How to catch a liar on "parole"
Tips / / December 19, 2019
How to learn from the conversation that the man was not lying? It turns out that in addition to the relatively large number of non-verbal signals, which are not always easy catch, there is an interesting technique "tags Clarification", which allows us to derive a liar on the net water;)
This time, their experience divided by John R. "Jack" Shaffer, Ph.D., received his degree in psychology and works in the FBI behavior analyst. So what are a few examples... criminal.
One of the unique features of this technique are "attracting and repelling the word." In more simple terms, there are certain words in a sentence, which in any case imply another, pair the word that comes to them in a bundle. For example, if there is a "what" (repulsive), there must be "it" (attracting). This technique is easier to explain with specific examples.
example №1
Timmy is a boy who goes to school, and there is his mother. Schoolteacher Timmy called home and said he was pulled by the hair his classmate so that she fell and hit her head.
Mom Timmy: Your teacher called and said you were at the time of the break you ran to Vicki strongly pulled her by the hair and she fell and hit her head.
Timmy: She's lying. I did not do it it.
Timmy used the tag "it" to create the illusion of truth. Yes, he really pulled Vicki's hair, and then she fell and hit her head. But he did not run up to her and pulled her hair, and just calmly walked over and pulled by the hair, and then she fell and hurt herself. Since the mother has used in conversation is not quite an accurate description of what happened (ran, not walked), Timmy used the word "this" as a clarification. That is, he really did, but not quite what my mother said, and therefore could bind definition "it" to the word "ran", because it really did not run up and quietly walked.
In order for him to tell the truth, my mother is worth asking the following question: "What did you do?" Then the child just will have no choice but to tell the truth about what happened, because it is tied to no longer what.
example №2
January 28, 2003 in the show «Good Morning America (GMA)» Diane Sawyer interviewed Scott Peterson. His wife, who was eight months pregnant, disappeared from their family estate at the time of interview since her disappearance took place about a month. And Peterson came to the transmission in order to ask for help. An excerpt from this interview demonstrates another use of these tags.
Sawyer: Again, because you know that the people sitting at home and watching TV may think that you are in love with someone else and decided to get rid of extra weight in the form of his wife and child. Or whether it was another row?
Peterson: Neither one nor the other. It's... it's that simple.
In this case, Peterson used the tag "it." He did not deny the fact that he had killed his wife. He just said that none of these reasons was not the cause of the murder. But it also means that there were other reasons why he could kill his wife.
In fact, he really killed his wife and unborn child.
Since the reasons listed Sawyer, Peterson did not fit, he had to know why he did it. To say that you did not do something, you should know exactly what you did. In order to shut the trap, Sawyer had to ask Scott something like: "Well, if the causes that I listed, you do not fit, then tell me why you killed my wife, "If Peterson wants to talk about the real reasons (and he does not want to), his answer would be:" I do not know "Then you can. I would ask him one more question like, "Well, if you do not know the reasons that made it, then maybe I listed the reasons fit?" And even if then he will tell you that there is no reason, because he did not kill her, all the same it will be clear that Peterson is lying, as already acknowledged the fact that the murder was causes.
example №3
The main suspect in the rape and murder of a student has been questioned by police. The suspect met the victim at a party when she was drunk. Witnesses saw at a party, the suspect pushed the victim pinned to the floor and tried to forcibly kiss. The same evening, the victim passed out on the couch. About an hour of the night the suspect picked up the girl and brought to her room. He was last seen with whom the victim.
Investigator: Well, let's for a moment back to the party. There was someone? And more precisely, how many people were there? Maybe four or five? Four out of five people have told us that they had seen how you tried to kiss her on the night-school students. In fact, this happened in the hallway, and you tried to kiss her. In fact, I think she fell to the ground, and you just lay down next to her. I tried to kiss her or something like that. What can you remember of what happened?
Suspect: I do not even... I do not even remember doing something similar.
Investigator: Good. This man told us that a few people have seen it. So we - I'm just wondering how you and the victim were interested in what was happening. Maybe it she pushed you to the floor, or ???
Suspect: I do not even remember doing something similar.
Investigator: Nothing?
Suspect: Nope.
Investigator: Nothing like that happened?
Suspect: Nothing.
Investigator: Then how do you think, why the four or five people to tell us like this?
Suspect: Well, maybe except for me there was someone else?
Investigator: Well this is what we thought. That's why we showed your photo. And they have chosen you out of common photos. Since the reason was that that night she kissed a lot of other guys. You know, there were others.
Suspect: And yet, I never kissed her.
In the first skirmish suspect uses the tag "what" and this means that the incident did not occur exactly as described his investigator. This tag indicates that the answer is truthful.
The second time, the suspect again used the tag "what", which again pointed out that the event described by the investigator for the second time, is also not an accurate picture. That is, the guy told the truth to the picture that the investigator described to him the second time.
The fourth time, the investigator used the tag "that" with respect to his description of the incident. The suspect again answered honestly, because the incident did not take place as described by his interrogator.
For the sixth time the suspect used the tag "at" which means that it could take other actions, besides kissing. This tag defines the word again suspected to be true.
Each response suspect used the tags and updates the investigator had to shut the trap, "This / That," ask a simple question: "If you did not, then what do you do? "This simple and direct question makes liars to be nervous, because they are not ready to tell truth. If a man has done nothing wrong, he is an honest answer to this question, while liars will continue to weave a web of deceit.
John Schafer believes that tags Refinements "This / That" are red marks that indicate that the person is lying. And we just have to learn how to play these games.
I can not say that the example that I am going to lead you in a simple manner describes all the above was written, but I will try the same. When the little (and not so) kids argue among themselves, someone always cries. And more often than "victim" cries not because he was just a shame, but in order to punish the offender. That is, the child can first ask: "Why are you crying" And most likely, he will tell you that this one second so bad and hurt him. But if you ask the question, "Why are you crying?", You can get pretty interesting answer and thus cause the child to reflect on his behavior. Because in reality children often not cry of resentment (why?), And to punish the offender (for what?). Adults all comes about as well as they do not weep, and walk with views of Eeyore.
From all this it can be complicated and confusing to make one simple conclusion: if you know how to ask the right questions, you will always get the true answers;)