Underlying lies...

An example - you ask a client if an item is a justifiable business expense. The response can only be either one of two answers - yes or no. Instead you get, "When we made this purchase in 1999 one of the considerations we had to take into account..."

Cut to the main point - the answer is no.

Why? Well you didn't ask for an explanation - just an answer. In Truth Extraction (our term for forensic interviewing), we call that a violation of the 'Long way - Short way' rule. Any question that can be answered with a straight yes or no that is answered in any other way is quite simply deceptive.

Far more cunning, however, is the answer that is phrased to sound as though it addresses the question - but doesn't. In difficult interviews I encounter this frequently.

I put a point to the interviewee: "So you are saying that this IS a legitimate business expense"

Answer: "I am saying that expenses like this occur frequently and are completely justifiable."

Again - not answering the question - but better than the first try - it SOUNDS as though it does. Capable politicians are masters of this technique. As you listen for it you'll hear that it is more common than you'd believe.

Interviewer:
"So you take no responsibility for the parlous state of our hospitals?"

Interviewee:
"We take responsibility for ensuring that the quality of health-care, taken as a whole, meets the needs of the populace. And we take responsibility for ensuring that our health care professionals... etc"

So what we have is no denial - simply a rephrasing of the question and an answer that is phrased to suit their needs. And they've used the same tactic twice to reinforce the message!

Can you do it? Should you do it? The answer to the first question is yes, of course you can. It's a tactic that can bail you out of an awkward situation.

Should you do it? I have no idea - that is a judgement call only you can make...