Page 55 - Deception at work all chapters EBook

96 Deception at Work

F LEE BAILEY AND MARK FUHRMAN

F Lee Bailey: Do you use the word ‘nigger’ in describing people?
Mark Fuhrman: No, sir. (A subjective truth because he does not use the word currently.)
F Lee Bailey: Have you ever used that word in the past ten years?
Mark Fuhrman: Not that I recall, no. (Lack of commitment.)
F Lee Bailey: So anyone who comes to court and quotes you as using that word in
dealing with Afro-Americans would be a liar …
Mark Fuhrman: Yes, they would. (Again, a subjective truth, depending on Mr Fuhrman’s
definition of an ‘Afro-American’.)

Tape recordings made between 1985 and 1994 by Laura Hart McKinny, who was carrying
out research for a film script, of conversations with Mr Fuhrman revealed that he had used
what became referred to as the ‘N-word’ on no less than 40 occasions to denigrate black
citizens of Los Angeles (i.e. but not necessarily ‘Afro-Americans’). This evidence, which the
jury believed, confirmed OJ Simpson’s defence claim that he had been framed by racially
motivated cops and was the turning point in the trial.

Liars are also much more passive in the way they respond to accusations and, when these
are repeated throughout the interview, their pseudo denials become weaker (Figure 4.1).

Feigned anger over being accused is transient and quickly dissipates. On the other hand,
innocent people, wrongly accused, react strongly and their protests increase if the accusation
is repeated. Their anger is deeply felt and, usually, not quickly dissipated.

An objection sounds like a denial but it is far from it. A statement along the lines of ‘I could
not have taken [Note: not ‘I did not take’] the money because I did not know the combination
of the safe’ is almost certainly untrue. An objection usually contains a justification within
the sentence concerned, which probably results from the liar’s unconscious acceptance that

Strong Indicative of innocence

Strength of denials

Indicative of guilt

Weak

Duration of the interview
Figure 4.1 Declining and increasing strength of denials