Sunday, September 23, 2012
Rule: No One Can Lie Twice
It is a principle that every person who seeks truth within an interview should be aware of. It is critical that the interviewer know this principle and be able to apply it in the interview.
When someone has lied against reality, they are not going to say, about the lie, "I told the truth" using the First Person singular pronoun, "I", the past tense verb, "told" and the simple word "truth." It is beyond the 99% realm.
This may be difficult principle to grasp. Jewish law says no one can lie twice. This is the essence of it:
How most people lie.
90% plus lies are simply by withheld or missing information. This is our norm and it is the intent of the will to deceive that we pick up. "I woke, we woke up, and I, we heard..." Deborah Bradley, struggling over the pronoun "I" versus the pronoun "we"; something humans are experts at by the time they are age 5, physically or developmentally. "I heard a gun shot and saw my wife lying in a pool of blood" is technically a truthful statement, yet the husband has withheld that he, himself, pulled the trigger.
A lie against reality is to say "such and such happened" when it did not. Even the extreme rarity of "I didn't do it" reliable denial that is, in fact, a lie (perhaps 1% possibility) there is the follow up 'test' in which the subject is asked to comment upon this lie. The rule that no one can lie twice means that the subject will be unable to say "I told the truth" about the lie of "I didn't do it". We are in the realm of, perhaps, less than 1/10th of 1 percent.
Lies Against Reality Samples:
Charlie Rogers reported that three men attacked her. It was a lie against reality because it did not happen. When she was interviewed on television, she agreed to go on for a single purpose, media told us: to affirm that it did happen in the face of those who did not believe her. It is interesting to note that not a single media outlet reported her story in doubt. Nor, was I, or readership, able to find even a single blog or crime commentary that said she was not truthful. Yet, she, herself, came forward, using her own name (which the FBI had withheld)
If a person says "I didn't do it" and this is actually a lie. They have issued a reliable denial (extremely rare): when questioned about their lie, they will be unable to bring themselves to say "I told the truth" regarding the lie (statement) previously issued.
It was amazing how Rogers used the word "truth" but was unable to say this so very simple sentence, "I told the truth" about the attack. It would be, seemingly, the easiest thing in the world.
Casey Anthony said she handed off Caylee to Zanny the Nanny. This is a 100% lie against reality. There is nothing truthful about this statement. When challenged in questioning, she was unable to say, about her report, "I told the truth" using the first person singular, past tense verb, and the word "truth" in the sentence.
Tiffany Hartley said that three boats chased her and her husband, David, while on jet skis, scoring a head shot on David, but having her escape. Her story changed often, she refused to take a polygraph, and feared returning to Mexico to be questioned by their investigators in light of being arrested. She did, however, turn her story into 15 minutes of fame, making an amazing run at the talk show and news circuits, up to the Texas governor's mansion. When asked about her story, at no time was she able to say "I told the truth" about being shot at by three boats.
In the face of a theft allegation, it is extremely rare for someone to say, "I didn't take the money" if they did, in fact, take the money. It is very rare.
It is virtually impossible for this same guilty person, when faced with their statement, to look at the words "I didn't take the money" and say "I told the truth."
This is why in an interview, and in writing, an accused person is asked, if they have denied the allegation, "What would you say if we concluded you were lying?" to see if they will avoid saying, "I told the truth."
We have seen this, in principle, in failed polygraphs. What is missing from the responses?
"I told the truth."
Billie Dunn didn't have so much "faith" in polygraphs.
Elisha DiPietro did "fine" in the polygraph.
Justin DiPietro "smoked" the polygraph.
Many others made varying comments when asked about failing the polygraphs, but avoided the simplest of statements:
"I told the truth"; results be damned.
This is the principle about a "lie upon a lie" that I have written about, and we have discussed on radio and the chat room.
What is the reasoning for it? What is the psychological basis for it?
Is it the pride and ego of mankind? Is there something so distasteful about viewing one's own lie?
The principle for this must be understood in context: Free Editing Process.
The Free Editing Process is where a person is speaking freely on their own, not using the language of the interviewer, and not in a prepared statement.
"But you've failed your polygraph?"
We have heard a myriad of answers from deceptive people, everything from
"police didn't show me the results" (Justin DiPietro) to "it's not admissible for a reason, you know!" to "that's just what they say..." to so many more non-affirmations of truth.
Locking Into An Answer
There are those who are slippery, therefore, they must be "locked" into an answer.
For example, regarding a failed polygraph, instead of referring to the failure, the subject might say, "I told the truth" which will then need to be specified:
"I told the truth" is true about: my name. My address.
This type of person, who splits the truth, must be locked into the specific question on the polygraph:
"Regarding the question, Do you know what happened to your daughter, you reportedly failed. How do you speak to this?"
The wiggling room is reduced greatly, and the answer, "I told the truth about what happened" won't be heard from the liar.
The Ramseys reportedly failed a number of polygraphs until they found one polygrapher who passed them. The Ramsey attorneys had the polygrapher sign a non-disclosure contract with them that all he could say was "they passed" and was not permitted to disclose what questions he asked them.
This fact may be lost on a gullible public, but not upon those with discernment.