The Cognitive Interview and reluctant-witness strategies both focus on collecting facts in a fair,...

The Cognitive Interview and reluctant-witness strategies both focus on collecting facts in a fair, non-accusing way, but they help in different situations. The Cognitive Interview is used to help people remember things better, like if someone wants to help but just can’t remember all the details. It uses questions that make people think back to what happened without telling them what to say. On the other hand reluctant-witness strategies are for people who might not want to talk at all, like if they’re scared or unsure. Investigators have to be extra patient and make the person feel safe before asking any questions.
If I were helping with a case where a 9-year-old saw something important and their parent didn’t want them to talk, I would first talk to the parent and explain why the interview is important and safe. After getting the parent to trust us, I’d use open-ended questions with the child and let them share their story in their own words, not pushing or suggesting anything.
Also, I don’t think investigators should focus much on how someone acts, like if they’re nervous. The article says that people telling the truth can look nervous too, and judging by behavior isn’t any better than guessing. It’s more important to check if their story matches real evidence.