4 Principles of Deception Analysis You Can Use Today
Let's start taking a deeper look at the 'rules.'
Last week we started looking at deception analysis and how it works. Today we’ll look at more of the principles behind it. Once you get into setting up and using an actual vetting process for your group, you’ll need to understand how this skill works. Here are a few more of the foundational rules.
1. The subject is dead; the statement is alive.
This sentence probably makes no sense at first glance. What it means is that because we are looking at the words themselves, nothing outside of them matters when looking at a statement.
Let’s take the example of a baby who died of what appeared to be SIDS but also seems suspicious. The mother, as you might expect, is writing a statement for police as to what happened.
What things would you think are pertinent to know?
•The mother was extremely emotional and crying while writing the statement.
•She was not the one who called 911.
•She told the paramedic that she had attempted CPR but the autopsy showed no evidence of that.
•There was an old hairline fracture found.
While you may read the above and think you need to know all of it when looking for deception, the truth is that you should know none of it. Everything above will lead you astray when looking at her words.
If you don’t believe me, then answer this: Do you think the mother killed her child? If you are leaning toward yes, then you will be biased looking at her statement.
Her being extremely emotional and crying is expected behavior. Her baby is dead; we would expect high levels of emotion.
She wasn’t the one who called 911 because she was trying to do CPR; her husband called.
She told the paramedic that she had attempted CPR, but the autopsy didn’t show it because in her panic she was too afraid of harming the child further and didn’t do it effectively.
There was an old hairline fracture found because the child had rolled off the couch once while the mother ran to grab more baby wipes during a particularly nasty diaper change.
This is why we look at the words—not the subject writing them. Outside influences will taint your analysis and ability to see the deception. When vetting someone with an essay questionnaire, use ONLY the words they wrote or said, exactly.
2. We have absolute faith in the subject’s truthfulness.
But wait, aren’t we talking about liars? Yes, and that’s why we start with the belief that someone is telling the truth. In order for us to determine accurately when someone is lying, we assume first that they are being truthful. If we are to conclude that they are being dishonest, they must convince us of it. The good news is that they do, if you know what you’re looking for.
“I heard a shot and saw him dead on the floor.”
Where is the lie here? I’ll give you a hint. There isn’t one, yet the person who made it is guilty of murder—even while telling the truth.
As we saw in the last article, being truthful doesn’t make someone innocent or even honest. It’s not always about fabrication; it’s about omission.
When you fire a gun, you hear a shot.
When you’ve shot someone, you’re the first person to see them dead on the floor.
At no time does the person say they did not shoot the victim. Why? Because they can’t.
How does this work in a vetting context? One example would be if you ask someone what skills they bring to the table and they say they have a ham license. Does that automatically mean they are competent at radios? Not even close—and that’s why they didn’t say they were.
3. Time skipped is time hidden.
When you’re vetting a prospect and they’re telling you about their background, look for phrases that signal skipping over time. Take a look at the following paragraph.
“I worked at XYZ company for 6 years, and then all of a sudden I found myself doing a totally different job out of necessity. I decided I liked it, I’m really good at it, and so here I am.”
The phrase “all of sudden” signals a time gap. The second notable phrase is “out of necessity.” Because we believe that the above statement is true, we must also believe that the necessity was real. Therefore, the necessity lends more importance to the time gap. If I’m vetting that person, I instantly want to know exactly what the necessity was, and what’s in that gap.
Gaps don’t always mean that the person did something horrible. But you’ll still want to know, because something like being embarrassed about being laid off is still a window into motivation and/or validation factors.
4. The first sentence in an open, freely edited statement is the most important. It tells you priority and motive.
Most groups that do any kind of vetting process ask “Why do you want to join our group?” The first sentence of whatever the prospect responds with is the most critical. Whatever they write or say after that is less important. Let’s look at an actual answer on a vetting questionnaire from a few years ago.
“I am a good and honest person, and I want to do good things.” - When someone tells you they are good and honest, it’s because someone has told them they are not these things. Alternatively, it’s because they know they are not, and they need to convince you. The addition of the statement, “I want to do good things” tells you that they have not done good things in the past, or that they are not doing good things now.
Remember to look at the words spoken—not what you think they mean or what you can interpret them to mean. Instead, look at the words themselves. What do they say? Take them for truth. When someone answers “Tell us whatever you want us to know about yourself” with a statement like, “I’m a blunt individual who is really angry with what’s going on in the world,” that’s a critical thing to know.
Look at it this way; you’re giving them free rein to say whatever they want. Out of all the information they know about themselves, they chose to tell you that first, because it’s the most important thing TO tell you, in their mind. Why?
The next thing you need to ask yourself is whether you want someone in your group who found it of critical importance to tell you that they are angry—more important than their skillset, experience, or anything else.
Vetting is a detail-oriented business, and deception analysis even more so. We’ll talk about some more of the rules in future issues.
Kit Perez is a counterintelligence and deception analyst, and the co-author of Basics of Resistance: The Practical Freedomista. She is currently working on her second book, which will focus on group activism efforts.