Imagination inflation has implications for the criminal justice system, in particular interrogation and interviewing procedures. Interrogators who ask suspects to repeatedly imagine committing a crime risk making their suspects more confident that they are the perpetrators, ultimately producing false confessions from innocent suspects. In one case in the United States in the 1990s, after an intense police interrogation, a man who initially denied accusations of raping his daughters admitted to crimes that were even denied by his accusers, including abusing his children and leading a satanic cult which sacrificed babies. The psychologist Richard Ofshe argued that the confessions were false memories created by repeated suggestion. In another interrogation technique, interrogators ask suspects to explain how a crime might have been committed or how they themselves could have done it. This practice has been suggested as another cause of self-generated false confessions because it forces an innocent suspect to create a believable narrative of their own guilt. This is supported by research in which people explained how a false childhood event could have occurred, and, after, became more confident that it had really happened. A 2001 critique argued that the original findings of the 1996 imagination inflation study did not in fact reflect changed beliefs about the past via imagination, but were instead a product of regression to the mean. That is, events with confidence ratings at the extreme (low or high) ends of the scale at the first time of measurement happened to have such scores due only to observational error, so they became more moderate at post-test. The authors of the '96 paper disagreed with this interpretation, pointing out several issues that they found in Pezdek's reasoning. In particular, they agreed that regression to the mean was present in their own data and contributed to the overall changes in confidence at the second test. But this could not explain the finding that imagining events that were low in confidence led to a "greater" increase in ratings than for unimagined low-confidence events, as regression to the mean should affect all events equally.