How Do We Know If Someone Is Lying?
Tools that are used every day by juries, police officers, and you
Every day in courtrooms across America jurors decide the fate of other people, sometimes sending them to jail or even death row, based on conclusions they’ve drawn from listening to them speak, listening to other people speak, and assessing the importance or relevance of any physical evidence. In the absence of DNA evidence, jurors are called upon to synthesize all that they’ve been presented with that is not entirely conclusive, and to none-the-less, reach a conclusion. It’s rare that open and shut cases go to trial, so this kind of critical analysis takes place every day using nothing but statements and circumstantial evidence. The lives and fates of people are determined on less than perfect data all of the time.
In fact, the main way that any of us gains useful information about any situation is by observing it, asking questions, and then evaluating the responses; not just the actual words, but also the way in which the responses are delivered. This is what police officers do when they interrogate suspects and it’s what you do every day when evaluating people and situations in your own life. We are constantly called upon to draw inferences without a complete picture, and to make decisions based on those inferences. Very few things in life are cut and dried.
Imagine this — the police come to your house on a tip that you have been involved in a murder. When you open the door and find officers in uniform holding a warrant, how do you react? Those very same officers will be paying attention to that reaction and filing it away for future use. While it’s true that different people may have a wide variety of responses to the same stimuli, your response will none-the-less become part of a larger picture, which is made up of how you react, other responses to other questions, as well as additional information.
When they question you, are you transparent, with a cooperative demeanor, readily answering any questions to the best of your ability or are you evasive, belligerent, and stalling? When they tell you that someone whom you know has been murdered, do you appear shocked and saddened or unsurprised and indifferent? When the police find a bloody knife in your garage, do you react with genuine-appearing incredulity and surprise or do you stoically say, “That isn’t mine.”?
All but the most practiced actors and sociopaths will be unable to respond to all of this in a calculated manner. Most human beings do not have a good “poker face,” particularly under stress and although characteristics like nervousness might indicate a wide variety of things, including both guilt and innocence, when taken into account with everything else, it can begin to paint a broader picture.
Former police detective and crime expert, Stacy Dittrich, says that the police can often tell if a suspect is lying the first time them come into contact with them, even if their story seems to otherwise line up.
Here are the most tell-tale signs, revealed.
A pre-emptive 911 call: Criminals sometimes call police very early to cover their bases. For instance, a man with a missing spouse might call police within a couple hours to say something is wrong. “The first question the detective is asking is why they’re assuming something is wrong because not getting ahold of someone right away is pretty normal,” Dittrich said.
The emotions don’t fit: even if what a suspect is saying on the call appears to be true, their tone is a big tip-off to police, Dittrich said. For instance, a calm demeanor while reporting a home invasion could indicate something is amiss because “most people are hysterical in that kind of situation.’’
Not answering “yes” or “no”: an innocent person will usually answer questions with a direct yes or no. Not so for criminals, says Dittrich. When asked “are you involved in this murder?” they are likely to give a long answer like “I swear on my mother’s grave and all my children I didn’t.” This is a way of stalling: even though they tell themselves to lie, they can’t quite follow through.
Too many details: A criminal usually carefully plans their story in advance, anticipating that they’ll eventually speaks with detectives. A 911 call with too many details about the suspect, such as what they did that day or whether they’re happy with their significant other, is a red flag because it shows the person put thought into his or her story.
Lying about small stuff: Even the most innocuous statements can reveal inconsistencies, Dittrich said. A suspect talk of watching a television show in his or her alibi statement, but the show didn’t air that night. Lies about small stuff usually culminate in bigger evidence against the accused.
Referring to a missing person in past-tense: Most people hold out hope that their missing loved one will be found alive. Referring to a person in past tense, saying “I really loved her” or “he and I were happily married,’’ is incriminating, Dittrich said.
Saying “huh?’’ : When police ask a direct question, such as “Did you steal those items?” a guilty suspect will often pretend not to hear in order to stall and come up with a story, Dittrich said. Instead of answering a very direct question they say “huh?” or “what do you mean?” Dittrich said.
Helpfully offering another explanation: a suspect will often try and mislead detectives by putting another suspicious person on the investigation’s radar, Dittrich said. If a person denies a kidnapping but mentions a creepy man in a van, it’s important to see if there’s any other evidence of such a person existing. If there’s not, chances are the suspect made up a story to deflect the blame.
The science of verbal interrogation has been evolving in recent years and is currently moving away from “the Reid method” which is employed by many American police departments, to “the PEACE method” which is now commonly used in the UK. The main criticism of the Reid method is that it is intended to elicit a confession and therefore has a higher probability of eleciting false confessions, whereas the PEACE method is intended to get to the truth. For more about what those each entail, read here.
But the real point of all of this is that verbal interrogation has a methodology and has had for many, many years. We can gain quite a bit of knowledge about a situation from nothing more than asking questions and observing the reactions and responses to those questions. No physical evidence is inherently necessary. In fact, the bloody knife found in your garage might well have been planted there by someone else. If we rely solely on physical evidence (or lack thereof) and do not synthesize all of the available information into some kind of cohesive whole, then justice might well be miscarried — in a courtroom, in a police station or in your own life.
