How should investigators handle inconsistencies between a statement and known facts?

• A. Explore discrepancies with open-ended questions and verify with independent evidence; avoid pressing for a single 'correct' version.
• B. Ignore inconsistencies.
• C. Force the suspect to produce a single version immediately.
• D. Rely only on the known facts and disregard the statement.

Answer: (A)

Discrepancies between a person’s account and what’s already known should be explored with open-ended questions and then checked against independent evidence. This approach lets the interviewee tell their story in their own words, helps reveal timelines, gaps, or potential motives, and avoids pressuring for a single “correct” version that might be fabricated. At the same time, verify what is said with objective data—such as documents, surveillance footage, forensics, or other records—so you can confirm or challenge the account without bias. If contradictions surface, ask targeted follow-ups to illuminate specific gaps rather than forcing a quick, definitive version. This balance preserves rapport, gathers richer information, and leads to a clearer understanding of what happened.