Saturday, January 31, 2015
Provoking the Liar in The Interview
In the "analytical interview", the statement is analyzed before the interview, and the strategy is already set. The sensitivity indicators within the interview allow the Interviewer to know where to "aim" the questions.
The reason that most all deception is via missing or suppressed information is that the brain wishes to avoid the confrontation of being accused of lying.
As previously (and recently) noted, the subject who "did it", and failed his polygraph, only to confess, will often turn back to his written statement and say, "but I didn't lie."
True enough, if the statement was written (or spoken) freely, it is very rare to find an outright and direct lie. Many of these deceptive statements contain, technically, no lies.
Yet, the statement was deceptive.
The point being is that the statement contains truth by truth sentences, but is missing the issue at hand: that he did it is not part of the statement. This is why we allow the subject's words to guide us.
However, when the subject comes to the portion of his account where the guilt should exist, he will leave linguistic indicators (footprints) of skipping over, or jumping over, information. These are the 'red flags' we target with questions. Here is an example.
The accusation is domestic violence. The victim said her husband punched her in the face as he stormed off. He denied this and was asked to write out a statement. The best statement is:
Tell us what happened from the time you got up until the time you went to bed...." type of statement where the subject gives us lots of information. Other times (and you will have to judge), it is best to say "tell us what happened, in detail..." which allows the subject to begin the statement where the subject chooses to. This is always important.
"I got up, got dressed and had coffee. She was already up with the baby. The baby was throwing up last night so I think everyone might have been tired and that's where this whole thing is coming from. I told her she needed to get some rest but I had to go pick something up. I left. When I got back I went outside to smoke a cigarette so the baby doesn't get second-hand smoke. I'm a really good father like that. She's screaming and carrying on saying she called the police but for what?
1. Social Introduction:
You will notice that how someone introduces another is a reflection of the relationship at the time of the introduction.
"My wife, Sue" would be a complete social introduction, with the title (and possessive pronoun) coming before the name. (the order matters). This would indicate a good relationship.
He does not use the title ("wife") nor her name.
This is an indication of not only distancing language, but of likely anger. He does not say he is married, therefore, in Statement Analysis, he is "not married" in this statement.
2. People in a statement
Not only does he avoid giving his wife's name (anger, distance) but he does not give the name of the baby. This is to be considered distancing language.
3. Boasting in Parenthood
Being honest about one's ability is not in question. It is specific boasting in parenting that triggers a sensitive indication by us.
Years of child protective services investigation interviews has taught me what principle states: that in parenting, the need to boast is often an indicator of the very opposite, via accustation, against the subject.
In written descriptions by women who have had children removed from them by the 'state' (that being, through child protective services intervention whether it be by agreement, as in the case of Sergio Celis, or by court order), there is a strong pattern of boasting or exaggerating of one's parental abilities. This is often seen in things like, "I am a great mother!" by one who's very parental capacities is being questioned. The principle is this:
highlight it, and investigate it for possible accusations of child abuse, or child neglect.
That he says he is a "really good father" shows the need to boast. This is likely an indication that he has been accused of child neglect or even child abuse previously. Check for CPS history, and interview collateral contacts. Babies exposed to Domestic Violence are not just in "harm's way" physically, but the psychological impact could last a lifetime. Some do not have technical history (that is, professional intervention) but have had familiar intervention, that is, family or close friends intervening on behalf of the child.
4. Sensitivity Indication
When we recall 'what happened' in life, not only does the brain recall in chronological order, but the brain 'moves forward' in time. When there is a 'pause', it must be explored for missing information. This is why the word "left" is highlighted. Instead of being focused on where he was going, his brain is on the event that happened at the time when he left.
This is where he assaulted her.
In the interview itself, question after question should focus on the time period just prior to leaving. It is the sensitivity portion that we aim our questions.
This will likely provoke him. He has not lied outright, only that he has withheld information from the Interviewer.
In this case, repeating questions "tell me about what you did before you left" and "what else did you do" and then, taking any and every word from his responses, ask even more questions, seemingly unnecessary questions even, if necessary, to keep the focus on this sensitive portion of the statement.
The subject will soon say to himself, "this person knows what happened" and will not like the idea of being 'called a liar' because:
b. he did not lie
Eventually, the subject is told that he is not telling us everything that happened just before he left the home and may be provoked to admission.
Incidentally, do not miss the ready made excuse for the assault. Each person wants to find a way to excuse his errant behavior and the Interviewer must allow for this blaming: the baby was up all night and "everyone" was tired. Note two words that indicate this as an excuse rather than a fact: "think" and "might" reduce commitment.
Give the subject his reason to excuse his behavior if it means an admission or a confession.