Page 52 - Deception at work all chapters EBook

Signs of Deception 93

THE ARSON CASE been responsible for all three fires. The first
suspect was asked into the interview cabin.
Two very serious fires had been started He appeared fairly relaxed.
on board a British seagoing oil tanker
(a very large crude carrier). They could The first question was: ‘Is there any reason
have killed the 54 crewmen. The police in why your fingerprints should be on all of
the country concerned had investigated those matchboxes?’
the cases and advised that the fires had
been accidental. We were called in to He asked where the matchboxes had
investigate and immediately searched been found, what the photographs were all
the ship from top to bottom and found a about and tried quickly to put the question
third fire, in a storeroom, which had not in context. He had no objection to providing
flared. We took photographs of the piles his fingerprints. Subsequent questions
of wood, newspaper and about 50 empty established his innocence.
matchboxes and hundreds of matches.
We also tried to raise fingerprints from the The second suspect came into the cabin
matchboxes, but without success. We did and immediately his eyes focused on the
find some fingerprints on a light switch, but photographs, matchboxes and fingerprint
they were far from illuminating! slides. When we asked the question: ‘Is there
any reason why your fingerprints should be
The photographs were enlarged and stuck on all of those matchboxes?’ he did not ask
all over the walls of the cabin in which it any questions about them, but sat silent for
was planned that the crewmembers would a full two minutes and then said ‘Yes’.
be interviewed. The matchboxes were laid
out on a table and the fingerprint slides cut He gave an unconvincing explanation
to the same size as the matchboxes and set that he may have handled all of them while
out in front of them. The impression was working in the ship’s bar. Five minutes later
that fingerprints had been raised from the he confessed to starting the fires and gave
matchboxes. details that only the arsonist would know.
He also explained his motive and made a
Other evidence suggested that one or voluntary written statement.
more of five crewmembers could have

This is a classic example of the suspect knowing too much and of not asking the questions
an innocent person would ask.

Liars don’t ask the questions an innocent person would.
Guilty people make assumptions of facts known only to the perpetrator

Disclosing inconsistent detail

An absence or excess of detail is vital in assessing the truthfulness of a story. Some people have
good memories while others cannot even remember their wife’s birthday or wedding anni-
versaries (bless them!). Absence of detail should always be treated with suspicion, especially
when the person’s memory – on other events at around the same time or regarding topics of
equal importance – is good.

Inconsistencies indicating deception include:

• lack of detail relating to significant, and especially emotionally charged, events;
• jumbled sequences of important topics within a story;
• significant changes in an explanation to fit newly revealed facts;