Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All (25 page)

When I was growing up in England, I spent a lot of time visiting my father’s office. He was a lawyer, and later a judge. I once asked him why lawyers wore wigs and robes in court. He said there were many reasons, some historical, but that one that resonated with him was that they were playing a role, and this was their “costume.” When they put on the costume and stepped into court, they put aside their personal beliefs, biases, and emotional attachments, and they took on the role of advocate for their client. This is how they managed to effectively represent clients they personally found to be repugnant. In their costume, they were not personally attached to, or associated with, the arguments they made. They could make arguments that, though inconsistent with their personal feelings, could effectively serve the requirements of the law, and of justice.

When we step into an interview or an interrogation, we are stepping into a role. Could Michael, or any of us, have possibly believed that Nicole, or Ron Goldman, bore any responsibility whatsoever for their tragic deaths that night? Of course not. But had Michael failed to communicate some sense of understanding and empathy with respect to what may have driven Simpson to commit the acts that brought him to that interrogation room, getting the truth from Simpson would almost certainly have been futile.

Similarly, in a negotiation setting, the best negotiators find ways to put the other party at ease, to take personality conflicts out of the mix, and to arrive at a favorable resolution. In a business transaction, dealing with a slimy salesperson, or an unethical corporate executive, requires us to don our metaphorical wigs and robes, and to play our role. Even in a family dispute, assuming a role that entails genuine consideration of all viewpoints, and detachment from a hard-nosed, win-at-any-cost position, can yield results that everyone is comfortable with, and that previously might have seemed nearly impossible to achieve.

Our approach to elicitation mirrors our approach to any business or personal interaction that involves conflicting agendas. It’s essential to understand what motivates the other party, and to apply that understanding in a calm, structured, ethical manner. Using a methodology that builds rapport and strengthens relationships, rather than one that relies on coercion or threats, leads to more reliable information being obtained, better deals being reached, and more trusting relationships being built. As W. H. Auden reminded us, those we harm are likely to do harm to us in return, be it in the form of refusing to cooperate, providing information of suspect value or veracity, or causing a reputation to be forever damaged.

In his book, Ali Soufan highlights the fact that Boris was woefully ill-prepared, both in terms of understanding Abu Zubaydah’s background and motivations, and in terms of how to conduct an effective interrogation. Yet it was clear that that fact completely eluded Boris. Research by David Dunning and Justin Kruger has identified this cognitive bias, now known as the “Dunning-Kruger effect”—it manifests itself when people of limited capability in a given area suffer from the illusion that they have much greater skills in that area than is actually the case. Those who are ill-prepared or incapable can fail to recognize just how ill-equipped they truly are. This was certainly the case with Boris.

Who among us, when enduring physical or emotional pain or torment, would not do all in our power to make that torment stop? Under such agonizing circumstances, we admit to and apologize for things we haven’t done, and we make up things that we think people want to hear. This is why blackmail and extortion are punished so severely in criminal law: Subjecting people to this form of emotional torment can cause them to do things they would otherwise never do. Boris was absolutely right when he said, “It’s human nature to react to these things.” But what he was unable to comprehend was that the information yielded by the reaction might well be entirely meaningless.

Examining Boris’s lack of preparation and his blunt force methods, compared to Frank’s fully prepared and systematic approach, is like watching two carpenters build a fine piece of furniture, one with nothing but a hammer and having no idea what he’s building, and the other with a full set of tools and a detailed design schematic. Who is more likely to have a better outcome?

Throughout this book, we have discussed this more finessed approach in interviews, in negotiations, indeed in life. Like all things of great value, it requires tremendous preparation and great effort. But the outcome pays huge dividends. By taking a noncoercive, ethical approach, we stand a much better chance of getting the truth. And we’re far better equipped to create lasting relationships that can help us attain our personal and professional goals.

Appendix II

IT ALL BEGINS WITH PREPARATION

By Peter Romary
One of the essential keys to effective interviewing, elicitation, advocacy, and negotiation is to be fully prepared for the task ahead of you. Let’s look at preparation from two perspectives: active practice, and information collection.

In preparing for any kind of encounter, it’s essential to recognize that there is no substitute for actual practice. Just as you would never perform surgery after simply reading a textbook on surgical techniques, you can’t assume that reading this book, or any other book, will adequately prepare you for a situation in which your aim is to get the truth. As with any other skill, you need to practice what you have learned on a regular basis.

I can well remember the very first big criminal case that I was to try as a lawyer. I was fresh out of law school and was appointed to represent a defendant on a very serious felony charge (thankfully the representation-by-rookie scenario is no longer possible in the state where I live). I performed research, interviewed witnesses, studied the case law, learned about the presiding judge, and familiarized myself with my client’s codefendants. The one area where I was lacking was in actually trying cases before juries. I had studied trial advocacy in law school, and tried mock cases before mock juries, but I had yet to do it where it mattered.

To overcome this problem, I enlisted the assistance of two mentors. The first one, who had been practicing for a couple years and who was, in my eyes, a savvy veteran of the criminal courts, sat with me for jury selection. We got through that process with very little trouble, and with plenty of pointers from my mentor I felt nearly invincible. During a short recess before the opening statements, I turned to my trusted advisor.

“This is going great!” I said enthusiastically. “Now that you’ve seen the jury, what suggestions do you have for my opening statement?”

“I’m not sure,” he replied. “I’ve never gotten past this point in a jury trial.” It turned out that my mentor was indeed an experienced criminal defense lawyer, but only in district court, where cases are tried before judges, not juries.

Fortunately, the second lawyer who was mentoring me, a seasoned pro in jury trials, arrived. He didn’t bother to contain his laughter when he saw the look on my face and I told him about my predicament. In the end, I received a reprieve: The district attorney came over and said that based on evidence gathered from a codefendant, they were dismissing the felony charges against my client. It was way too close for comfort, but it taught me a lesson I’ve never forgotten: Relying on someone else’s skills, rather than concentrating on developing your own, can be disastrous.

I’m frequently chided by colleagues for the fact that I tell my students to ignore anyone who says to them, “Wait until you get out into the real world.” That’s nonsense. We’re not playing roles in
Avatar
—we were born into the real world, and we’re in situations where we have to interact, resolve conflicts, assess credibility, and persuade others every day. So it’s best not to rely on “experts,” but rather to practice your skills at every opportunity.

The second area of preparation involves collecting as much information as you can so you know the party you’re dealing with inside and out.

A law school mentor of mine in England, Professor John Murdoch, told me that to be really good as a negotiator or an advocate, I needed not only to know the facts of my case, but also to be able to step into the shoes of the other party and know the facts of his case, as well as his perspective of his own case, and of mine. I have carried that advice with me, and I’ve found it has broad application in many arenas.

How effective would an interrogator be if he didn’t understand the religious, political, or ideological motivations of the person he was tasked to interrogate? That background information is crucial fodder for the construction of an effective monologue. Similarly, how successful would a negotiator likely be if she didn’t understand what interest the other party was attempting to serve in making his demands?

For a number of years I have worked in the field of threat management, with a concentration in the area of higher education. The aim is to collect information that can be used to prevent people from harming others, harming themselves, or harming property. A key skill in threat management, as in litigation and negotiation, is the ability to quickly, ethically, and effectively collect information about individuals who may pose a threat. My good friend and colleague, Dr. Jeff Pollard, a highly regarded clinical psychologist and expert in threat management, uses a wonderful phrase to describe the process of creating an assessment of an individual: “Before we can
connect
the dots, first we have to
collect
the dots.”

There are several key places to look in the process of collecting those dots. They include, but are not limited to, the following: • Criminal records

• Civil judgment records • Sex offender registries • Credit records (subject to appropriate authorization) • Tax records

• Real estate transfer and ownership records • Social media presence In the social media category, there are a number of Web sites that are especially helpful resources in providing background information on individuals. I’ve worked with two highly respected colleagues in the threat management field, Dr. Marisa Randazzo and Dr. Gene Deisinger, to put together a list of sites that indicate how individuals are represented, and how they represent themselves, online. Working with students has taught me that it’s important to cast the net more widely than a lot of people would expect. Younger people have a presence on many social media sites that many older people have never even heard of. So, as you seek out information, ask questions of others about where you should be looking online.

The sites we use as resources include: •
Archive.org

• Avvo

• Blogger

• Craigslist (search relevant city/town) • Facebook

• Foursquare

• FriendsReunited

• Google/Yahoo!/Bing (search engines through which you should search for names, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers) • Google+

• Instagram

• LinkedIn

• MySpace

• Ning

• Pheed

• Pinterest

• RateMyProfessors

• Reddit

• Snopes

• Technorati (searches blogs) • Tumblr

• Twitter

• Vine

• WordPress

• Xanga

• YouTube

The information that we collect from these online searches, in addition to what we’re able to glean from simply talking to people, can be invaluable in creating an accurate portrayal of the kind of person or company we’re dealing with. No interview, elicitation, or negotiation situation should ever be entered without having as much relevant background information as you can possibly gather on the person sitting across from you. Failure to gather that information can undermine your effectiveness and make your desired outcome—be it the truth, a favorable settlement, or a great deal—far more difficult to secure.

Appendix III

TRANSCRIPT OF THE ACTUAL INITIAL INTERVIEW OF O. J. SIMPSON

Conducted by LAPD Detectives Philip Vannatter and Thomas Lange

June 13, 1994

NOTE: As you read through the transcript, consider the following questions:

• Had the detectives properly prepared for the interview?

• Did they come into the interview with a clear strategy and a goal they hoped to accomplish?

• Did they establish individual roles for themselves prior to the interview, and conduct the interview accordingly?

• Did they lock Simpson into a clear alibi?

• Were they able to get Simpson to commit to a specific timeline for his activities the night before, and particularly between the hours of nine and eleven, when investigators determined the murders were likely committed?

• Did they obtain a coherent reason for how Simpson sustained the wounds to his left hand?

• Did they properly explore and clarify contradictory statements?

• Did they focus on high-value questions, or did they become distracted by pursuing irrelevant and meaningless lines of inquiry?

• Did they waste precious time asking background questions that could easily have been addressed elsewhere?

• Did they display an appropriate demeanor, or were they overly deferential to Simpson?

• Did Simpson leave the interrogation room having learned more information about the case than the detectives learned from him?

•
Did they ask the most important question of all, whether he caused the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?

Vannatter:
… my partner, Detective Lange, and we’re in an interview room in Parker Center. The date is June 13, 1994, and the time is 13:35 hours and we’re here with O. J. Simpson. Is that Orenthal James Simpson?

Simpson:
Orenthal James Simpson.

Vannatter:
And what is your birth date, Mr. Simpson?

Simpson:
July 9, 1947.