In the current study 12 to 14 year old adolescents were asked to commit (n = 26) or not to commit (n = 26) a mock crime, and at interview to deny involvement in this crime. Prior to interview some information about each adolescent’s behaviour was made available to the interviewer but this was not enough to enable determination of which had committed the crime. The interviewer revealed such information either at the beginning of the interview (the ‘traditional method’) or at the end of the interview (as pioneered by the ‘SUE’ technique) or gradually. The interviews were analysed for interviewees’ ‘evidence omissions’ and ‘statement-evidence contradictions’. As predicted, liars omitted more crime-related information/details and their statements were significantly more inconsistent with the information/evidence known to/disclosed by the interviewer.