Indian road workers prepare to remove a security barrier from the U.S. embassy in New Delhi as part of an effort to retaliate against the arrest of an Indian diplomat in New York.
April 25, 2012 -
Did John Edwards work with his aide to hide his affair or didn't he? Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, faces up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines if he is found guilty on six charges of violating campaign finance laws, allegedly paid off to his mistress Rielle Hunter. As his trial plods along, there are certain tells, experts say, that reveal when a person is lying -- whether that be him or his aide, Andrew Young. But as detective shows and police know, liars always have their tells. In this slideshow, we take a look at the ways liars show their true colors.
Even if a liar can put on his or her best poker face, unconscious emotional "cracks" -- or unintentional and brief flashes of emotion -- give away a subject's real mental state, according to a study by Stephen Porter's Forensic Psychology Lab at Dalhousie University.
Although sudden cracks in facial expression could give away subtle clues to deception, one researcher found that tiny movements in facial muscles -- such as the zygo maticus major and the orbicularis oculi -- can unmask liars. Social psychologist Mark Frank used computer technology to analyze facial expressions, following a large body of research "about the evolutionarily-derived nature of emotion and its expression," according to a press release on EurekAlert!. Micro-expressions in subjects' faces, such as tics, smiles, frowns and wrinkles, essentially serve as accurate windows into the emotions, even if the person being interrogated is trying to suppress his or her feelings. Frank's system can be used not only to uncover potential criminals, but also even reveal terrorist threats. Frank, however, is quick to point out that his system only provides investigators with "very good clues" and "not proof of anything."
The Eagles may have been on to something. Eyes may reveal a liar in the act, and scientists at the University of Utah have developed technology to detect just that, as reported by Discovery News' Tracy Staedter in 2010. A computer camera and tracking software record minute eye movements to measure cognitive reaction. By contrast, a polygraph measures a subject's emotional reaction. The system "also records other variables, including the time it takes to respond to a question, how long it takes a subject to read or even reread a question and how many errors are made," according to the report. The researchers hope that the technology will be adopted by various U.S. defense, intelligence and law enforcement agencies that regularly employ polygraph tests.
As anyone who has ever dealt with a bad liar before can attest, some people just can't keep a story straight. But even the most talented studied storyteller can fall into some familiar speech patterns that indicate a truthful tale. In a study published in American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, UCLA professor of psychology R. Edward Geiselman and his colleagues reveal speech patterns they have detected that are often red flags for deceit. Liars very often provide few details, have a tendency to repeat questions, actively monitor listener reactions, speak in sentence fragments and more. To unmask dishonesty, Geiselman and colleagues suggest listeners have potential deceivers tell their story backwards, ask open-ended questions and never interrupt.
If the source of every lie is the brain, shouldn't it be possibly to simply see if that particular region of the brain associated with deceit is active when a subject is lying? Scientists are attempting to use functional-magnetic-resonance-imaging (fMRI) as a lie detector. In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2009, Joshua Greene, an assistant professor of psychology at Harvard University, found that "areas within the volunteers' prefrontal cortices registered vigorous activity," according to a report on TIME.com. However, as Greene admits, the technique can't tell the difference between someone who intends to lie and a person who is contemplating whether to lie. Despite the limitations of this kind of technology, at least two companies have offered lie detection services using the same technique. This application has led some scholars to criticize these lie detection methods as no better than the polygraph. Even though these kinds of studies currently have their detractors, the efforts aren't without warrant. A 2005 study out of the University of Southern California and published in the British Journal of Psychiatry found brain abnormalities in people who are habitual liars. "The liars had significantly more 'white matter' and slightly less 'gray matter' than those they were measured against," according to a press release available on Science Daily. The wiring in the brain, white matter may help liars with the extra cognitive effort needed to fabricate information.
Liars may not actually have their pants on fire, but their faces sure seem to heat up when they're not telling the truth, according to a study led by the Mayo Clinic and published in Nature in 2002. In 80 percent of cases studied for the experiment, heat patterns in the face change dramatically when a person is lying. Using high-definition thermal imaging technology, an investigator can monitor these heat patterns to assess the veracity of a subject's statements.
Although handwriting analysis is often regarded as a pseudoscience, it may have a potentially legitimate application in assisting with lie detection, according to researchers at the University of Haifa in Israel. Using a computerized tool to detect a user's hand movements, the researchers found that certain cues, such as "the duration of time that the pen is on paper versus in the air; the length height and width of each writing stroke;
the pressure implemented on the writing surface," can signal when someone is about to write an untruthful statement, according to a release in Science Daily. This technology is intended to work in tandem with verbal-based lie detectors.
The arrest of an Indian diplomat last week has sparked an international row, particularly after word spread in India that the accused had been placed in a cell with “drug addicts” and strip-searched by U.S. authorities, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Indian deputy consul general Devyani Khobragade had been arrested on Thursday on federal charges of visa fraud, accused of falsifying documents for her maid and paying her a fraction of the federal minimum wage. India reacted by taking steps to downgrade the privileges of American diplomats and their families who reside in the subcontinent.
Whether the accusations against Khobragade are true, Khobragade’s lawyer is pleading not guilty on the grounds that she enjoys diplomatic and consular immunity from criminal prosecution within the U.S. jurisdiction, as the New York Daily News reports. But how far does diplomatic immunity really go?
As the U.S. State Department notes on its website (PDF), privileges and immunities for diplomats are established in the the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 (VCDR) and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1969 (VCCR). Additional privileges may be agreed upon bilaterally between nations.
Diplomatic immunity isn’t a license to abuse the law in a host country, and the Vienna Conventions emphasize a duty to follow local laws. In the Khobragade case, the United States is asserting that immunity only extends to actions committed as part of her function with the consulate.
Even if diplomats do avoid prosecution by a host nation, a country can declare a diplomat personae non gratae for any reason and expel that person and his or her family. Last year, for example, the United States declared three Venezuelan diplomats personae non gratae, after Venezuela made a similar move, accusing three U.S. diplomats of conspiring to bring down the government.
In extreme cases, if a diplomat commits a serious crime, a host country may ask for a waiver from the official’s home nation. This happened in 1997 when Deputy Ambassador of the Republic of Georgia, Gueorgui Makharadze, committed vehicular manslaughter. Though initially released because of diplomatic immunity, Georgia waived his immunity for a criminal case to proceed. After Makharadze was tried and served out his sentence in the United States, he returned to Georgia where he served additional jail time.
Diplomatic immunity gives agents of foreign governments broad latitude in carrying out the necessary functions of state business. But as the Khobragade case and others show, diplomats are placed under a close microscope when they fall out of favor with local authorities, and their actions can draw anger and embarrassment of an entire nation looking on.
Photo: Getty Images