By Timothy Hardiman
How can you tell when someone is lying? It’s an age-old question for law enforcement officers and a skill that requires a high-level of training and practice to master. During my study of the topic and extensive experience conducting interviews as a law enforcement officer, I believe it is difficult for investigators to be able to detect deception in routine interviews and interrogations. The average investigator simply does not have the training and subsequent practice to accurately decide if the person who is being interviewed is being truthful.
Pamela Meyer, CFE, is the author of the book, Liespotting: Proven Techniques to Detect Deception,” and recently discussed her work and research in the field. She discussed two primary techniques to identify when subjects are lying: statement analysis and non-verbal. Statement analysis clues into the language an interviewee uses as a way to determine if he/she is telling the truth. For example, people who are over-determined in their denial of an accusation often resort to formal rather than informal language, Meyer said. Also, they often use distancing language that separates them from the issue.
Statement analysis can be very effective if the investigator has been properly trained, but the level of training and practice necessary to analyze a statement (especially as person is speaking) is very high. Even trained investigators will most likely need to analyze a statement written by the subject to complete an accurate analysis.
Meyer also discussed some of the non-verbal cues and body-language indicators such as lip smacking, hand wringing, slumped posture and excessive sweating. These non-verbal tells tend to be more problematic for investigators. Learning to read them accurately takes far more training and experience than the average investigator is likely to acquire. These tells vary from subject to subject and each must be “normed” to determine what their truth telling and lying behavior looks like.
The article also contains a section that I think is much more useful than the non-verbal cues listed, which is the section about interviewers “agreeing” to be lied to. The best way to determine if a statement is true or false is to confirm or refute it with independent evidence. Due to the number of technical methods available today to verify objective information, it is becoming more and more difficult for witnesses or suspects to conceal their movements or lie about where they were and what they were doing. The average person is not accustomed to the level of scrutiny a dedicated investigator can bring to bear when evaluating an account.
Here is an example:
An employee is late for work. Her supervisor questions her on the reason for her tardiness and the employee makes up the excuse that there was excessive traffic due to an accident on her route to work. The truth of the matter is that the employee was up late using social media and overslept. Most bosses will accept the traffic accident story. We become accustomed to having these minor lies accepted without verification. But if this person is a suspect or potential witness in an investigation their account may very well be independently verified. The investigator could, at the very least, check to see if an accident was reported along that route at the pertinent date and time. Depending on the severity of the case the investigator could subpoena cellphone GPS records, EZPass statements or footage from traffic cameras. Neighbors or roommates could be interviewed to verify the employee’s time of departure. The means of confirming or contradicting the employee’s statement are limited only by the level of an investigator’s determination to get to the truth.
One of the best ways to determine if a statement is truthful is to test it against independently verifiable information. If this information supports the account it is probably truthful; if it doesn’t, more investigation or a more confrontational re-interview is called for.
~ Timothy Hardiman is a 23-year veteran of the NYPD. He recently retired as an Inspector serving as the Commanding Officer of the 47th Precinct in the Bronx. Mr. Hardiman has extensive investigative experience having served as the Commanding Officer of the 71 St. Detective Squad in Crown Heights, Brooklyn and the Brooklyn Special Victims Squad.Hardiman has been an Adjunct Faculty member of American Military University (AMU) since 2004. His courses include: Stress Management for Law Enforcement, Police and Society, Patrol Procedures and Evidence and Procedure, Criminal Justice Administration, and Corrections and Parole.
Comments are closed.