Wednesday, May 14, 2014

The Insult of Being Lied To

               The Insult of Being Lied To
                                                                      by Peter Hyatt


Never underestimate the power of anger when one is lied to.  It can be a force to reckon with.

Investigators are no different emotionally than anyone else.  They do not like being lied to.  Some don't like it, professionally, but others still, don't like it both professionally and personally, and it is the personal insult that can help drive an investigation.

I have seen situations where a subject would have likely gotten away with it, had he not kept talking, beyond the usual, and boldly not only lied, but kept lying.  These are situations where evidence may have been too flimsy to prosecute but the liars so infuriated the investigators, that they dug in a bit deeper to get to the truth.

These were situations where the investigators knew who 'done it', without debate, but were on the fence about presenting the case to the DA due to the DA's unwillingness to go in with a losing case.  No one wants to lose, even in the call for justice.

Liars go too far.

It is this self confidence that reaches the level of arrogance that a good Interviewer will play off of.

Recently, I wrote about the hyperbole of mothers who have been previously accused of abuse or neglect of a child, as a linguistic signal to be noted.  Sometimes, the arrogance kicks in, along with the 'confidence' that the subject is "getting one over" on the investigator.  The wise investigator will be unemotional and allow the subject to keep going.

Some examples?

Roger Clemens could not leave well enough alone.  He publiclydemanded that the person who supplied him with steroids come forward.

Not smart.

It never happened. Never happened. If I have these needles and these steroids and all these drugs, where did I get them? Where's the person that gave them to me? Please come forward. 

Brian McNamee finally did.

Note his statement for analysis:

1.  The word "never" is not a substitute for "did not"; as "never" gives a sense of vagueness to the liar.  If the liar has been asked, "Have you ever...?" the  word "never" is appropriate.

2.  Repetition indicates sensitivity.  "never" is repeated as "happened" is repeated.  We always note the need to repeat.

3.  "These" indicates closeness, while the word "those" indicates distance.  This is similar to "this" and "that" in analysis.

4.  "Where?"

This is interesting.

He did not say "Who?" gave him the steroids and needles.  This is because he knew who he was, but it is likely that at the point of this 2008 interview, he did not know where, at that moment, Brian McNamee was.

Baseball writers who vote on the Hall of Fame know that Clemens was not successfully prosecuted for steroid use, but they read the same articles you and I do, and, perhaps, intuitively grasp the concept of needing to boast in order to buttress a lie.

Rafael Palmero used the finger pointing, as did President Clinton, who had a half a century of getting himself out of trouble by his smooth lying, particularly it seems to me, when it comes to the use of women.

The liar holds the world in contempt. It may be a big joke to the liar, but this infuriates others.  When President Clinton looked at that camera and pointed his finger, he was begging investigators to come after him.

Very foolish.

The liar thinks he or she is smarter than you and me and everyone else around and fully expects to "put one over" us.  This is the downfall.   Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar and a brilliant politician, whether or not you agree with him, and this intellect betrayed him due to pride.  How many centuries have passed with the warning of pride and the fall that follows pride?

It is also the insult that they inflict upon investigators who work hard for a living and do not like being insulted in this manner.

The liar's weakness is often seen in taking the offensive.

The liar thinks that the lie will be believed because of the loud confidence of attacking others.  Lance Armstrong cheated in his sport (I think most of his competition did, too), but was not satisfied cheating through drug testing; he had to go on the offensive using his millions to destroy the weak.

Masculinity, I was taught, sacrifices its strength to protect the weak.  Armstrong used his millions to destroy those who could not afford to hire an attorney, squashing them, ruining them, without concern, for example, for what their families might have suffered.  It was, like the President, a "win at all costs" that was once considered unsportsmanlike conduct.

Sidney Crosby took his stick and jammed it into the groin of Dominic Moore, inflicting serious pain and possible serious injury.  Henrik Lundqvst sprayed his water bottle back at Crosby.

The NHL fined Lundqvst $5,000, but was silent on Crosby's act.  A reporter asked him about the cheap shot he took.  Crosby's response?

"What did you see that I might have done?" Crosby asked a reporter. "When he tied me up 

at that faceoff? I took a shot or he took a shot?... What do you mean by I took a shot?... 

"He's holding my stick, yeah."

The article went on to say that Crosby "danced around the question."  I think otherwise.  With Statement Analysis, we listen.  
He was asked a question.  He answered it with a question, making the original question "sensitive" to him.  Yet, he was not done there.  This is principle:  you've asked someone a sensitive question when you hear a question as the answer.  For Crosby, a single question was not good enough, however, as he kept right on going.  


He answered it with four questions, before the word "yeah" entered his vocabulary.  

In the case of murdered teen Hailey Dunn, her mother has supplied us with lots of instruction for teaching Statement Analysis.  This mother was so confident in her own ability to lie; a skill she developed from an abusive childhood, that she was unable to stop herself from additional words, which overflowed with information. 



Remember:  words come from somewhere.  It is all but impossible to lie outright from a void.  It might come from truth, or a movie, a book read, or a story, but it comes from somewhere.  Even Billie Jean Dunn took her story from CNN.com crime library, and when questioned, she admitted downloading and printing those stories! 

Billie Dunn made the story the Billie Jean Dunn saga, and not the murder of Hailey Dunn, as her words so infuriated both police and the public, that it was her name that was dominant, even though Shawn Adkins, former boyfriend, may have been equally, or even disproportionately involved in the murder, physically.  She did the talking.  She did the boasting.  She even talked him into taking a polygraph, convinced that they would "beat it" by taking a tranquilizer.  Police turned her away (I would have given it to her anyway) as per policy, and left her with the challenge:

Will you return, clean, and take it?

She had enough faith in her ability to lie to return for the polygraph, convincing Adkins to do the same.

They both roundly flunked.  The test revealed that they knew what happened to Hailey, and where Hailey was dumped.  

No one has been arrested in the murder to date. Hailey has not received justice. 

The mother did provoke law enforcement and it wasn't just her insults (which were plentiful) nor even her inability to keep her stories straight.  It was, like others, the insult of presupposing someone is not wise enough to catch on. 

 With Lance Armstrong, it was a single reporter that he sued that he filled with determination.  He pummeled the reporter, and inspired him to keep at it, which he did.  

Remember the challenge of Justin DiPietro, the polygraph-failing unemployed father who bought an expensive life insurance policy against his healthy toddler only to report her "missing" a few weeks later?  

He is cut from the same cloth:  lying since childhood, with the belief that he is smarter than everyone else.  

He issued a public statement to Nancy Grace to come and spend a day in her shoes.  

He likely wasn't expecting her to literally send someone to Maine and knock on his door, causing him to hide in the bathroom, and behind the apron strings of his friend's mommy.  

The boldness in his deceptive challenge was met, and like most bullies, he quickly folded in the challenge. 

The critical element in all of this is this:

"Extra words give us additional information."

Some analysts will say, "The shortest sentence is best."  I agree. 

An "extra" word is one in which the sentence can remain complete if the word is removed. 

"I locked my keys in the car."  Very strong, straight forward. 

"I think I locked my keys in the car."    With one simple word added, there is now an element of doubt cast upon the location of the keys.  

"I think I might have locked my keys in the car." 

Even more doubt. 

This is why, even in the easier-to-lie to "yes and no" questions, we carefully note each and every word that follows the word "no" as important to us. 

It is why we teach listening rather than speaking, in interviewing.  

The best interview is going to be 80% to 90% speaking by the subject, and not the Interviewer.  

When the lie is found, the challenge is cast.  An interesting twist to contemplate?

What to do when you know the subject is lying...

stay tuned.  

When is remaining silent in the face of a lie best?




6 comments:

Trigger said...

Billie Jean Ostrander Dunn and Shawn Adkins have avoided prosecution since Hailey's body was discovered in an "ugly field" that is in the area of Shawn's normal route to work.

They continue to insult the professionals, the media, and others who want justice for Hailey with the smug awareness that the lies have worked for them. They seem to have outsmarted LE.

Why talk anymore about the subject of who did it?

Justin Dip has no reason to talk about the life of Ayla Reynolds anymore when his lies have produced the expected results-protection from prosecution and conviction.

He has innocent blood on his hands.

Why talk anymore about the subject of who did it?

As long as Bille Jean, Shawn, and Justin live they will be watched. They will never be able to shed their role as suspects until justice comes for those two little girls who were too weak to defend themselves against the violence that took their lives.



Anonymous said...

It certainly would not have been difficult to come up with an example of a lying politician (or several) from the last 15 years. Why go all the way back to the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal to make this point?

C5H11ONO said...

http://latest.com/2014/04/there-was-no-flesh-left-on-him-did-castaway-stay-alive-for-14-months-by-eating-his-dead-friend/

Did Castaway eat his friend?

He recalls “After he died, one part of my brain refused to accept he had gone. So I laid down on his side at the far end of the boat, beside the broken engine, and carried on talking to him. Each morning I’d tell him to wake up and sometime I’d ask him how it felt to be dead.”

He then remembers “On the fifth day I came to my senses and asked myself ‘What am I doing, talking to a corpse?’ Then I asked God to give me courage, said goodbye, and pushed his body over the side.”

When asked if the thought of cannibalism even crossed his mind, Alvaranga states “No! Never! Not for one second did I think of eating Ezequiel. I wouldn’t have done it, even if it meant I starved. It would have been on my conscience forever. You must also remember that I had a good stock of food when he died – 17 birds, two turtles, and some small fish. There was enough for five days, so there was no need for me to do that. Anyway, there was no flesh left on him. I doubt if he even made a meal for the sharks.”


--I'm curious if the last statement was leaking marbles.

Anonymous said...

OT:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fort-bragg-soldier-kelli-bordeauxs-body-found-after-disappearance-n105596

Soazic said...

I know exactly how mad lies can make a person.
That's why I no longer watch TV.
Mainstream media is full of lies, IMHO:

daddy'sgirl said...

Trigger
Hi. I liked your comments. It made me think. But then I felt sad because the reality is that those innocent children will never have justice in that they will never get their lives back. We can punish the murderers, make the murderers suffer, but that won't make it Just, that won't give the victims back their lives. Ultimately there can be no justice. If u stole my car, are caught and I get my car back, that is justice. The wrong was rectified. But some crimes can never be made" just". That's why I say We have a Legal system, Not a Justice system. So sad. It makes the concept of karma appealing. If u believe in karma, there will be justice. Same for believing in heaven and hell. But I don't believe in those things, guess that's why I favor revenge. A parent who kills their child's molestor===if I'm on that jury the parent will walk free (with a good job!thank you very much)