With Study 1 (N=140), we aimed to examine how different ways of disclosing evidence during an interview would influence guilty suspects’ perception of interviewer’s prior knowledge and elicit statement-evidence inconsistencies. We predicted that interviews with evidence disclosed would elicit low statement-evidence inconsistencies whereas interviews where evidence was not disclosed would result in high statement-evidence inconsistencies. The outcome did not support our predictions. Guilty suspects revealed crime-related information about non-critical themes and withheld information regarding critical themes irrespective of evidence disclosure. We explored this unexpected finding in Study 2 (N=216), which was designed to understand if guilty suspects would reveal information regarding themes of the crime that are not incriminating (not critical) in comparison to themes that were incriminating (critical) as observed in Study 1. We used the evidence disclosure tactics of Study 1 in Study 2 and also measured how these influence their perception of interviewer’s knowledge. The outcome replicated findings from Study 1 that guilty suspects reveal or withhold information based on the cost of disclosing the information. This is a novel finding in the Strategic Use of Evidence literature.