Since most deception is via withheld information, the majority of the statement is often reliable for investigation. It is in this area that we often find hints of "leakage" and training can teach the investigator how to promote this leakage, especially when the interviewer understands the basics of the personalty type being interviewed.
Some of the techniques are commonly known, such as 'sharing' of guilt and/or responsibility, a la your fourth grader who changes his pronoun from "I" to "we" in order to dissipate the guilt by watering it down with a crowd. Moms know this almost as well as fourth grade school teachers.
The challenge comes when the investigator has had enough training and enough practice that he or she will begin a natural "profiling" of personalty type.
A far-more-common personality type than known is the aggressive bully who "seeks his own above others", that is, holds to a personal ambition that appears almost blind to the "rules of life", including even legal restraints upon their ambitions. To even know the "type" of person being interviewed, is to have a great advantage in employing strategy to obtain the truth. This specific type often will reveal a personal belief that he, or she in this case, considers herself above the standards of others, with a different twist on the typical "liar's contempt" often cited.
Reading it can be challenging.
This is, perhaps, best seen when a social services professional excels at Statement Analysis, such as a social worker, therapist, psychologist, and so on. When police work is met with psychology, the efficiency can sky rocket in criminal psychology first employing statement analysis, but then the integration of its principles can (and should!) reach the level where it is no longer "employed" but always active.
The professional recognizes certain personality types will employ certain deception techniques coupled with the withholding of information.
This is because silence unnerves the deceptive subject.
First, because we are created to communicate and it is something that we must do. It is a human burden and the brain is designed in such as way as to canabalize itself when communication is cut off. This is where acute segregation, such as in prisoner of war campaigns, will yield more information than even torture, and can lead to mental illness.
I approach every interview with the presupposition that the subject wants to tell me everything I want and need to know, and then some.
I also know the subject is counting on me to interpret, rather than 'listen' to the choice of words used.
Certain personality types will use specific methods of deception that they have successfully used since childhood, and have developed through trial and error, especially those of above average intelligence.
One such technique is to 'control the interview.'
Most commonly taught, investigators are told to not allow the subject to "control" the interview, and most commonly implemented, this is a huge mistake.
In Analytical Interviewing, we seek to almost never interrupt a rambling subject knowing that even though he may be employing the "tangent" method of deception, he still must access his memory bank of words to do so, which can result in valuable leakage of information.
On the other hand, the subject cannot be allowed to move the topic outside the realm of the allegation, due, especially in time constraints.
When no time constraint exists, I will outlast any subject.
If he chooses to go off into a rambling tangent and I am not limited by time, I am prepared to 'stay the course' and obtain a confession. I bring small amounts of food with me, to make sure that, as hours pass, my sugar levels do not fall to where my concentration wanes, for example, and will even use bathroom breaks to 'accompany' the subject, right to the door, because the interview is not over.
The tangent, however, can be a very difficult technique to combat, and there are often time constraints that must be recognized. There are different remedies for such, and in this case, we do not let the subject control the interview.
Too often the mandate to not allow the subject to control the interview equates to the loss of valuable information. If a time restraint is upon you, carefully choose your remedy.
A. Return to topic at hand by simple diversion. Make certain that you have written down (even when recorded) any new language introduced during the interview. You must return to these words, in this interview, and ask about them, even if it appears you are following the red herring away from the topic. Even allowing the subject to believe he has successfully drawn you away can be a good technique, reducing his defensive guard, and catching him off guard when you appear to have "suddenly" asked a relevant or direct question.
B. Ask questions, using the subject's own language from within his tangent to seek connection to the allegation. This is where "leakage" is obtained and requires a separate teaching, in advanced Analytical Interviewing training.
The Challenge is plain:
With confidence, the Interviewer may challenge the subject.
"I have noticed that each time I have addressed the allegation, you have talked about sports, instead. As I have brought you back to the allegation, you have returned to the topic of sports.
You appear to have a special need to avoid addressing the allegation."
This is a shot that must be carefully chosen and only after other techniques have failed. It now tells the subject, "I am on to you."
Nancy Grace will use an abbreviated form of this which is necessary due to the hard commercial breaks that must be upheld. It is a shortcut that we often avoid, but, for example, in her interviews with Billie Jean Dunn, she had no choice.
Huma Abedin works for Hillary Clinton, who's pattern of lying shows a pathology all its own. For Ms. Clinton, her language is one of incessant deception; that is, habitual, and with 'lesser' interruptions of processing speed than expected. She has a well-above average intelligence so that when she appears 'flustered' by a question or topic, she is put 'off her game' and very likely into deception. Ms. Clinton, like many other leaders from all walks of life where authority is obtained, her words show a disconnect between lawful submission and activity: that is plainly stated: She appears to be someone who believes herself to be above the expectations of lawful adherence, as if laws do not apply to her, even when she may seek to impose them upon others.
Most of us have experienced someone like this in our lifetime; whether it be someone we knew from childhood who spoke (and acted) as if rules in school didn't apply to him, or someone we worked for who seemed as if "untouchable" by consequence. It is likely that we all have met, dealt with, or even had some difficultly in dealing with someone like this.
If you worked for someone like this, the level of difficult you experienced was likely directly related to how close in authority you were. If you were a distant subordinate, the impact of negativity kept you on your guard, but if you were somewhat close in authority, you were faced with a "black and white" choice, with little "gray" existing between choices: Either yield to the belief and embrace it, or resist it and suffer acute stress and eventually change in status. In dealing with one who believes himself or herself above "the law" (which can include rules, social mores, etc, as it is not limited to just civil laws), there is little room for neutrality. Liars are always difficult to cope with and in employment the common mantra is "go along to get along", with resistance very challenging.
I knew of one bureaucrat who literally bullied his way through meetings with those who were peers but with management one level above him in authority. His technique was not the tangent, but the actual outright bullying of a particular target: women.
Each meeting he carefully "scoped the landscape" and if the meeting was mostly women:
He would aggressively argue his point, raise his voice, slam his fist on the table and watch the reaction. If the female superior showed the slightest signal of fear, he continued, and would then move to berated whatever position she held. He used this method for advancement successfully. One of his former superiors retired when her health could no longer withstand the onslaughts, as her complaints were met with, "put your big boy pants on", "we are all grown ups", "hey, this is serious budget debates", which, for this quiet, intellectual, meant constant insults.
When she did stand up to him, he declared the meeting "over", with "no progress made" only to leave the manager now targeted by her own superiors for "wasting time."
When she finally got her own superiors to attend a meeting, her nerves were fried. Her own superiors saw her confidence fail and without surprise, the bully was a perfect gentleman, clever enough to know to tap his hand on the table, and show some "passion" in his voice; just enough to make her seem as one who was exaggerating out of jealousy.
What of the "eye witnesses" who were in the meetings? They were all met with, privately, by the bully, who "talked of promotions, progress" generously using the word "we", always.
I attended one of his meetings and saw his technique, as he ridiculed and demonized "someone who's name I won't mention" in a persuasive manner which said to the audience: "if you are not laughing, you are not one of us." What surprised me was the misogyny that his language revealed, was not challenged by those females 'close' to him in authority. This was part of the "no gray" zone of pressure.
His narcissistic and bullying manner, a bane to his own wife and children, was successfully employed in a bureaucracy, which does not have a "bottom line" that private business does, which sometimes reveals bullies because their success is often short-lived. His deception was evidenced in tangents that were "forceful" in nature, to the point where to disagree with him was not to disagree with an idea, but to personally disagree with everything he is, and everything he says. It is an "all or nothing" mentality that demanded allegiance in total, or status of enemy. It wasn't that you did not want a Coke, you wanted a Pepsi, instead, it was that you were his enemy.
The female superior that he destroyed did not know me personally, but of Statement Analysis and "wanted to talk."
This is something that those of you who endeavor to grow deeply in analysis will experience: just as you might think that liars want to avoid you, it is the very opposite to be found:
Truthful people will love talking to you. By "truthful", I speak of those who openly talk about their weaknesses, frailties and losses in life, just as they do with successes. This particular woman thought that I might "understand" what she had gone through, and although her retirement had been planned, its hastening wasn't, nor was she able to retire on her own terms. It was very sad, but, as all interviews are, it was a learning session for me. Truthful people like to talk to those who are discerning and discernment is the center of analysis.
But it is also that deceptive people may be drawn to you as well.
In law enforcement, officers regularly deal with internal bullies, hoping that they are not promoted, knowing how difficult they can make life for a job that is, itself, wrought with enough stress to tax the body's immune system without having to add in the deception of one who's personal ambition rises above "the rules" within the department. They can see some of their "success" was due to bullying, but know how difficult it is to speak up. I have had some officers disclose that if their superiors are intellectuals, they are able to present analysis in a well-received atmosphere, with superiors that are also driven to get to the truth, while others have a much greater challenge convincing their own superior of the value of, let's say, a single pronoun.
Bullies like shortcuts and are pragmatic. This goes against the very core of Analytical Interviewing which gets the most information from anyone, while not violating anyone's rights, nor by coercion. Because of its techniques, it requires a good, solid, well developed intellect, and it requires a quiet, patient mentality that says, "stupid like a fox, I will get to the truth, even if it means letting the subject walk all over me, leaving footprints on my scalp. I will get to the truth and I will get justice for his victim." This is the officer who remembers his or her oath: to protect and to serve. They rarely make the press, but they are the life blood of civility for communities. When a bullying type is promoted, especially one who has ambition that is "politically correct", meaning, appearance means more than truth, the work suffers.
In business, at least, enough negativity towards the bully can result in measurable morale drop: sales are down; customers driven away, or top sales professionals leave. In the bureaucracy, no such delineation exists and managers may, and often do, promote those who pose no threat to their own position. This is something the public is now beginning to understand as the number of government employees, percentage wise, increases in the US.
Huma Abedin and the State Department
Huma Abedin could not survive working for Hillary Clinton for as long as she did without embracing the same mentality towards the law that is consistent with all liars:
Recall that those who fabricate reality, hold you and I in contempt, presupposing that we are incapable of discerning their lie. All criminals, in this sense, have this element of 'superiority' over others, lest they would not lie as they do. Success in childhood built the pathology of deception, as the rebuke was absent, and often, the example of deception set.
Huma Abedin's wealth makes any form of theft or embezzlement seem needless, but this is only to reveal a lack of understanding of human nature. I owe much to a former manager who insisted that investigators hold tiny theft as high as great theft, as she understood that one who is successful at stealing $10, will eventually steal $10,000 if given the opportunity.
We sometimes see a celebrity arrested for shoplifting and marvel:
Why would she risk this? Is this a publicity stunt? Is it a 'cry for help'?
Recall the pizza parlor owner from Utah who said he was a victim of "homophobia" and had raised more than $23,000 in a "Go Fund Me" campaign. His words did not "connect" him to the attacks, and when he was confronted with this analysis, he confessed. His lawyer sought to publicly pressure officials by claiming it was a "cry for help."
It may have been, but it was also a crime and like Julie Baker of Baltimore, he may skate due to refunding the money, though his "fake hate" crime could cause future victims to fear being believed, and could serve as a deterrent to reporting.
Recently, a multi-millionaire actress announced she was suing a restaurant for millions of dollars for burning her.
Could she possibly use her celebrity status to obtain money, for an accident, that her hands did not earn? Or, is she seeking to jump start her stalled career by getting her name back in print?
If a restaurant is negligent, it should pay the medical bills ensued, and, perhaps, if a person has been unable to work because of the negligence, appropriate compensation. We may discuss justice, in this manner, but in her case, in a world where "gaming the system" has been taken to an almost art-form, and has been so commonly accepted, is there motivation well beyond justice? Should quotes enter the news, Statement Analysis will be listening, and will learn.
Human allegedly got illicit and illegally paid for time off and took a vacation, humorously (or sarcastically) called a "babymoon" in Europe.
She stood accused of embezzlement, howbeit on a much smaller scale than her net worth might suggest, but is she, too, "above the law" with entitled expectations that tax payers "owe her" some time in Europe to recreate?
Does she consider herself above the law?
We listen to her language.
We also then ask, "Is she above the law?"
This is not to say, "does her language reveal that she thinks she is above the law?" but what of the State Department's refusal to investigate and prosecute?
Here is what she told investigators when she was accused of embezzling thousands of dollars for her vacation. Listen carefully to the words employed, and the topics used, while considering the allegation:
“You are 100 percent right on the Babymoon. I don’t recall. 100 percent right. I don’t recall filling out any paperwork saying I was taking leave,” she told the investigators. “I’m not even going to blame it on my pregnancy brain.”
There is much here for analysis, but for the purpose of seeing the tangent, you know that Statement Analysis highlights "negation", that is, what someone says "in the negative" as sensitive, or important. The "thou shalt nots" are more forceful than instructions to do something
When a large window has a sign that says, "Do Not Throw Rocks", what is the first thing that comes into your mind?
We know that, from stats, the failure to remember is the number one deception in court. "I don't recall" used in court, Dr. Ekman found, was the top deceptive response.
When someone is giving an open statement, entering the free editing process, they should tell us what they know, not what they do not remember. If a single response to a direct question is, "I don't recall", we know we need more information for our analysis. Here, "I don't recall" comes after the assertion of investigators being "right" using a percentage, but anything that is repeated is sensitive for the subject:
A. "100 percent" is affirmed and repeated.
B. "I don't recall" is offered, and then repeated. We sometimes, with a touch of humor, ask how often someone can repeat not remembering before they confess remembering.
It is here that we note that she offers something in the negative for its importance.
She tells us what she will "not" blame: her child, as in the words, "pregnancy brain."
The analyst is already concerned about:
1. The use of percentage
2. The repetition of percentage
3. The assertion of not recalling
4. The repetition of not recalling
But now she introduces, in the negative, a tangent.
This is to exhibit the need for a tangent, as well as the introduction of a new topic: her pregnancy.
It is to exhibit a well-above average intelligence, as well.
This tangent is offered in the negative, and introduces the topic of pregnancy, child bearing, child birth, and so on, which is often associated with empathy.
How is this any different from a reckless driver pulled over by an officer only to cry while pointing to her large belly containing a pre born child, to attempt to elicit sympathy to influence the officer?
Next, after introducing the emotional tangent (I cannot help but feel sorry for a pregnant woman, but I recognize that not everyone is like me. This is a personal issue for me, and pregnancy itself, something I consider so noble, that I cannot help but think of the pregnant woman's discomforts, sleeplessness, aching back, and so on), comes:
a new topic. This was is also a tangent and does not provoke sympathy from me:
“My husband handles all the finances in our household,” she told investigators during a recorded interview in October 2014.
The article continues: Abedin and her lawyer maintain that she did work while she was on vacation. She claims a lot of work on unlikely days:
Investigators concluded the missing paperwork allowed Ms. Abedin, among other things, to be paid eight hours by taxpayers on the day she actually delivered her son, the documents show.
The article goes on to say that the Justice Department did not appear interested in investigating her.
What we take away from her quotes is the example of how one might use a tangent in an interview, to move the topic away from the allegation, and to, in this case, attempt to elicit emotional responses.
Knowing who her husband is, and having analyzed his own words, the inclusion (blaming) of him did not bring positive emotion to me, as did the inclusion, even in the negative, of her pregnancy.
One who believes herself to be above the law holds to a specific personality type that demands full and utter allegiance, or will take a hostile posture. There is no disagreeing with any specific topic: it is an "all or nothing" scenario only.
Hillary Clinton gives us many examples of deception to learn from, as well as insight into her personality and specific techniques of deception, but here we have someone close to her that may end up facing criminal charges, and who's words may also echo those of her boss:
That she believes herself above the law.