Page 56 - Deception at work all chapters EBook

Signs of Deception 97

he knows his denial is unconvincing and which he internalizes for reinforcement. Objections
often include the word ‘because’ and are a strong clue to deception.

A pseudo denial will often contain superfluous words which are an indication of the sub-
ject’s prevarication in bringing himself to address a critical issue.

For example : ‘You have accused me of a very serious offence that strikes at the heart of my
relationship with the company and I would like to tell you I did not do it.’

It should be noted that this statement also contains a subjective truth, as there is little
doubt the liar ‘would like to tell you’. He is not saying that this is what he is actually telling
you!

No one in the UK will ever be able to forget the recent case of Neil and Christine Hamilton
who were arrested on suspicion of rape, based on a story which was brokered by the publicist
Max Clifford.

NEIL AND CHRISTINE HAMILTON

Neil Hamilton said: ‘Given that the name Starr ate my hamster”, and can be believed
of Max Clifford has been mentioned in this to that extent, there is no truth whatsoever
context, a man that brought you “Freddy in the allegations.’

Taken by itself, the prevarication before the pseudo-denial is very suspect, but in the same
interview the Hamiltons made many FPSPT (first person singular, past tense) denials which
were totally committed. The lesson is that clues come in clusters and seldom is a single state-
ment conclusive of deception.

Superfluous words at the end of a pseudo-denial indicate a lack of commitment. For exam-
ple, the statement ‘I did not do it, as such’ tells you all you need to know, that the denial was
too committed for the liar’s comfort.

The various forms of denials and pseudo denials can be summarized as in Table 4.3.

Any deviation from an FPSPT denial through a single word or short phrase should be treated
with suspicion

Finally, the English upper classes (including royalty, politicians and those investigators
who wear ‘Hush Puppies’ and red suspenders) have what appears to mere mortals to be a pre-
tentious habit of referring to themselves with the reflexive pronoun ‘one’, such as ‘One would
not do such a thing’. This subtle way of avoiding the dreadfully committed pronoun ‘I’ should
be treated with suspicion unless the person concerned is a Raving Rupert or an estate agent.

Because so much emphasis is placed on the strength of denials, you may believe that a liar
could prepare himself to respond in the right way and thus deceive you. This is not the case.