[R-G] HOW TO WATCH BUSH AND HIS CAPOS ON TV

[Nick Morcinek]

HOW TO WATCH BUSH AND HIS CAPOS ON TV

[This guide is from an FBI document but presumably applies to politicians on
Sunday talk shows as well persons being questioned by the agency]

JOE NAVARRO, M.A., and JOHN R. SCHAFER - Although detecting deception
remains difficult, investigators increase the odds for success by learning a
few basic nonverbal and verbal cues indicative of lying.

Lying requires the deceiver to keep facts straight, make the story
believable, and withstand scrutiny. When individuals tell the truth, they
often make every effort to ensure that other people understand.

In contrast, liars attempt to manage others' perceptions.

Consequently, people unwittingly signal deception via nonverbal and verbal
cues. Unfortunately, no particular nonverbal or verbal cue evinces
deception.

Investigators' abilities to detect deceptive behavior depends largely on
their ability to observe, catalogue, and differentiate human behavior. They
must identify clusters of behavior, which cumulatively reinforce deceptive
behaviors unique to the person interviewed.

Investigators also should learn to formulate questions to facilitate
behavioral observations. The more observations investigators make, the
greater the probability of detecting deception. For the most part, family
members and close friends display patterns of genuine openness.

For inexperienced investigators, these behavioral patterns may serve as a
comparative reference for contrast with deceptive behaviors.

The ideal setting for an interview places the interviewee in a position
where no obstacles, such as tables or desks, block the interviewer's full
view of the subject's body. A large portion of nonverbal behaviors emanates
from the lower body, not just from the hands and face. Feet that fidget or
point to the door communicate discomfort. If subjects sit behind a desk or
table, officers should encourage them to relocate. Deceivers often use soda
cans, computer screens, and other objects, both large and small, to form a
barrier between themselves and investigators. Objects used in this manner
create distance, separation, and partial concealment - behaviors consistent
with dishonesty.

Many investigators rely too heavily on eye contact. Research indicates that
people, especially frequent liars, actually increase eye contact because
they learned that investigators often gauge veracity by strong eye contact.
Nevertheless, eye aversion during difficult questions, as opposed to benign
questions, can depict distress. . .

When people hear or see something they disagree with or do not fully
support, their eyelids tend to close longer than a normal blink. This
automatic response occurs so quickly that most extended eye closures go
unnoticed. By cataloging a person's baseline eye responses during
non-stressful conversation, investigators can compare the eye responses with
those during critical questions.

Hand or finger movement to the eyes usually follows a prolonged eye closure,
further blocking out auditory or visual stimuli.

Additionally, individuals who struggle with an idea or concept often blink
their eyes rapidly. Rapid blinking or "eyelid flutter" signals a sensitive
topic. Officers carefully should observe the speaker's eyes, which can alert
to the possibility of deception.

Head movements should comport with verbal denials or affirmations. For
example, an inconsistent head movement occurs when individuals say, "I did
not do it" while their head subtly nods affirmatively.

Investigators often miss inconsistencies between the spoken word and
nonverbal behavior.

When people feel comfortable, they tend to mirror the head movements of the
person with whom they converse. An unwillingness to mirror the
investigator's head movements or other gestures could indicate discomfort,
reluctance to cooperate, or, possibly, deceit.

Truthful people tend to lean forward as they converse; liars tend to move
away. Therefore, if speakers lean backward when telling their version of
events, the statement likely involves some deception or reluctance to
provide information.

People who attempt to conceal information often breathe faster taking a
series of short breaths followed by one long deep breath. This irregular
breathing pattern can tip investigators to speakers'

increased anxiety levels. Additionally, stress often causes a dry mouth,
resulting in repeated clearing of the throat, cracking of the voice, or
jumping of the Adam's apple (laryngeal cartilages).

Likewise, a tense mouth with pursed lips may represent extreme distress and
signify that speakers literally restrain themselves emotionally, verbally,
and physically.

Confident people usually spread out in an area. Less secure people tend to
occupy less space, fold their arms, and interlock their legs.

Similarly, a person whose lips, hands, or fingers tremble or who hides their
hands may exhibit low confidence, although these characteristics do not
guarantee deception.

A liar rarely points a finger or emphasizes with hand gestures. Finger
pointing or hand movements exude confidence - qualities liars usually lack.
The finger-pointing cue usually does not apply to actors or politicians
because they train themselves to appear confident during public appearances.
Also, liars rarely display steepling - fingertips touching each other
forming a triangle with both hands, which, symbolically, represents
assurance of thought or position.

Liars often slouch in chairs feigning comfort. Liars may even yawn
repeatedly reinforcing the appearance of relaxation, even boredom. In
addition, yawning during stressful situations or spreading out on a couch or
chair when circumstances call for tension and discomfort portends deception.

Liars often keep their hands motionless and draw their arms close to their
bodies into a position as if "flash frozen." In many cases, speakers'
knuckles turn white as they clutch the armrest.

Liars prefer concealing the truth rather than fabricating an entirely
fictitious story. With concealment, the liar only needs to avoid revealing
untrue information. In other words, the liar conveys the truth up to the
event he wants to hide. At this point, the liar uses a "text bridge" to
gloss over the concealed activity. After crossing this sensitive area, the
liar again relays the truth. The use of text bridges alerts the investigator
to a topic that may require closer examination.

Text bridges enable the speaker to fast forward through time connecting
salient events without discussing the included activities.

For example, if a man says, "After I took a shower, I ate breakfast."

The listener assumes that the man disrobed, turned on the water, got into
the shower, washed his body with soap, rinsed the soap off his body,
shampooed his hair, rinsed his hair, turned off the water, got out of the
shower, and dried himself with a towel. Someone reluctant to tell the truth
often uses this same technique to gloss over sensitive topics. For example,
a person reports the following: "I left the house to go to work, and when I
returned home, I found my wife lying in a pool of blood." The text bridge
"when I returned home. . .

" should alert investigators to missing information. Investigators should
examine, in detail, the man's activities from the time he left the house
until the time he returned. The interview should not proceed until the
speaker adequately explains his activities. Some commonly used text bridges
include "I don't remember. . . ," "the next thing I knew. . . ," "later on
," "shortly thereafter. . . ," "afterwards. . .

," "after that. . . ," "while ," "even though. . . ," "when. . . ,"

"then. . . ," "besides. . . ," "consequently. . . ," "finally. . . ,"

"however. . . ," and "before. . . ."

Stalling tactics, such as asking the investigator to repeat the question,
provides additional time for deceivers to think up an appropriate answer.
Liars typically ask investigators to repeat questions without realizing that
honest conversations do not require the restatement of questions. Other
stalling phrases include "It depends on what you mean by that," "Where did
you hear that?" "Where's this information coming from?" "Could you be more
specific?" or "How dare you ask me something like that." The phrases "Well,
it's not so simple as yes or no," or "That's an excellent question," also
provides speakers with additional time.

Research shows that guilty people often avoid using contractions.

Instead of saying, "It wasn't me," liars will say, "It was not me," to
ensure the listener clearly hears the denial. Additionally, liars euphemize
to avoid reality. Likewise, responses such as, "I would never do that,"
"Lying is below me," "I have never lied," or "I would never lie," or, "I
would never do such a thing" should alert investigators to the possibility
of deception. Other statements such

as: "to be perfectly frank. . . ," "to be honest. . . ," "to be perfectly
truthful. . . ," or "I was always taught to tell the truth,"

often intend to deceive.

Making a positive statement negative provides the liar with the quickest,
easiest answer to an accusation. For example, the investigator asks, "Did
you steal the money?" The person responds, "No, I did not steal the money."
The guilty person responds quickly to avoid the impression of a delayed
answer. A variation of this technique occurs when a person answers "yes" or
"no" immediately, but the explanation comes more slowly because the liar
needs time to construct an answer.

Deceptive people rarely include negative details in their explanation of
events, unless, of course, the story concerns delayed or canceled plans.
Truthful people reference the negative as well as the positive events in
their stories.

Silence makes many people uncomfortable. Liars usually continue speaking
until they confirm that the listener accepts their version as the truth. If
investigators stare patiently in silence unconvinced, the deceitful person
likely will reveal information, not in response to questions but rather to
fill the silence.

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2001/july2001/july01leb.htm#page_10
<http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2001/july2001/july01leb.htm>