Fraud Triangle
6.5 Confront Objections and Overcome Denials
It is well established that the greater the consequences, the greater the tempta-tion to minimize one’s guilt or deny guilt completely. Those who are guilty fre-quently try to psychologically distance themselves from the offense. They will frequently refer to the victim in the third person, awkwardly avoiding the use of their name or revealing their connection with them. For example, Patsy Ramsey, the mother of murdered child celebrity JonBenet, repeatedly referred to her slain daughter as that child when speaking in public. Curiously, Mrs. Ramsey seemed unable to bring herself to say my baby or my JonBenet. Subsequently, we saw Mark Peterson, the philandering cad accused of murdering his pregnant wife and unborn son, when talking to the media said of his wife, “A lot of people want her to come home.” Peterson also seems to have difficulty saying, I want my wife to come home.
Killers like Peterson can be so consumed by guilt that they are unable to person-ally identify with those who were once the most important people in their lives. In another murder case involving a child victim, the stepfather suspected of molesting and then killing the toddler told the police, “I would never hurt that child.” Notice that the suspect substitutes the word hurt for murder and words that child for the child’s name.
In a recent case of mine, an office manager suspected of stealing an envelope stuffed with cash that had been pushed through a door slot after the close of busi-ness, repeatedly told my interviewer, “I did not see the money on the floor.” A curious answer for anyone asked did you take the money. Again, analyze what the subject is saying. First, he was not asked if he saw the money, he was asked if he took the money. Second, the money was never on the floor, the envelope containing the money was on the floor. Factually, the manager’s response was truthful. However, he failed to answer the question. Figure 6.3 shows a few of the more common psycho-linguistic differences frequently encountered when dealing with truthful and deceptive individuals.
People lie for another reason as well. They lie because of fear. That fear includes the fear of losing one’s job, punishment, humiliation, embarrassment, and castiga-tion. Fear can be a terrific force. It can either motivate us or inhibit us. The inves-tigative interviewer’s job is to assist the interviewee overcome that fear and share the truth.
In the context of investigatory interviews, the best way to learn what one is afraid of is to ask. The question might be proposed as follows. “Bobby, it is not uncommon in these circumstances that people are afraid of losing their job, going to jail or being shunned by their friends. However, most often our worst fears never come true. Are you afraid you will be fired?”
By approaching the obstacle in this fashion, I have articulated some of the com-mon fears people face in these circumstances. Even if my suppositions are incorrect,
Truthful Deceptive
Rich in details. Vague, few details.
First person singular, past tense. Inconsistent first person singular.
Speaks in both present and past tense.
Uses possessive pronouns such as,
“My daughter.”
Lack of possessive pronouns. Instead says, “The child.”
Proper characterization of the victim…”My daughter.”
Improper characterization of the victim…”She…”
Appropriate emotions at the right time.
Inappropriate emotions. No emotions at all.
Wants truth known. Actively seeks to find it.
Wants truth hidden. Claims to seek the truth, but actions indicate otherwise.
Tries to assist and focus the investigation.
Provides little useful information;
attempts to broaden the
investigation. Casts a wider net than is necessary.
Committed to innocence and alibi. Not committed to innocence or alibi.
Will offer multiple alibis. Passive when asked tough questions.
Expressive and speaks with conviction.
Detached and evasive.
Admits the opportunity to commit the crime.
Denies the opportunity. Overstates inability to commit the crime.
Argues actual innocence. Identifies facts which support innocence.
Argues legal innocence. Raises legal defensives, while ignoring the facts.
Figure 6.3 Comparison of truthful and deceptive behaviors.
I will likely draw the interviewee out and encourage him to tell me his fear. Once the fear is identified, in most instances, it can be addressed. While it is improper to minimize the seriousness of the offense or the possibility of punishment, the interviewer can put these matters into proper perspective. For example, the fear of losing one’s job is not as frightening if one knows other employment is readily available. Alternatively, the fear of going to jail may be exaggerated and not even a mere possibility. Only talking about it can the interviewer address the interviewee’s fears and possibly overcome them.
A denial also can be overcome by appealing to the subject’s sense of integrity. A rational person knows that lying often makes matters worse. They know that lying ultimately complicates things and, in the end, the truth almost always prevails.
Here is one approach to overcome this challenge:
While I cannot tell you what will happen when this investigation is over, the worst mistake someone can make is lying when others know they are guilty. Your decision not to tell the truth will not minimize what you have done. It will not make it go away or remove your guilt. In addition to what you already have done, you will have to deal with the prospect of being known as a liar. Which behavior do you think management least likes, _ or lying?
This creates a fascinating psychological dilemma for the interviewee. It is similar to what I refer to as my liar’s paradox.8 My version of the liar’s paradox goes like this:
In order to avoid punishment for breaking one policy, you have chosen to break another. Giving your choice more thought, which policy do you believe to be more important, the one you broke or our policy against lying?
Another question to ask someone who clings to their innocence in the face of considerable evidence against them is: “How is it we can know with certainty you are not lying today?”
This question causes the subjects to ponder the gravity of their guilt without calling them a liar. If the response questions whether the interviewer is calling the interviewee a liar, the response to him might be: “No. However, in light of the amount of evidence that points to your guilt, it is impossible to understand how you are innocent.”
This line of questioning will frequently elicit a tacit admission. This type of admission comes in a variety of forms. Within the answer provided by the inter-viewee, he only will imply or infer guilt. For example, the interviewee might use one of the phrases in Figure 6.4.
The last question I ask someone who cannot find the ability to tell the truth begins with a statement:
“O.K., then show me the evidence.”
An innocent person knows there is no evidence and would not ask to see something which does not exist.
“If I am guilty, then why haven’t they fired me?”
This question tests the interviewer’s confidence in his evidence. It also suggests that the interviewer has not convinced the interviewee of the quality of his investigation or the evidence it produced.
“Show me what you’ve got and then I will tell the truth.”
This is a trap. The interviewee has no intention of telling the truth but wants to see the evidence against him. No quantity of evidence will cause this interviewee to provide an admission.
“Tell me the names of the people who talked about me and then I will cooperate.”
This is also a trap. The interviewee wants to know the interviewer’s source of information in order to size up the quality of evidence against him. He may also want the information in order to intimidate witnesses.
“I am not going to say anything because I don’t trust the company.”
This is likely a lie. What the interviewee is really saying is that he is certain that the only thing between him and the prospect of discipline is his admission.
“I’d like to cooperate but I need more time to think about it.”
Innocent people do not need time to formulate a statement of innocence, only guilty people do.
“I did not do this. But if it makes any difference, I will repay the money.”
An innocent person rarely will say this. An innocent person finds it unconscionable 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.
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.