The Lie Guy® blog

Too Many Choices - Creating Frustration in Interrogation

If given the time, we could probably come up with a number of
reasons a suspect won't confess, a hostile witness won't
cooperate or why the victim won't disclose.  If we then reviewed
our "list" objectively we might find that we have placed a large
portion of the blame on our subject and were partially if not fully
blind to any problems we may have created.  It's time to give
ourselves and our subject a break.  The impasse may in fact have
been created because of there being too many choices to be
made by us and our subject.

All too often when entering an interview room, we like to go in
"armed to the teeth" with information and facts.  Being fully loaded
with evidence is certainly not a bad thing but how we choose to
present that information can be a handicap for the interviewer as
well as the subject.  With some many choices to make about what
topics to address, how to address them, what order and more, we
get caught up in the "planning" and can bungle the "presentation."
Because we have too many choices to make we may see a
successful interview as a long and difficult campaign with no
assurance of success and even a higher probability of early
failure.  To overcome this problem, try dealing with and presenting
only one issue at a time and strive to win small battles and not the
whole "war" with one big "atomic" question that tries to
incorporate multiple issues.  You'll find you'll be able to focus more
on your subject, miss fewer of the important responses and
increase your chances of overall success.

Far too many choices presented to the victim, witness or suspect
also has a higher probability of negative outcome.  Contrary to
common belief, it is known in the sales profession too many
choices presented to the customer kills more sales than they
make and the same behavior response applies to the interview
room.  Asking for agreement or concession from your subject on
several issues at once makes the ultimate decision by the subject
much more difficult.  When we increase the difficulty of the
decision making cycle for our subject, the longer it will take for the
person to make their decision to comply, cooperate or confess.
The longer the decision-making cycle is extended for our subject,
the greater the chance that the results of the decision process will
be negative and thus harder for us to reverse and overcome.

Review your case before you conduct your interview. Break down
the case interview objectives into smaller more manageable tasks
and move toward your goals of cooperation, compliance and
admission by winning small victories by reducing the choices to
be made at any one time.  You'll improve your chances of a
successful interview.

Stan B. Walters "The Lie Guy®"
Stan@TheLieGuy.com
www.TheLieGuy.com

Sen. Larry Craig - Interrogation & Confession

The interrogation of Senator Larry Craig was in my opinion a professional
and appropriately conducted interrogation.  He was not coerced,
forced or trapped into his statements>  Also in my opinion he
exhibits several verbal cues consistent with someone who is
withholding information.

FOX News - The Big Story asked me to do an analysis of Craig's
interrogation by Minneapolis Airport PD Sgt. Dave Karsnia.  Here
are some of my observations:

First: Karsnia conducted a "narrative based interview."  Twice
near the beginning of Craig's interrogation, Karsnia asks Craig to
tell his side of the story.  We know this type of interrogation is far
more productive and in fact tends to allow the subject to produce
my self-initiated deception cues.  In this case, Craig generates
plenty of them in my opinion.

During the first narrative, Craig uses what we call a "time bridge" in his statement.  Listen to the very beginning and Craig talks about having to wait a couple of minutes for a stall in his "usual" bathroom.  YHou know, the one he always uses at that airport.  (Is that like a regular table at your favorite restaurant?). After entering his stall, he starts drops his pants, spreads his legs so they won't hit the floor, sits down and the next he knows are card appears under the sall that says "police."  It's not until after Karsnia asks more questions does Craig acknowledged his foot may have touched Karsnia's foot.

Second: Craig responds at least a half dozen times with "I don't
know" or "I don't recall."  Need I say more.

Third:  Craig made some "very" interesting statements that to me
are very telling.  Check these out. (I'll try to get the exact quote)
When Karsnia pointed out that Craig had put his hand under the
partition ,palm up Craig responded
"I don't believe I did that."

When Karsnia asks if he has been successful in these bathrooms
before, Craig responds:
"I don't seek activity in bathrooms."
(Remember, sometimes you've got to look for what's missing.  He
doesn't seek activities in "bathrooms.")

Fourth: Craig states "I absolutely did not do these things"
Note the denial flag expression.  Lugovoy, the former KGB
bodyguard says the same thing about the polonium poisoning of
Letvenenko.  Lugovoy is now being sought by British MI 5 for this
murder.

Finally: Near the end of his interview, Craig states:
"I'm a respectable person. I don't do these kinds of things."  Now
have many of us have heard that one in an interrogation.

Now these last two cues cause me concern.  If I were investigating
this case, I would be looking for more incidents by Craig.  It's just
my opinion, but I predict in the future we are going to find out that
Craig has had many more "encounters" not unlike this one and
they all won't be in bathrooms.

Listen for yourself and pick out Craig's cues of behavior.
http://www./Kinesic.com/Audio/craiginterview.mp3

Prior to my appearance on FOX News - The Big Story, I was in the
Green Room, watching Neil Cavuto.  Neil had Ben Stein as his
guest.  Stein stated that Craig was "bludgeoned" by the cop and
the interrogation and was a subject of "thuggery" by Sgt. Karsnia.
Well, in my "professional opinion" Ben Stein doesn't know the hell
he is talking about.

This was NOT an accusatory interview.  Craig was not tricked,
forced or coerced by the Sgt. Karsnia.  Now if legal scholars want
to argue about the arrest and the incident itself and the legal
nitpicking that lawyers do - fine knock yourself out but I'm saying
Craig confessed voluntarily to Karsnia.

Stan B. Walters "The Lie Guy®"
http://www.TheLieGuy.com

Michael Vick's "Confession"

What an amazing confession by Michael Vick!! 
Michael said his actions were "immature."  Michael, how about we call it "inhumane."
Notice how Michael minimizes everything.

I was wondering how do you supply the money for the betting but didn't place any bets and didn't take any winnings?  Oh, maybe the money was placed back into your dog fighting kennel.  If you do any Practical Kinesic Interview & Interrogation® analysis we always know to look at the words.  Especially the words that are missing.

Nice that he found Jesus during this time.  Maybe some more bargaining?  We've certainly not heard that claim before.  It light of his conversion, I wonder why his "confession" is so light on accepting guilt and responsibility for his actions.

Michael Vick's statement- read it for yourself and see what you think.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/2007-08-27-2672656486_x.htm

Stan B. Walters "The Lie Guy®"
www.TheLieGuy.com

Victim Interview Gone Seriously Wrong

This has got to be among the most horrific examples of an interview gone wrong I have ever seen. This case is from White Bear Lake, MN. The interview is of a 13 year girl who has claimed she has been raped. The interviewer thinks she is lying. It would appear he has failed to accurately diagnose her verbal and nonverbal cues. In the mean time notice the devastating affect an accusatory interview can have. http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_116211636.html.

Read the background on the case and then watch the interview.

Evasion versus Deception

A common belief held by many investigative interviewers and
most people in general is that when a person is being deceptive
that their statements are literally saturated with deceit. Results of
numerous studies of deception behavior does not support this
conclusion.  In reality, people engage in evasion far more often
than they do pure deception.

My colleague Dr. Martha Davis and I studied the video taped
interrogations from 36 felony cases investigated by the New York
Police Department.  Our study focused on identifying the verbal
and nonverbal cues to deception by subjects in situations where
there was significant jeopardy for the subject if their evasion and
deception attempts failed.  One of the general observations we
made that was very consistent with the results of previously
published studies of deception was that people are far more
evasive than deceptive.

Sustaining pure deception can be a difficult process for most
people.  This is not to say that lying is "hard" but one's ability to
first create a deception and then sustain it under scrutiny is what is
difficult.  Let's face it.  The "deception" liar must remember the
truth that they are attempting to hide and their first deception
presentation.  Next when their previous lie is challenged they must
create a new lie that dovetails with the first deception and most
often it must be created on the fly.  At the same time they must
leave the new lie open ended enough in case they are required to
lie some more.  This a daunting task for anyone.

The most common technique the majority people including
suspects use to avoid the truth is to practice evasion. Simple
evasion does not require a great deal of creative thinking on the
part of your deceitful suspect.  Evasion also does not require that
one have a particularly acute memory just tell as much of the truth
as possible.  Also consider the observations and reactions of the
person who is the target of the lie because the lie teller is doing
that very same thing.  Pure deception is more likely to raise the
suspicions of the lie target that evasion.

The conclusion we can make is that subjects are far more likely to
be evasive than deceptive.  The conclusion of our research drew
an interesting parallel observation.  Investigative interviewers are
more likely to diagnose the stress behaviors of evasion as
markers of deception.  Deception behaviors generated by a
subject are in fact rare.

Stan B. Walters "The Lie Guy®"
www.TheLieGuy.com

O J Simspon's "If I Did It" Confession but not really a Confession Book

When it was announced late last year that O J was releasing a book entitled "If I Did It" and was going to appear of a FOX TV interview talking about the book I had several VCR's set up to record O J's Non-Confession Confession.

In my opinion this is a typical ego dominant personality flaunting his actions, telling us exactly what he did and that he would say "Naw!  Just kidding!  That's how I would have done it."

I understand and can appreciate that many folks felt that it would have been "obscene" for such media saturated coverage O J and this case.  I would have liked for it to proceed and hear O J's take on what happened that night.  Knowing ego dominant personalities, I knew we'd hear an almost blow by blow account.  I've have predicted in my classes for many years that there would be an O J moment like this.

Now in today's news we hear that the Browns and Goldmans have gotten the publishing rights and are looking for an agent and publisher.  They are also considering changing the title to something like "Confessions of a Double Murderer." Outstanding!  Let them get some money out of O J for once AND give us the American public an inside peek at the thoughts and feelings of a man whose trial changed the very landscape of criminal trials throughout the US.

Tell us O J.  If you did it, how would you do it?

Stan B. Walters "The Lie Guy®"
www.TheLieGuy.com

Interrogation: A Battle of Persuasion

For most interviewers, their concept of interrogation is that all they
have to do is present the facts and the subject will just collapse
under the weight of proof.  Interrogation is a little more complex
than making a good argument that a person is deceptive.  It is a
back and forth battle of persuasion and decision-making.

The battle of persuasion goes both ways.  On one side, by
deception, your subject is trying to get you to change your point of
view that they may be responsible for some inappropriate act or
behavior. The more persuasive and convincing the better the
chance the subject has at getting away with their deception. On
the other side, you as the interviewer are trying to persuade the
individual that their attempt at deception is not being successful
and therefore they must accept your evidence of proof and change
their position on the issue.

The interviewer needs to remember however, that the main reason
a person chooses to lie is for some perceived personal benefits
or to avoid some type of punishment.  A person will also confess
for the very same reasons - they will confess when they perceive it
will be beneficial to them.  They are not just confessing because
the proof is there although that is part of the equation.  Think about
it. The only time you change your mind about a previous decision
you have made is when someone or something has overwhelming
convinced you or persuaded you to believe that the new position,
point of view or decision is far better than the previous  The better
job you do as an interviewer convincing your subject of the very
distinct differences between those two points  the easier you will
make it for your subject to change rejection to admission or
confession.

Don't totally focus your efforts on just getting a subject to confess.
Persuade them that admitting to the truth is far more acceptable
and advantageous for them than sticking to their deception.

Stan B. Walters "The Lie Guy®"
www.TheLieGuy.com

Lying and Eye Contact Myth

One of the primary reasons I started TruthandDeceptionBlog.com was to deal with myths just like this one.  It's one of those myths that just won't die. 

I was cruising the web doing some research and looking for current published articles on deception, lying, and interview and interrogation.  I found a main web page by an "expert" in Canada who is offering a book on the Internet through their web site.  Right smack in the middle of the "contents" section, the "expert" clearly stated how you can spot deception by watching for poor eye contact.  Also mentioned was armed crossing, leg crossing, fidgeting and similar myths. 

Hey folks!  Do a little research of "scientific journals" and you'll find eye contact is the worst thing to look for as a cue to deception.  Dr. Bella DePaulo reviewed more than 30 different studies that proved that the eye contact of liars is no different than truth tellers. 

No wonder so many people including investigative interviewers miss deception.  Think of all the truthful people erroneously labeled as liars!