I watched ABC’s TV show last night called Take the Money and Run. Have you seen it? (If not, click on the previous link to watch it).  It’s an intriguing show where you, the viewer, get front row seats to a high-stake-lie interrogations.  With that, I would love to take this opportunity to show you how a “natural” at deception sees an interrogation such as this, because I believe people with my ability can aid and assist professionals in spotting deception–saving police departments time and money as well as improve the time of criminal apprehension. 

_______________________________________________________________________________

What is a natural, you ask? 

A natural is someone who was identified in a University of San Francisco study who can spot deception with exceptional accuracy.  Scientists tested more than 15,000 people from the CIA to the FBI to the Secret Service to every day people, and only found 50 people who were exceptional–regardless of background, experience or training. I am one of these people. 
_______________________________________________________________________________

While many seasoned investigators hone into clues such as eye gaze direction and aversion, anxiety, stress, and closed off body language, I look for inconsistencies in emotion, words spoken and behavior.  That is one reason why I believe naturals have a much higher accuracy rate than most people.

I encourage newcomers to explore my blog because all of the clues I am about to point out in this article can be found throughout my blog in real-life, real-time interviews and interrogations.  I have spent six years spotting deception in real-life cases identifying these exact same clues –before the truth was known– that I am about to point out to you here.  I have a 97% success rate at identifying deception in real cases.

The two interrogators in this show, Mary Stone and Paul Bishop, both have extensive experience in law enforcement and are highly regarded in their field.  They are without a doubt good at what they do — but what they do is different than what I do, and we can compliment each other perfectly.  Together, we can nab criminals much faster! Let me demonstrate how.

The premise of the show, for those who are unfamiliar with it, is that two people are given the opportunity to hide a briefcase full of $100,000 in cash in one hour’s time.  If they succeed, they keep the money.  The suspects have to keep the briefcase handcuffed to their wrist until they drop it–wherever they decide.  They are informed that their get away vehicle has GPS on it, and their cell phones calls will be shared with investigators.  It’s that simple.  Once the hour is up, they are arrested and taken into custody.  Then the interrogation begins.  The investigators then compete for the money!  Can they catch the liars?

In this episode, the two suspects are Jimmy & Zuly Pumariega from the Miami Beach area.  And while they think they did exceptionally well, because they ultimately won the $100,000, from my perspective, they leaked clues like a sieve. 

I give Jimmy credit, his “Did I scare you tactic” was brilliant. It unnerved the interrogators, but I would never try this in real life.  It wouldn’t help you in any way. 

I love what Mary said, “If you lose control in an interrogation, even once, you’ll never get it back.”  I completely agree. As I say, once a liar sniffs you believe their lies, their stress dissipates to a degree, and stress is what causes clues that to leak–so keeping stress high is important.

Let’s look at the interrogations.  You can follow along by watching the episode online (link above).

In the first interrogation shown, Paul Bishop asked Zuly, “All that time through the beach, you had it [the briefcase] tied to you.  Did you make any stops?”

Watch as Zuly as she says no.

Notice how she shrugs her shoulders?  This is a classic non-verbal communication of  “I don’t know” yet Zuly says an affirmative “no”.  These two elements — the verbal and non-verbal are in conflict.  This is a classic hotspot. This is a strong clue that she has a high probability of deception here.

Also watch how Zuly has to think about it before she answers no, too. She looks up to recollect it…thinking… did I have the briefcase?  It’s quick but telling   Her look upwards has no significant meaning to me other than the fact she has to THINK before she answers (I do not believe in neuro-linguistic programming). 

When we lie, we have think a lot more and a lot harder to answer questions that should come naturally to us and without effort.  Thinking before answering is another hotspot that strongly suggests deception.

When Paul asked Zuly about getting off on 119th street, he says, “When you got off at 119th street, did you have the briefcase?”

Zuly smiles here.  It’s notable.  What would make her smile at this point? It’ a hotspot for me that she could be lying!  Why else would she smile?

Paul asks, “How close were you, two minutes away, one minute away [from the drop-off point]?”

Watch Zuly show doubt in her body language again. She says “close” as she shrugs her shoulders! Hotspot!  Now we have three solid hotspots in a very short period of time, which is what I require to say, “Deceptive”.  Had the interrogators had this information from me at this time, I could have zoned them into that precise area to spend their remaining 45 plus hours.  We may have been able to ask tougher questions and get to the briefcase, too.

I am not an interrogator. I am not an investigator.  I am a deception expert– that’s all I do. I spot lies. I don’t ask questions.  Combining these two adds overload to an investigators job.  That’s why as a team, we can make a perfect duo–saving time and money.

Let’s continue to break down this interview. 

Paul asks Zuly, “How hard was it to hide the briefcase?”

Zuly responds, “Probably was a little easier than I thought it would be.”

Notice the lack of a smile this time? She doesn’t find this worth smiling over, and answers the question  seriously.  I believe her.  I see no reason to doubt her statement here whatsoever.  She uses the word “probably” and that can be a hedge word, but here she is not giving us a definitive answer so there is no conflict. She is speculating that it was “a little” easier than she thought.  It’s fair use of the word and an honest response.

When Paul asks Zuly, “Did you have to exert yourself to hide the briefcase?” Zuly tries to suppress a huge smile by pulling her lips down in the corners, but it is clearly undeniable she wants to smile!  The suppressed smile indicates the answer is yes and that she is lying, but she wants to hide that, so she works to suppress her smile.  It’s another notable hotspot. So now we would know that she did exert herself–the briefcase is likely not beside the road.

You’ll also notice as she talks that she shakes her head ambiguously.  The ambiguity is important because when people say no honestly, they shake their head no in support. Or they nod their head up and down when they say yes. But when people are deceptive, their body leaks that just as you see here in an ambiguous head swirl.  She neither gives a yes or a no head movement.   The head shake is another notable hotspot for me.

Zuly also say the word “no” in a faint voice, which shows a serious lack of confidence! The inflection in her voice here is again another hotspot– as is the ambiguity of her head shake, and the smile suppression.    Red alarms. We have a lot of information at this point from which to work.

These clues are very reliable if you know how and when to apply them, which is what I teach law enforcement in my training.You must understand when these behaviors have relevance and when they don’t, but once you do, your ability to spot deception will improve.  I have no doubt about it.

Next we see Mary Stone interrogate Zuly’s husband, Jimmy.

Mary asks Jimmy if Zuly articulated where the hiding spot is.  Jimmy responds, “It was going 100 miles per hour, I just can’t remember.”  Listen to the inflection of his voice…it trails off into almost silence, similar to what Zuly did above.  Red flag!!!  It’s another hotspot showing a lack of confidence/buy-in to his answer.  We all know that he remembers–including Mary.

Mary is good at upping the pressure with Jimmy.  She says, “You appear to be an honest person.  You appear to want to do the right thing.”  She also talks about teaching his children to be honest–all emotional elements for Jimmy that ratchet up the pressure.  These are brilliant!

When Jimmy is asked what they did after the phone call to their daughter, he says they stopped to get something to drink because they were thirsty. While he shows that he is nervous here, that statement is true and there are no hotspots in his answer.

Also, Jimmy volunteers some great information here!  He says they were thirsty.  We have no reason to doubt his answer. Why would they be thirsty unless they just exerted themselves at this point?  This is a big tip-off the drop off was prior to this.

Mary then asks if they still had the briefcase after getting a drink, and Jimmy gives Mary a huge clue.  He says, “Possibly, yes.”

“Possibly” is a huge hedge word.  The question requires a yes or no answer — rightfully as Mary calls out, but Mary waited for a conclusive answer here a second time, when she already got one.  Possibly says it all. He says Jimmy couldn’t commit to a solid yes.  The words possibly leaked out subconsciously, if you ask me, and tells us everything we need to know.  Hedge words are powerful.This was a lie.

Also watch how Jimmy looks around, pauses to answer Mary a second time, and then says yes. If Jimmy was honest, he shouldn’t have to think about something this simple. 

How many hotspots is that so far?  It’s a bucket load at this point.

Right here, I would know that there is an 95% chance that he did not have the briefcase at this point, and from looking at Zuly’s interview, I would be able to hone the investigators in the right direction by using words spoken, emotions and body language.

Naturals look at deception vastly different than most people, and while scientists haven’t answered why that is, one thing is for certain–we can help law enforcement hone into the truth quickly.  We can teach them new ways to look at deception to make them more effective.  Support Eyes for Lies in communicating this message–share the word.

My training is getting solid 4 and 5 star reviews from the most seasoned law enforcement professionals–even at the federal level.  They see I look at the world totally different.  Together we can make a difference!

___________________________

Did you enjoy this review?  Do you want to see more?  If I get enough interest, I will review the rest of the interrogations this week.