Monday, November 19, 2012

Why Do Liars Issue Challenges?

Shop Amazon - Black Friday Deals Week

Why do liars issue challenges or taunt law enforcement?  Why don't they leave 'well enough' alone and get on with their lives?  Why do they continue to speak out and draw more attention to themselves?   
The answer is not difficult to find. 

Having gotten away with something, or at least how it might appear, why should a liar continue to draw attention to himself (or herself) after the fact?  Why push the issue?  If the situation is such that the heat is off of them (even if it is just an appearance of the attention off of them) why bother?

Why not just let it go?

Josh Powell comes to mind but is this the pattern that I am referencing?

He refused to cooperate with police in the disappearance of his then wife, Susan Cox (since speaking with Susan's family on Crime Wire, and hearing of the awful attacks the Cox family have received from Josh Powell and his father, Steve Powell, it is out of respect for them that I use the Cox name in correlation to Susan), and told the police and media that at midnight, he took his toddler (2) and his 4 year old "camping" during a snow storm.  As ridiculous sounding as the alibi was, he then utterly stopped speaking to police.  The public (and police) knew that Josh Powell had reason to be silent.  He has the information needed to recover Susan and as long as he is silent, he makes law enforcement's job that much more difficult.  

Josh Powell is not intelligent but he did feel the sting of insult when people ridiculed his alibi.  

He read everywhere how stupid he sounded in his short answer to media about packing up little ones in a snowstorm for camping.  He might as well have said that his wife was abducted by aliens.  It would have been just as stupid.  

He didn't like what he read.  Yet, he remained silent and finally said, "they underestimate my discipline" which showed what most of us know about liars:  they hold others in contempt. 

He then spoke, and his words gave him away.  One CBS reporter was sharp enough to ask him, 

"Did you kill your wife?" giving us an opportunity to analyze his answer to this great question.  It is a great question since my reference point is modern media in which investigative journalism has become rare, and soft questions are instead asked in hopes of 'landing' the big interview. 

He said, "I would never hurt her..." which shows:

a.  He did not deny killing her.
b.  He used the words "would never" which is not past tense and is not a denial.
c.  He changed "kill" to "hurt", which is minimizing language. 

These three elements are often present in guilty statements regularly.  Why?

 Because when someone is editing their own words (freely speaking) it is rare to lie directly due to the internal stress of lying.  An innocent person would say "I did not kill my wife" or "I did not kill Susan" easily, and without additional language.  The innocent person would not have a psychological need to minimize or soften the language. 

 Police and the public believe that he killed Susan and he knows this and was able to, for quite some time, remain silent, but not completely silent:  it is human nature to talk.  Lying is stressful and is rare, as most people, instead of directly lying, will avoid a lie by withholding information. 

In fact, look at Powell's statement again:  he is likely not lying in his response.  

"I would not hurt her..." is likely true.  If he has already killed her, then "would not" being a future or conditional tense, is truthful.  Perhaps he thinks to himself, "I wait every day to get caught; this is killing me.  If I had to do it all over again, I would divorce rather than kill her" and, in this sense, it is true that he "would not" hurt her...

We see this in theft and drug allegations regularly as the subject is remorseful; remorseful often due to being caught; not at the action.  

"Did you steal the money?

"I would not steal the money" is close to our Formula for the Reliable Denial:

1.  First Person Singular.   A subject must say "I" in order to own the statement. 
2.  Past Tense Verb.    It happened in the past, and the verb must reflect this.  "I did not steal..."
3.  Event Specific.   The reliable denial must match the allegation.  Any deviation from the specific event will nullify the formula, including disparaging words like "I didn't steal no f***ing money!"  Here, "the money" is specific money. 

Question:  "DId you sexually molest the boy who stayed at your house?"

Answer:      "I did not harm the child"

Note that "sexually molest" has been changed to "harm" by the subject.  Many pedophiles believe that if they do not inflict physical pain on a child, the child has not been "harmed" but note that the subject did not answer the question.  When a subject avoids answering  a question, the question is sensitive to the subject. 

If you did not steal, nor kill, nor molest a child, the question posed to you may be very emotionally upsetting, but it is not "sensitive" and your answer will not contain sensitivity indicators.  This is true 

1.  Liars think it makes them look honest and...
2.  Liars cannot bear others thinking they are liars. 

Pride and the inevitable fall are organically linked.  

In the case of Josh Powell, his pride was hurt so he spoke out, as did his father.  They buried themselves and as they attacked Susan, who cannot speak for herself, they revealed more about their own lives, upbringing, and evil than they ever thought possible, and made public sentiment far worse than it was, against them.  Not intelligent Powell lives every day of his life wondering "is this the day?  Is this the day they find her?  Is this the day they knock at my door and put me in handcuffs?"

Waiting to be caught will slowly erode away the life of the criminal.  The pleasure of driving the stolen Mercedes is lost as the driver waits to be caught.  At first, the stolen bread tastes sweet, but later, the bitterness settles in.

Roger Clemons was so cocky in his lies that he went on "60 Minutes" and issued a public challenge:  "if I had all of these needles and things, then who supplied them?  Who brought them to me?  I wish he would come forth..." and on he went, thinking how truthful he sounded in his boldness.

So, what happened?  Clemons issued the challenge for the guy who supplied him to come forward and, surprise, surprise, Brian McNamee, his supplier, came forward.

Why would Roger Clemons do such a stupid thing?  He did it for the same reason a baseball player would point his finger at Congress and lie, and why the President of the United States would wag his finger at the American public and lie:

They hold others in contempt.

They think they are smarter than others and expect to be believed.

Pride and the fall are organically linked.

We can debate the merits of whether Congress should be investigating this or not, but Roger Clemons would have been much better off telling the truth.  His boldness in lying only revealed that this is something he has done successfully since childhood.

Liars live life by paying for communication with counterfeit currency.  Those that become successful at it cannot bear the thought that someone does not believe them.  Since they cannot abide being called a liar, they strike out, even if it is to their own detriment. 

The case of missing 13 year old Hailey Dunn comes to mind.

 Why does her mother continue to post publicly and taunt law enforcement?  

Billie Jean Dunn heard her mother in law say that she believed, in early January, that Shawn Adkins, the mother's boyfriend, raped and killed Hailey.  Her response was telling.  She did not say, "What?  Are you insane?  My daughter is alive! Shawn didn't do any such thing!" and react in shock or disgust.

Instead she said, "well, nobody told me that..." with the flat affect that told the public that this  mother was not surprised to hear her daughter spoken of as deceased.  One of the guests remarked on the mother's affect and lack of response to Adkins disparaging the victim claiming Hailey was "promiscuous" with the guest saying "if that was my daughter he was talking about, I would..." with the normal, maternal protective rage that Billie Jean Dunn lacked.

I have been recently asked about the mother's regional dialect.

Some seek to  dismiss analysis, reasoning that "regional dialect discounts analysis" which isn't true.  Just as text speak is a form of communication, so is regional dialect, and as such, like text speak, can be analyzed.  It is communication being analyzed via words.

"There ain't no way I ain't gonna..." is a form of communication, in spite of education level or regional dialect (way of speaking) and as such, is not measured in the 'double negative' foolishness of changing a meaning.  It is taken as a whole.

"It is wicked cold today" is often heard here.  Note the principle:

"It is wicked cold today" shows the word "wicked" as sensitive.  The shortest sentence is "It is cold today" but the word "wicked", regionally, means "very" and if the subject said,
"It is very cold" or "I am very happy" it would be noted with the word "very" in analysis.

Analysis is not done by cement blocks, but is pliable.  Think about "I think that guy is cool" taken literally?  His body temperature is lower than others?  Also, think about texting with iPhone spell corrector:  the spelling sometimes gives new words and changes meaning in comical ways.  Statement Analysis adjusts and is fluid.

After lying on TV, lying to police, using drugs to fool a polygraph, failing a polygraph, getting caught with all kinds of deviant porn, and then arrested for lying to police, the mother remains free.  Why speak out?  Had Roger Clemons not gone on "20/20" he may not be in the trouble he is in today.

Since the mother and boyfriend, in spite of all the released information by police, have not been arrested:

Why would she continue to post on Facebook things that cause readers to question her?

Recently she posted about bestiality where she talks about receiving large quantities of it and spoke of it in the present tense.  This allows readers insight.    When she insults, she uses sexual terms.  Since her mother in law called this a sexual homicide, and 109,000 pornographic images (including child pornography) were found, her insults and name calling employ sexual language; revealing to the public, the world in which Hailey Dunn grew up in.
Why post?

Here is why:

Liars hold you, the target audience,  in contempt.  They presuppose that you are not smart enough to see through the lie.

Dr. Phil recently said, "no one likes being lied to.  It makes you angry.  People are angry that you lie..." (to Cindy Anthony).

Cindy, when she speaks, uses language that shows that her deception (or intent to deceive) is deliberate.  This is why she is seen, like all liars, as prideful.  The pride within a liar, causes the liar to say incredibly stupid things.

 Scott Peterson is a good example.

While on national television he talked about a phone conversation with John Walsh.

Scott Peterson knew that this was on national television and someone, somewhere, is going to ask John Walsh about it, yet he still said it.  It is stupid.  (Later, John Walsh fumed saying that he had not, nor would ever, speak to Scott Peterson).

In order for Cindy, Scott Peterson,  or any other to lie, she must have an expectation that you, the audience or recipient of the lie, will believe it; therefore, you are not as smart as the liar. This is the contempt.

Picture Casey Anthony at only 22 years of age, walking down the corridor of Universal towards "her office"...counting off each step, confident in her own ability, to lie to these seasoned veterans of law enforcement.  It sounds stupid because it is stupid, but they do it, over and over and over. 

Hailey Dunn's mother is now "demanding" that law enforcement get off their "a*****"" and so on, issuing challenges, and ridiculing law enforcement.


Why poke a sleeping tiger?

Susan Cox is going to be found.  Laci Peterson was going to be found and was.  Kyron Horman is going to be found.  Cases that have lots of media exposure keep people searching.   Terri Horman stays out of the spotlight and remains free.  Scott Peterson couldn't  abide the public thinking he was a liar.  Josh Powell could not abide what the public said about him.

Hailey Dunn is going to be found and arrests are going to be made.  Think, however, of those being taunted and insulted.

No one likes being lied to and no one likes to be insulted.

What Billie Dunn is doing and what Josh Powell is doing is the same thing:

They are filling law enforcement with resolve and this behavior will be remembered when the time for justice comes.

 Dunn, she is emboldened by the fact that law enforcement has not yet recovered Hailey's remains and her boldness can be seen in progressive steps:

 First, she denied even seeing the boyfriend.  She said 'law enforcement told me he failed the polygraph' and that she wasn't speaking to him and publicly said, "Shawn needs to talk" to police.  However, the public saw her, at various locations, and she was with him while telling the public otherwise.

She then said that she had only "text" him and were broken up though statement analysis said otherwise, so when she  told a radio host that she was not the kind of mother who would be with the suspect in her daughter's disappearance, the host, at first, believed her. Then she lied to police about his whereabouts (he was hiding in her house) and was arrested.  They both grew so emboldened as to show up at the 6 month vigil (as she had said she would at the 3 month mark) reminding the public of Scott Peterson at the vigil for Laci.

She now has reached the point where she ridicules law enforcement on Facebook.

This is the pattern of increasing boldness, and like all patterns of pride, the fall cannot be far away.

Roger Clemons issued his challenge, and got it.
Scott Peterson made his boast, and got his response.
Cindy Anthony continues to profit from lies, but will never bring back her granddaughter and must live each day knowing she perverted justice.
Josh Powell sweats out each and every day, waiting for Susan's remains to be found.

Dunn and Adkins live each day knowing what happened, and wondering if someone, somewhere, perhaps walking a dog, or even a child playing, will stumble upon remains and tests will show that  not only do they have  Hailey, but they have evidence.

How close will her remains be found to where Shawn Adkins' cell phone showed him to be?

Can  Dunn be certain that when this day comes, for it will come, that Adkins will not roll over on her?  For this reason, she can never be free of him.  But what if Adkins wishes to break up with her?

The doubts are often triggers for angry responses, but more than anything else, it is that sociopaths lie, from childhood, and all habitual liars rage with insult, and cannot abide anyone who dares call them "liar."  Rather than dismiss the one who says "you are lying" as insignificant, it rages within them and causes them to speak out, threaten, and rage.

All the while, they bring more attention to their own selves, and not to whatever cause they wish to be seen as highlighting.

When Scott Peterson spoke, who did Scott Peterson emphasize?  When Peterson spoke, he spoke of Peterson (the same that Drew Peterson did).  When Josh Powell spoke out, he disparaged Susan Cox, bringing more attention onto himself.  When Billie Dunn spoke, she brought more attention to herself as the recipient of large quantities of bestiality.  Note:

She had no reason to bring up the topic.  Even if asked, (since it was in the press), why not avoid it?

Why did Scott Peterson feel the need to bring in the name of John Walsh?

Why did Roger Clemons go on "20/20"?

Josh Powell was amazing in his silence, but it could not last.

Dunn even told people that her life was perfect when Hailey up and disappeared.  What is that?  It is a subtle blaming of the victim, something the guilty conscience does to ease its pain.  This is why the 3rd element of our formula for reliability must be "event specific" without anything added to the event.

We hear this often in theft and in child abuse cases.  In child abuse cases, the perpetrator finds a way to, even subtly, insult or blame the victim.

 "I didn't steal any of that company's damn money!"

Note how the stolen money is given an additional word?  The stolen money is now given a sensitivity indicator.  It is not "money" but "damned" money.  Indeed.

Liars cannot abide the 'insult' of not being believed and will go public, at their own detriment, to defend themselves.  Their pride of a lifetime of successful lies leads to the inevitable fall.  

Shop Amazon - Black Friday Deals Week


Tania Cadogan said...

off topic

A judge has found a South African man guilty of the murder of Swedish newly wed Anni Dewani while on her honeymoon in November 2010.

In his ruling, Judge Robert Henney dismissed claims by Xolile Mngeni's lawyer that his client had been set up for the killing and said his defence was "riddled with improbabilities, inconsistencies and untruths".

He found the 25-year-old guilty of murder and robbery, but acquitted him of kidnapping charges.

Judge Henney told the High Court in Cape Town: "I'm satisfied that the accused has committed the crime of murder."

Prosecutors said Mngeni - who had surgery in June 2011 to remove a brain tumour - was hired to carry out the killing, which was made to look like a car hijacking in Cape Town's impoverished Gugulethu township, by Mrs Dewani's new husband Shrien.

Mrs Dewani, 28, was killed by a single shot to the neck on November 13, 2010. She and her husband were in a taxi being driven back to their hotel when they were apparently hijacked by two armed men.

Her husband was then thrown out of the vehicle and Anni's body was later found in the abandoned taxi.

In August, Mngeni's alleged accomplice Mziwamadoda Qwabe pleaded guilty to charges over the killing. He was jailed for 25 years.

Zola Tongo, the taxi driver who drove the couple, earlier pleaded guilty to charges and was jailed for 18 years.

Prosecutors said Mngeni, Qwabe and Tongo were paid 15,000 rand (£1,066) for the killing.

Briton Shrien Dewani is fighting extradition to South Africa over charges he arranged the murder. He denies the charges.

The UK High Court found in March that it would be "unjust and oppressive" to extradite Mr Dewani to South Africa.

His lawyer told the court in July that he needed at least a year to recover from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Anonymous said...

I notice that when I know I am being lied to, the liar tries to throw me off with challenging words like "you don't believe me?" "They said I did that?" "So I wasted my time?" It helps to be able to pause in my mind and realize that they just asked me a question in response to my question! It is fascinating to add this understanding that liars need to be believed. Because sometimes the conversation gets so far off track or they seem so offended I would almost be persuaded to believe them.

Anonymous said...

What does it mean when someone refers to their wife as "the wife" regularly?

Anonymous said...

"and why the President of the United States would wag his finger at the American public and lie"

Stop it already. This rhetoric just makes you look bad.

Anonymous said...

Agreed. It discounts statement analyst when the analyst himself lies. The President does not always owe us a total explanation when it jeopardizes our safety, just like our parents don't owe us every detail either. To call the president a liar in this circumstance is to call parents in general liars. What no one has analyzed is as the press pressed him for an answer he gave snippets of info yes laced with I don't know, we are not sure, the intelligence isn't all in, it is under investigation. Uh, what does that mean in regards to SA? Maybe I don't owe you anything if it risks more lives. Period. Now be done with this and act like a professional please.

Anonymous said...

Last poster - why do you assume Peter is talking about President Obama? The finger-wagging incident Peter is much more likely to be referring to is President Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman" comment, where the president literally wagged his finger at the camera. That statement was a lie.

Dee said...

When reading the statement on the President, my mind immediately went to Clinton and his denial of sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. That finger wagging alone got me wondering if he was telling the truth, it was overboard.

Notamuser said...

I once had an interesting conversation with a mental health professional who was responsible for conducting interviews with corrections officers as part of their hiring process.

He told me about a game he labeled "WOLF" that sociopaths will play. IMO it fits in with the contempt.


1) Tell the truth, sound like they're telling the truth
2) Tell the truth, but sound like they're lying
3) Lie, but sound like they're telling the truth
4) Lie, sound like they're lying

At the time, I wondered how he knew the difference.

Anonymous said...

The liars I have met do seem to feel contempt for their audience, but they also seem to NEED an audience. Perhaps lying and narcism (?) go hand in hand. They seem to want to prove to themselves that they can get away with the lie, and be believed, perhaps needing to prove to themselves they are more intelligent than others. When the audience has been taught to lie rather than deal with conflict (be polite) and to tolerate lies rather than hurt the liars feelings (such as not confronting an employer or a parent when caught in a lie) then the audience might actively want to believe lies rather than confront their own dishonesty or aversion to conflict....

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
Because sometimes the conversation gets SO FAR OFF TRACK or they seem so offended I WOULD ALMOST be persuaded to believe them.
Listen to the words used.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
Now be done with this and ACT LIKE A PROFESSIONAL please.

November 19, 2012 11:40 AM

What parent expects "professionalism" ?

Anonymous said...

To the Anon posters who seem to think it's their job to dictate what the blog owner writes just showed YOUR sensitivity about believing Obama to be a liar.

I also thought of Clinton's infamous, 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky'..finger wagging quote when I read this post. Hopefully one day Obama's lies, which were far more damaging than lying about a sex act, will be the most infamous (after he is impeached and removed from office), from my mouth to Gods ear!

Anonymous said...

I thought of Clinton, too, with the finger wagging.

I thought of Obama's latest press conference with the description of liars issuing challenges - because Obama said something like, "if you want to go after somebody, go after me," regarding UN Ambassador Susan Rice. He was daring them!

John Mc Gowan said...

Dr Paul Ekman refers to this as Duping Delight,getting pleasure from deceiving people.

Lis said...

I am confused by this post, it's written as if Josh Powell is still alive; is this a repeat of an older post?