlights how an ISDB approach can generate critical evidence while meeting both investigative and legal standards. The authors believe it underscores that the future of suspect interviewing lies in the continued adoption and refinement of approaches that prioritize rapport-building and open, free-flowing dialogue while incorporating safeguards to ensure the admissibility of the interview. Originality/value This paper presents a unique and practical application of an ISDB approach, contributing valuable insights for practitioners and researchers into advancing ethical and effective suspect interviewing practices.
Read full abstract