In the recent past, the topic of interviewing, especially “interrogations,” has come under much scrutiny by social scientists from all over the world, and we do not intend to include any of the issues that have surfaced regarding terrorists or waterboarding, as that has nothing to do with cold case investigations. In Great Britain, Holland, and other countries, the term interrogation is no longer allowed or used, as they have renamed the entire process for witnesses and suspects “investigative interviewing.”1 This reaction to law enforcement’s manner of gaining information from witnesses and suspects appears to have surfaced due in part to the reported “false confessions” found in criminal cases from the United Kingdom and other countries, as well as the United States. The Innocence Project has reported that in its exonerated cases (312),2 a false confession was also found in 25 percent (approximately 60) of them. So, is this a real problem? Yes, to a certain extent it is, especially when vulnerable persons of interest or at-risk types of people (primarily mentally deficient or juveniles) are interviewed by an authoritative figure.