Load_2.0 wrote:It's a bit hit-and-miss at times but I found there's a pattern to it:
1. If you have hard evidence that clearly and directly contradicts what a witness is saying -> lie.
It's very important that the evidence directly ties to what the witness is saying though, anything even slightly circumstantial won't work.
2. If you have no reason or evidence whatsoever to doubt the witness, what they're saying seems plausible and they don't act suspiciously -> truth.
This is probably the hardest one to get right because there are often hidden truths, witnesses may lie with a straight face or, inversely, be nervous for reasons other than your questioning.
3. Anything else -> doubt. This should be your default, odd though it may seem.
This option covers anything from "there's more to it than you are telling me" to "I know it's bollocks but don't have anything to prove it".
Some witnesses are almost impossible to read though, but I suppose that's necessary in order to make the game somewhat challenging and avoid perfect interrogations each time.
And don't fret over an imperfect interrogation: in most of the cases you can still succeed even if you balls up completely with witnesses, as long as you gather enough evidence.
JoeBlade 3,063 posts
Seen 13 minutes ago
Registered 12 years ago