|I recently heard that pictures of "dogs and horses" increases readership. Is this true? Or, does it refer to puppies?|
It is rare (though not non-existent) for one to lie outright. The ego appears to 'protect itself' from being accused of lying through a complicated process which takes place in microseconds within the brain. This is why we seek to allow the language to guide us and often conclude:
The subject is deceptive, though every sentence is truthful.
Actions can deceive. Faking illness to avoid attending an unpleasant social gathering constitutes deception. Temporal distortions constitute deception.
When I was a boy, it was common for kids to get together socially during the time period they were supposed to be at church.
On occasions of such deception, kids would stop off at church, pick up the dated announcement bulletin, and then meet somewhere else.
Time at church: less than 2 minutes.
Time at social gathering: More than 1 hour.
Upon returning home, the teenager announces, "I'm home from church" while dropping the bulletin, with its critical date, on the kitchen table.
"I'm home" is truthful.
"...from church" is also truthful, since the subject did, in fact, go to the church and had the visible proof in his hands.
He has not lied, but he has been deceptive. He knows that his parents will believe he spent his entire time at church. It is the missing information that is critical.
We saw this in Shawn Adkins' varied responses about him "going to work" the day murder victim Hailey Dunn was reported missing.
He showed up at work, knew exactly where to go to be seen on video, bought a soda, and left. He had other things to attend to that fateful day in which Hailey Dunn's remains needed to be disposed.
When asked why he did not report going to his grandmother's, he answered that he was not asked "where else" he went. This is a strong reminder for investigators to be mindful of the temporal lacuna, the missing "space" of time within language. "And then..." or "Next thing I knew..." and "After that..."
Adkins blamed investigators for not knowing that he went to other locales that day.
Acts of omission constitute deception.
Deliberately withholding or suppressing information by the subject to cause the recipients (audience/Interviewer) of communications to believe something is true when it is not, constitutes deception.
True statements carefully edited within micro seconds can formulate a lie. This is far more common than a direct, confrontational (internally confrontational) lie. 90% + deception is via this mode.
A person wants to get cash or store credit for a stolen item and speaks to the clerk and says,
"I just spoke to your manager. I'd like to return this item"
What does this imply?
It is intended to deceive the clerk that the manager gave permission or authorization for the fraudulent return, when in fact, the subject did speak to the manager and asked where a certain item could be found.
Technically, it is not a lie.
This is a process that takes place very quickly.
The deception is seen within the missing information. How can something be seen when it is missing?
It is the linguistic indicators that must be pounced upon, as well as the thorough understanding of Analytical Interviewing:
that a subject is not likely to lie outright, but to deceive by withholding or suppressing information. Therefore, the proper questioning is necessary.
"What time did you go to the airport?" the detective asked OJ Simpson.
"The first time?" Simpson answered the question with a question, quickly recovering himself, without the detective following up on the 'error' by Simpson, indicating that he began a first trip to the airport, which was disrupted (change of plans when he went to his ex wife's home) only to go to the airport a second time.
We highlight deception in the "intent to deceive" within language.