Fraud Triangle
6.4 Why Some People Lie
It is not a secret that the outcome of the investigatory interview is likely to result in discipline. This potential outcome is not lost on the interviewee. Even the most honest and well-meaning offender may be tempted to lie in order to avoid punishment. To be successful, the interviewer must be able to provide the inter-viewee a credible reason to believe that cooperating and telling the truth will
benefit him. That is, the interviewee must be motivated to tell the truth. That motivation or incentive must be sufficient to overcome the potential benefits of lying. On both a conscious and subconscious level, the interviewee conducts a risk-benefit analysis. If the benefits of telling the truth outweigh the benefits of lying, the subject will tell the truth. Classic responses indicating just the oppo-site include:
◾ “The way I was raised …”
◾ “My Daddy told me to never …”
◾ “You know, I’ve got a family to feed.”
◾ “Why would I lie?”
◾ “You haven’t shown me anything. Where is the proof?”
◾ “If I did it, prove it.”
These responses provide incredible insight into the mind of the interviewee.
Notice that the interviewee does not offer anything useful that might prove their innocence. Instead, he demands proof of his guilt. Here is what is likely not said when these responses are offered:
◾ “The way I was raised … I am guilty and learned that lying works. People who tell the truth always get punished.”
◾ “My Daddy told me to never … I am guilty, but my Daddy taught me to never tell the truth, truthful people are stupid.”
◾ “You know, I’ve got a family to feed … I am guilty, but, if I tell the truth and lose my job, feeding my family will be more difficult.”
◾ “Why would I lie? Let me count the reasons: save my job, avoid punishment, protect my reputation, stay out of jail, keep my kids, keep the money I’ve stolen, save my marriage, and get over on a chump like you.”
◾ “You haven’t shown me anything. Where is the proof? I am guilty and I am stalling. Even if you show your proof to me, I’ll claim it proves nothing.
Moreover, if you show me your evidence now, I will be able to fabricate a bet-ter alibi and lie my way out of this mess labet-ter.”
◾ “If I did it, prove it. I am guilty and I know you know it. But, I suspect your proof against me is weak and you need me to confess. I’ve learned that chal-lenging my accuser, I almost always go unpunished.”
In other words, it is often useful to listen to what is not said as much as one lis-tens to that which is said. Here is something else to ponder—innocent people very rarely ask to see the evidence. They recognize such a question is rhetorical because if they are indeed innocent, they know that there is no evidence. Generally the request to see the evidence is made only by guilty people. The guilty want to see the amount and quality of proof that has been gathered against them in order to more effectively challenge it. They know from experience that their failure to know the
evidence possessed by their accuser makes effective lying very difficult. By saying too much without knowing all of the evidence gathered, it is too easy to say some-thing wrong and be trapped. Thus, very often the guilty will confront their accuser with: “I’m not going to answer another question until you show me some proof.”
Tip: People lie because they believe that lying provides more benefits than telling the truth. The interviewer needs to appeal to the interviewee on the conscience and subconscious level and convince them that telling the truth is more beneficial than lying.
Warning signs of deception include:
◾ Using language to mask an untruth, such as “to tell the truth” or “hon-estly speaking”
◾ A selective memory
◾ The inability to recall even nonincriminating facts or circumstances
◾ Avoiding eye contact or appearing to be visually looking for an answer
◾ Offering useless and irrelevant comments or details
◾ Inconsistent, evasive responses
◾ Body language and mannerisms that are inconsistent with one who is telling the truth
Tip: The use of rationalization or projection is a means by which the subject attempts to make their behavior understandable and socially acceptable. By assist-ing the interviewee find a rationalization or to project blame onto another person is often critical in obtaining a confession.
Deceptive behaviors include:
◾ Overly anxious: tapping feet, clicking teeth, bobbing knee, constantly look-ing at the clock
◾ Unconcerned: the lint-picker, whistling, rolling eyes, grooming self, inspect-ing nails
◾ Defensive: demanding proof, evidence, or the identity of witnesses
◾ Evasive: memory loss, vague, aloof
◾ Guarded: uses qualified answers, suspicious, questions interviewer’s intentions
◾ Complaining: room too hot, too cold, thirsty, body pain, headache
◾ Angry or arrogant: in your face, disrespectful, argumentative
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.