Page 233 - Deception at work all chapters EBook

234 Deception at Work

The legalistic approach

This is a fairly high-risk strategy, but you may point out that the problem will not simply disap-
pear and that by refusing to answer questions, the suspect is closing down the organization’s
options.

Example : ‘Bill, the company takes this very seriously and wants to give you the chance to
explain. If you continue with the way you are going the company may be forced to take civil
action against you. It could get an order to compel you to produce all of your bank accounts
and other records and the truth will come out. Is this really necessary? Let’s start with some
simple issues that we can clear up quickly and see how we go.’

Alternatively, you may caution the subject.

Example: ‘Bill, I have to say I find your reaction incredible. I have never known an innocent
person to refuse to answer questions. You give me no option but to tell you that you are not
obliged to say anything and that anything you do say may be used in evidence.’

If all of these fail, the final option is to ask the suspect to produce a written narrative.

The written narrative

You should again acknowledge the suspect’s right to remain silent, but suggest to him that
he might like to write down his explanation, without interruption. If he asks what he should
cover, say: ‘Everything you believe is important’.

Example : ‘I can understand that you don’t like the idea of answering questions. But your
explanation is very important and this is not going to go away. Please take this paper and pen
and write down – in your own time and words – exactly what happened.’

This is a much more effective approach than submitting a list of written questions as these
may reveal what you already know and provide the liar with a template for deception.

DEALING WITH THE FACILE PHRASE ‘NO COMMENT’

In a number of recent high-profile British cases (for example, the murders of Sarah Payne and
Danielle Jones) the suspects, represented by lawyers, answered every question with the facile
phrase ‘no comment’. They were, nonetheless, convicted. Juries are not usually stupid and
when they see videos of police interviews with suspects radiating non-verbal signs of guilt set
against idiotic ‘no comment’ responses, they come to the right conclusion.

Good lawyers encourage their clients to answer questions.
Bad lawyers get them to say ‘no comment’