witnesses.
“I am not going to say anything
This is likely a lie. What the interviewee is
because I don’t trust the
really saying is that he is certain that the
company.”
only thing between him and the prospect
of discipline is his admission.
“I’d like to cooperate but I need
Innocent people do not need time to
more time to think about it.”
formulate a statement of innocence, only
guilty people do.
“I did not do this. But if it makes
An innocent person rarely will say this. An
any difference, I will repay the
innocent person finds it unconscionable
money.”
to pay for something they have not done.
In fact it is one of the reasons a truly
innocent person is often so cooperative.
They will generally provide the interviewer
assistance hoping to demonstrate their
innocence and avoid undeserved
punishment.
Figure 6.4 Deceptive responses.
Process of Overcoming Objections and Denials ◾ 169
In spite of the evidence against you, by maintaining your innocence you
give up three very valuable things. They include (1) the opportunity to offer any mitigating circumstances that might help understand your action and,
in turn, potentially reduce the punishment; (2) the opportunity to ask for
a second chance; and most importantly (3) the opportunity to say you are
sorry. Most troubling to management is your failure to say you are sorry.
Then the question:
If you were a decision maker, in this instance, who would you forgive— the
person who admitted he had made a mistake and said he was sorry, or the
person who hid behind a lie?
An answer of “I don’t know” is a tacit admission of guilt, and the interviewee
should be told so. If the subject answers correctly and says, “The person who told the truth,” the interviewer should ask: “Then, why haven’t you told the truth?” For some employers that may be too close to offering leniency in exchange for an admission.
Some employers may even think it is patently coercive. However, I think the approach and question is legitimate. It contemplates human nature’s distinction between right and wrong and our compulsion to say we are sorry when we have indeed made a
mistake. To blunt the assertion that the question is coercive, the interviewer should make it clear that he is not offering leniency in exchange for an admission. Instead, the interviewer should tell the interviewee that all he is seeking is the truth.
6.6 Indications of Deception
6.6.1 Lack of Self-Reference
It is well established that truthful people make frequent use of the pronoun “I”
to describe their actions: “I arrived home at noon. The phone was ringing as I
unlocked the front door, so I walked straight to the phone and answered it. It was my girlfriend and we talked about 10 minutes. I hung up and went to the kitchen to feed my dog. I then went into my office and discovered that both my TV and
computer were missing.” This brief statement contains the pronoun “I” four times in five sentences. On the other hand, deceptive people often use language that minimizes references to themselves. They commonly use what is called a passive voice.
◾ “A lot of people want her to come home,” rather than, “I want my wife to
come home.”
◾ “No saw the envelope,” rather than “I didn’t see the envelope.”
◾ “The safe was left unlocked,” rather than “I left the safe unlocked.”
◾ “The expense was authorized,” rather than “I authorized the expense.”
170 ◾ Investigative Interviewing
Another common way self-references are reduced is for the subject to substitute the pronoun “you” with “I.”
Question: “Can you tell me how purchase orders are approved?”
Answer: “You know, you try to look at the requisition, approval signatures, but sometimes when you’re really in a hurry, you just approve them.”
Deceptive interviewees sometimes omit all self-referencing pronouns and tor-
ture themselves and the English language to do so. Consider this statement by
a suspected embezzler: “So, at work early, no one is in yet. A little coffee, some paperwork and BANG, there it is, the safe is wide open. Who knew? You gotta
think there is a problem. You know, people just don’t leave safes open at night.
Hey, you don’t think you know who had something to do with it, do you?” Notice
first the absence of “I” and the lack of general specificity. The hour of the morning is not mentioned, the type of paperwork performed is not mentioned, yet he says,
“People just don’t leave safes open at night,” when, in fact, it is discovered open in the morning. The astute interviewer would ask how did he know the safe was left open at night?
6.6.2 Verb Tense
Truthful people typically describe historical events in the past tense. Deceptive people sometimes refer to past events as if the events were occurring in the present (like the example above). Describing past events using the present tense suggests that people are rehearsing the events in their mind. Skilled investigative interviewers pay particular attention to points in a narrative when the speaker shifts tense inappropriately. Consider the following statement made by a supervisor claiming that a pouch containing $5,000 in cash was stolen before he could deliver it to a drop box.
After closing, I put the pouch in my truck and drove to the First Bank
branch on State Street. At the bank you enter the parking lot and drive
around back to the drop box. When I get to the back and park, this guy
jumps out and comes toward me. He has a gun, see, and grabs the pouch
just like that. In seconds he is gone. I wasn’t scared but I called the police anyway. On the way home, I called my boss and told him what happened” (emphasis added for the reader’s benefit).
Notice the mixed use of past and present tense. At the moment the crime alleg-
edly occurs, the interviewee switches from past tense to present tense. This likely occurs because this portion of the story is false. Also note the additional suspicious failure to self-reference in: “… you enter the parking lot and drive around back. ”
Process of Overcoming Objections and Denials ◾ 171
6.6.3 Answering Questions with a Question
For some of the reasons mentioned earlier, even liars prefer not to lie. Outright lies carry the risk of detection. Before answering a question with a lie, a deceptive person usually will try to avoid answering the question with a question of his own.
Often these questions contain a veiled threat or an accusation of their own. Here are a couple of examples:
◾ “You really think I’m stupid, don’t you?”
◾ “Are you crazy, that’s against the law?”
◾ “If you knew you would get fired, why would somebody do that?”
◾ “You better not be calling me a liar.”
These responses are intended to both deceive and intimidate the interviewer.
Also notice that the responses reveal a pseudo-pride. A pride that is fabricated and based on the assertion that being called a liar is an insult of intolerable proportion.
It is phony and the technique is obvious.
6.6.4 Equivocation
Using this technique, the subject avoids the interviewer’s questions by filling his or her responses with expressions of uncertainty, confusion, and vagueness. The interviewee includes words such as: think, guess, sort of, maybe, might, approximately, about, or perhaps in their response. This vagueness is an atte
mpt to create the appearance of lack of memory while seeming agreeable. If boxed in, it allows the interviewee to later modify or alter their assertion as more evidence against them is revealed.
Using equivocating (noncommittal) verbs and adverbs such as: think, believe, guess, suppose, figure, assume, almost, and mainly are indicators of deception.
6.6.5 Oaths
The most classic deception is the use of oaths. Oaths are used to reinforce a statement of guiltlessness. Users of this technique want the interviewer to believe they are innocent and what they say is true. Deceptive subjects often use oaths to try to make their statements sound more convincing. Lacking their own credibility, they attempt to use that of others, such as parents, God, or any higher power. Users of this technique say things like: “I swear to God,” “God is my witness,” “On my children’s grave,” or “I cross my heart.” Truthful individuals are more confident that the facts will prove the veracity of their assertions of innocence and feel less need to fortify their statements with oaths.
172 ◾ Investigative Interviewing
6.6.6 Euphemisms
Most languages, English included, offer alternative terms for almost any action or situation. Statements made by those who are guilty often use alternative terms to describe their behavior in an attempt to lessen its seriousness. Euphemisms por-tray the subject’s behavior in a more favorable light and minimize the apparent harm his actions might have caused. Here is a short list of synonyms I have seen frequently used:
◾ Borrowed or took in place of stole
◾ Bumped, in place of hit, slapped, or inappropriately touched
◾ Warned or told, in place of threatened or insulted.
6.6.7 Lack of Narrative Balance
A narrative consists of three components: a prologue, event description, and epilogue. The prologue contains background information and describes events that
took place before the event in question. The event description is the most important component of any narrative. The epilogue describes what happened after the event.
It is used to tie up loose ends and complete the narrative. In a complete and truthful narrative, the balance will be approximately 25 percent prologue, 50 percent event description, and 25 percent epilogue. Typically, if one component is significantly shorter than these percentages, it can be assumed important information has been omitted. If one component of the narrative is significantly longer than expected, it may contain additional information that is false or misleading. The following statement is suspiciously out of balance. It is a case involving the disappearance of cargo: The truck was loaded by the night crew. I would assume Bobby and Jose
did most of the loading because they always load my route. I arrived exactly at 8 a.m., punched in and picked up my route slip in shipping. Tom and I
chatted a minute about the game and his fishing trip last weekend. I did
a walk-around on my truck and checked the tires, cargo doors, spare tire,
you know the usual stuff, and left the terminal heading north on Interstate 25 at exactly 8:47 a.m. When I got to my first stop, I noticed the load was light. I called dispatch immediately and reported it. I then returned to the terminal and got in at about 2:30 p.m. That’s about it, what else do you
want to know?
Notice the amount of detail early in the narrative. Without accusing anyone,
the driver even identifies for the interviewer people that he should interview (Bobby and Jose). But, the driver fails to say where and when he arrived at his “first stop.”
He states that he noticed the load was “light,” but fails to even suggest what or how much of the load is apparently missing. Then, without providing another useful
Process of Overcoming Objections and Denials ◾ 173
detail, he states he arrives at the terminal at 2:30 p.m. Effectively, all that takes place between 8:47 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. is a mystery and left unexplained. Merely from this narrative a good fact finder should suspect the driver, not the night crew, of involvement in the missing cargo.
6.7 Deception Detection Technology
Man’s pursuit of the truth and the detection of deception has been an endless
endeavor. Recorded history reveals that the ancients employed ingenious meth-
ods to separate truth-tellers from liars. Some methods, such as the dunking of
suspected witches, were simply cruel and illogical. Others carefully leveraged the human psyche and exploited the subconscious inability to maintain innocence
when guilty. A good example is ancient India (500 BCE) where it is said a priest put lampblack on the tail of a donkey in a dark room. One at a time, suspects
were to enter the room and pull the magic donkey’s tail. They were told that when the one who was the thief pulled the magic donkey’s tail, he would speak and be heard throughout the temple. Fearing detection, rarely did the real thief ever pull the donkey’s tail. He, of course, would have clean hands when exiting the room, pronounced the thief, and he would be punished.
Of all of the forensic deception detection tools available today, the most well known is the polygraph. Similar to the methods employed by our ancestors, the polygraph al ows a peak into the subject’s mind as well as his body. According to Dictionary.com:
[The polygraph is an] instrument designed to record bodily changes
resulting from the telling of a lie. Cesare Lombroso, in 1895, was the
first to utilize such an instrument, but it was not until 1914 and 1915
that Vittorio Benussi, Harold Burtt, and, above all, William Marston
produced devices establishing correlation of blood pressure and respira-
tory changes with lying. In 1921, an instrument capable of continu-
ously recording blood pressure, respiration, and pulse rate was devised
by John Larson. This was followed by the polygraph (1926) of Leonarde
Keeler, a refinement of earlier devices, and by the psychogalvanometer
(1936) of Walter Summers, a machine that measures electrical changes
on the skin.
Since its invention, the polygraph and its use have been controversial. The polygraph is most widely used today by law enforcement. More than one half of the
large police departments in the United States use polygraph for preemployment
screening.9 For decades, the law enforcement community has successfully used
polygraph testing as an investigative tool. Here are the ways law enforcement has traditionally used the polygraph:
174 ◾ Investigative Interviewing
◾ Verify the statements of witnesses and victims
◾ Establish the credibility of witnesses
◾ Evaluate truthfulness
In the private sector, the polygraph is most effectively used to help exonerate an innocent person suspected as the result of circumstantial evidence. In fact, this is the only way I use polygraph testing today. For example, instead of testing the most obvious suspect, I typically would test everyone else in the possible pool of suspects.
This strategy will likely accomplish several things: (1) exonerates the innocent, (2) help achieve the standard of proof necessary to take disciplinary action absent an admission, and (3) removes the possibility that the suspect will refuse a polygraph test and subsequently claim the discipline he received was not because of his guilt, but instead, because he had refused to take the test. To appreciate the latter, the reader should know that disciplining an employee for refusing to submit to a polygraph exam is unlawful.10
Trap: Requesting an employee, on whom one already has sufficient evidence to justify discipline, submit to a polygraph exam is very risky. Should the individual refuse and then be disciplined, he may claim his treatment was unlawful. It would appear that he was disciplined for refusing the exam, not his misconduct.
The employer would then need to explain why it wanted the test, when it already had sufficient evidence to justify and sustain the discip
line. Under these circumstances, the discipline would likely appear retaliatory and thus unlawful.
6.7.1 Employee Polygraph Protection Act
The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2001-2009 virtu-
ally prohibits all private sector preemployment polygraph testing. The Act (sometimes referred to as the EPPA) bars most private-sector employers from requiring, requesting, or suggesting that an employee or job applicant submit to a polygraph or lie detector test, and from using or accepting the results of such tests.11 The Act further prohibits employers from disciplining, discharging, or discriminating against any employee or applicant (a) that refuses to take a lie detector test, (b) based on the results of such a test, or (c) for taking any actions to preserve employee rights under the Act.
The Act contains several limited exceptions to the general ban on polygraph
testing, one of which permits the testing of prospective employees of security guard firms. A second exemption is for employers that manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances. The third exemption is the most important to private employers. It permits the testing of current employees who are reasonably suspected of involvement in a workplace incident that resulted in economic loss or injury
Process of Overcoming Objections and Denials ◾ 175
to the employer’s business.12 Thus, in situations involving a specific issue of economic loss or injury wherein an employer has reasonable suspicion of a particular employee, the employer may test. In order to do so, however, the employer must:
◾ be engaged in an ongoing investigation involving economic loss or injury to
its business
◾ be able to show that the employee to be tested had access to the property in question
◾ show it has a reasonable suspicion that the employee to be tested was involved in the incident
The Act goes further. In part, it requires the employee be given written notice of the date, time, and location of the test and what is to be asked at least 48 hours before the examination. The examiner must not deviate from the questions originally proposed and may not offer conclusions or opinions that are not relevant to the purpose and stated objectives of the test. Furthermore, neither the polygraph test results nor an employee’s refusal to submit to an exam can provide the sole basis for discharge, discipline, a refusal to promote, or any other form of adverse employment action.
Investigative Interviewing: Psychology, Method and Practice Page 27