Deception Detection is a science based upon principle.
Principles serve the analyst to bring about a conclusion. The accuracy rate of those self disciplined is at or near 100%. If the sample is too small for a conclusion, the analyst does not conclude Veracity nor Deception.
How many points of sensitivity can you find in the following denial?
What do they mean?
Each point should be identified and classified; use a short explanation when necessary.
What is your conclusion?
Is it reliable?
Is it unreliable?
It is "not reliable", meaning we need more sample?
Is it "Deception Indicated"?
Context: The subject, a CEO of a large business had groomed his protege and assumed successor to take over the company upon his retirement. This was something the Board of Directors had long given positive feedback over, in spite of the person's history, which has a lengthy history of financial fraud and exploitation. The intended successor had never been indicted in any of the alleged crimes. One of the accusations was that he was accepting large payments from foreign investors in exchange for "sweetheart" business agreements.
The assumed successor was now under federal investigation for fraud, illegal disclosure (insider trading), conspiracy ("quid pro quo" agreements) and other crimes due to powerful political influences to benefit the successor and the company.
Two law enforcement entities were investigating at once; Federal law enforcement and Federal regulators.
In this publicly traded company, as well as a formal agreement with the federal investigators and his own Board of Trustees, the type of investigation had to be independent of his office.
The CEO was to have no connection, contact nor communication, including briefs, with this crucial investigation.
This meant an utter black out of information between the accused and the CEO (subject) as well as no contact between the actual investigators (two teams) for the government entities and himself.
With many suspicious of the CEO's history of control, he was accused of "overseeing" the investigation. There have been investigations previously but without resolution, indictment, closure, etc. Shareholders had become increasingly concerned about corruption on many levels, bringing their investments into question. If true, millions of investigators, via mutual fund investing, would be impacted. It would be the largest coverup in the company's history, eroding confidence from investigators in the United States as well as the world markets.
Accusation: Violation of No Communication: he, the subject, is accused of using his influence to have contact with investigators to corrupt the finding.
When the subject was asked about interfering or influencing the investigation he made this statement. Please note that the last 3 sentences came as an interruption to the journalist. As such, his denial is listed as continuous:
" I promise that there is no interference in any investigation conducted by either the federal investigators nor the regulatory board investigators, not just in this case but in any case. That's it. No more. I promise."
What can you tell from the subject's words.
Please put your findings in the comments section, explaining each point made.
For training in deception detection, visit Hyatt Analysis Services