The study adds to the growing research field of true and false intentions. Specifically, we examined the benefit of asking unanticipated questions when interviewing groups of suspects on repeated occasions. Participants were divided into truth tellers and liars and were further divided into groups of three. Truth tellers planned a neutral task. Liars planned a mock crime and additionally prepared a cover‐story—thematically similar to the truth tellers' task—to be used if they were apprehended. Participants were intercepted after planning their tasks. In subsequent interviews, participants were asked anticipated questions on their intentions and unanticipated questions on the planning of their intentions. Participants were interviewed once in Experiment 1 (N = 132) and three times in Experiment 2 (N = 123). Truth tellers provided longer and more detailed answers than liars and had higher levels of within‐group consistency compared with liars. This was the case for answers to both anticipated and unanticipated questions. No differences between truth tellers and liars were found for between‐statement consistency. Repeated interviews had minimal effect on statement length or within‐group consistency. The results highlight within‐group consistency as an important cue to deceit. However, a number of limitations to the unanticipated questions approach were evident. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.