Regrettably, when one does not go beyond the basics, errors are unavoidable. A Reliable Denial is not a set of “magic words” that, once said, ends the issue.
Recall Governor Chris Christie’s speech on “Bridgegate” where he spoke for almost 40 minutes before issuing a denial. For some, the “magic words formula” cleared him. It did not clear him of the denial of having knowledge of the delays.
The Reliable Denial consists of three components.
If it has less than 3, or more than 3, it is no longer reliable. It simply means that if the subject didn’t do it, he is not communicating this very well.
Context is key.
An item of jewelry went missing from a store in which the tag was found on the floor.
Denial A
“I know I didn’t steal it. I didn’t. I know I didn’t steal it. Why would I? Why would I when I have a husband that will buy me any jewelry I want, any time. Look at my jewelry. Do I look like a shoplifter to you?”
Denial B
“I know I didn’t take it. I came in here to shop for jewelry. I was minding my own business when the manager come running over here and gets in my face, blocking the door. I am shopping for my fiancé and our anniversary.
Denial C
“Well, here is what happened. I was at the store shopping when this manager starts yelling that I have the ring and give it back. I says to him ‘I didn’t steal any ring’ and what are you talking about? Why would I steal a ring? I am minding my own business there and this guy is nuts like I did it.”
The investigator must carefully listen and do his best avoiding interpretation. As human nature is complex, so is human language and although he may interview all 3 suspects, it is vital to remember some things in the Quality of a Denial
1. When did the denial appear?
2. How long did it take the subject to issue it?
3. Before he issued it, was the subject aware of the accusation?
4. If so, what did he say to it?
5. How often did the subject avoid issuing a reliable denial before finally issuing it? This is a judgment by the analyst that reduces the chances of being taken by the “magic words” notion.
*Please note:
Humans do a very unreliable job at recounting conversations. They are recounted in a most unreliable manner.
Why?
Interpretation.
In listening to audio recordings of my interviews and comparing them to my dictation, I found that I often corrected grammar.
Yet, this is only a small section of that which can go wrong.
When we relay conversations with others, we are notoriously unreliable unless we take great pains to recall (which means hormonal increase due to emotion; emotion, itself, can work against us), because we often report what we think the person meant, and what we wished we had said.
A striking example of honesty in this area is the self correction that comes, often later, in the recall process.
“I don’t think I told him to stay put. I meant that but what I said was ‘hold on.’ I apologize.”
Note carefully: There are lots of issues in the 3 denials but specifically:
Denial C
“Well, here is what happened. I was at the store shopping when this manager starts yelling that I have the ring and give it back. I says to him ‘I didn’t steal any ring’ and what are you talking about? Why would I steal a ring? I am minding my own business there and this guy is nuts like I did it.”
This is unreliable report of conversation.
It may have been said; it may have been said something like this, or it may have been what he thought he said, or even what he wished he said or even…
what he is thinking now.
He did not deny stealing the jewelry. That is not what he said.
He only reported what he said.
The “magic words” mistake is easy to commit, and more common than should be.
Interestingly enough, the subject who avoids issuing a reliable denial but finally stumbles upon it, will often repeat it, almost like a mantra, gaining ‘strength’ in his lie. If you listen carefully as the repetition goes by, you will often find a slight alteration to it, as well as it used in combination with avoidance techniques.
Next up: the confirmation of the denial in the strength of a Reliable Denial.
Comments From Our Readers