When Memory Matters Most: Dr. Ed Geiselman on Interviewing Officers After Critical Incidents

Dr. Edward Geiselman, co-creator of the Cognitive Interview, has spent over a decade working with Force Science and serving as an expert witness in use-of-force cases across the country. His insights, grounded in decades of memory research, shed critical light on how and when officers should be interviewed after high-stress events.

Here are Geiselman's directly stated positions — unfiltered, unapologetic, and informed by science.

🚨 Why Timing Matters: “We Know Going Ahead Too Soon Is a Bad Idea”

“You don’t know if waiting is going to change that, but we do know that going ahead when those [trauma-related symptoms] are present is not a good idea at all.”

Geiselman warns against interviewing officers too soon after a traumatic event — particularly when signs of psychological distress (e.g., vomiting, sweating, pacing, incoherence) are present. Not only can early interviews lead to inconsistent or false recollections, but they can also introduce legal complications and commitment effects that undermine the integrity of the process.

🧩 His Ideal Approach: Case-by-Case Judgment — If Allowed

“As a memory guy only, what I always suggest, if you can, is to do it on a case-by-case basis.”

Dr. Geiselman believes officers should be evaluated individually. If they are calm and coherent, a full cognitive interview may be appropriate immediately. If not, it’s best to wait.

⏳ If Agencies Require a Blanket Policy? Delay It.

“If I were to be backed into a corner... I suggest you do everybody after two days. Everybody can be interviewed after two days — not everybody can be interviewed immediately.”

If individual judgment isn't allowed due to agency policy, Geiselman strongly recommends waiting 48–72 hours before conducting a full interview. He emphasizes that the Cognitive Interview, paired with a short delay, can help officers recover memory detail while minimizing contamination.

📽️ Reviewing Video: Three Approaches

Dr. Geiselman outlines three options regarding whether an officer should view bodycam/video footage or conduct a walkthrough before the full interview:

1. Video/Walkthrough Before Interview

• Acts as a memory jogger.

• Leads to fewer changes or delayed recollections.

• Helps interviewer and officer be “on the same page.”

  
  

2. Video/Walkthrough After Interview

• Produces a purer, uncontaminated memory.

• Gives better access to internal decision-making and threat assessment.

• But results in inconsistencies that must later be amended.

  
  

3. Three-Step Hybrid Approach

• Step 1: Public safety interview for immediate needs.

• Step 2: Walkthrough and/or video review after a short delay.

• Step 3: Full cognitive interview for memory retrieval.

  
  

“It’s a three-step approach... and any kind of permutation you can think of, somebody is doing that somewhere.”

Geiselman doesn’t insist on one "correct" method but urges agencies to align interview timing with their primary goals: preserving accuracy, protecting legal integrity, or maximizing investigative clarity.

💡 Final Insight: The Officer Knows Best — But Isn’t Always Free to Choose

“The data that are available show that the person who’s best able to make the decision is the officer him or herself.”

But even then, Geiselman acknowledges the cultural and internal pressures that officers face — the “macho job” mindset and the desire to "get it over with" — which can lead them to agree to interviews before they are truly ready.

🧠 Leadership Takeaway

If your agency’s goal is to maximize the accuracy of officer recollections, reduce liability, and treat involved personnel with procedural justice, follow the science:

• Use the Cognitive Interview protocol.

• Delay the full interview by 48–72 hours, unless the officer is clearly ready.

• Consider a three-phase interview model.

• Support officers in making informed choices — not pressured ones.