What is one technique used during interviews to assess suspects?

Separating suspects and comparing their answers is a critical technique used during interviews to assess individuals' credibility and gather reliable information. When suspects are interviewed separately, it reduces the chances of collusion, where individuals might agree on false narratives or influence each other's testimonies. This method allows investigators to observe inconsistencies in the suspects' accounts, which can be telling of the truthfulness of their statements. Each suspect can be asked the same or similar questions, and by analyzing discrepancies in their responses, investigators can gauge the accuracy of their statements and potentially uncover details that validate or contradict each other.

The other techniques mentioned, while useful in their own ways, do not provide the same level of insight into individual credibility. Interviewing suspects together can lead to cooperative answers that may obscure the truth. Establishing a timeline of events helps with context but does not address the reliability of individual testimonies. Utilizing a polygraph test, while sometimes employed, is not always permissible or reliable in all scenarios. Thus, comparing answers from separated suspects is a more direct approach for assessing the veracity of their statements.