Signal flags in the investigation of Admiral Poindexter

The behavioral signs associated with facial expressions, body movements, voice, and manner of speaking are not yet signs of deception. They can be signs of emotions that do not correspond to the content of what has been said. Or they may indicate that the suspect ponders his words before saying something. These signs are signal flags indicating the area to be explored. They prompt the verifier that something is happening that requires clarification, that it is necessary to ask additional questions and thereby verify the information and so on. Let's look at an example of how such signal flags can work.
In mid-1986, the United States sold a batch of weapons to Iran, hoping in this way to release the American hostages in Lebanon, captured by a group of terrorists operating under Iran’s leadership or sympathizing with the country. The Reagan administration stated that the sale of arms is not a ransom for the hostages, but is part of a policy of improving relations with Iran’s new moderate Islamic leadership, which came to power after the death of Ayatollah Khomeini. But a major scandal soon erupted, as it became known that part of the profits from the sale of weapons to Iran in direct violation of the law passed by the Congress (the Boland amendments) was secretly used to buy weapons for the contras, the pro-American group of Nicaraguan rebels who opposed the new pro-Soviet Sandinista leadership of this central american country. At a press conference in 1986, President Ronald Reagan and Attorney General Edwin Meese themselves told about the transfer of funds for the contras. And at the same time, they claimed that they knew nothing about it. They stated that National Security Advisor Vice Admiral John Poindexster resigned, and his colleague, Fleet Colonel Oliver North, was relieved of his duties in the National Security Council. Newspapers were full of news about this scandal, and polls showed that the majority of the population still did not believe President Reagan’s statement that he was not aware of the illegal transfer of funds to the contras.
After eight months, Lieutenant Colonel North testified to the congressional commission that investigated this scandal. North said he often discussed this matter with William Casey, the director of the CIA. However, Casey died three months before the hearing. North told the commission that Casey had warned him that he (North) would be a "whipping boy" and Poindexter might have to play that role, since they would have to cover President Reagan.
Then the congressional commission listened to the testimony of Poindexter, who stated that he himself had approved the plan of Lieutenant Colonel North to transfer the proceeds from the sale of Contra weapons. He claimed that he took advantage of the power granted to him, without even informing the president of his decision, in order to shield Reagan from the "politically explosive problem", which in fact made so much noise afterwards. “I made the decision,” Poindexter declared in his most mundane tone ^[248] .
Only once during the interrogation, namely, when he was asked about lunch with the late CIA director William Casey, Poindexter said he could not remember what they were talking about at lunch, and only remembers that they ate sandwiches. Senator Sam Nunn insisted on answering, rather sharply sarcastic at Poindexter's memory lapses, and during the two minutes that followed, Poindexter's face showed anger micro-expressions twice, the timbre of his voice increased, he swallowed four times, and there were many pauses in his speech and reps. This point in Poindexter’s reading illustrates four important points.

1. If changes in behavior are not limited to any one area (either facial expression, or voice, or changes in the nervous system, which are indicated by involuntary swallowing movements), then this is a serious signal that something important is happening, that you need to pay special attention to. Attention. Of course, one should not ignore the signs relating only to one type of behavior, especially when there is simply nothing else, but if the signs concern various aspects, then they are much more reliable and usually indicate stronger emotions.
2. It is much less risky to interpret a change in behavior than any feature that is constantly repeated in a person’s behavior. Poindexter did not often hesitate, made pauses in speech, swallowing movements, and the like. Watching for changes in behavior, the verifier must constantly keep in mind the phenomenon that I call the “Brokaw trap” (see Chapter 3 “Detection of deception by words, voice and plastic”). Focusing on the changes, we will not be misled by the peculiar behavior of the suspect.
3. If changes in behavior occur in connection with a particular topic or issue, they indicate an area that needs to be explored. Despite the fact that congressmen meticulously interrogated Poindexter on many issues, Poindexter showed no such signs until Senator Nunn asked him about lunch with Director Casey. Poindexter's suspicious behavior ceased when Nunn left the question of lunch and turned to another topic. If an assumption arises that a group of behavioral changes appears in connection with a particular topic, the specialist should try to check whether this topic is really causing the changes. This can be done by leaving the topic and going over to other issues, like Nunn, and then suddenly returning to this topic again and again to check whether a set of behavioral changes will appear at times or not.
4. The verifier should try to come up with other explanations for changes in behavior and consider the possibility that they may not be signs of deception. If Poindexter lied in response to questions about lunch, he was probably upset about it. The religious vice-admiral is known; his wife even read psalms in church. Most likely, it was unpleasant for him to lie, even if he believed that his lies were justified by national interests. It is possible that he was also afraid to be caught Volga. However, there are other options that should also be considered.

Poindexter testified for many days. Suppose that during a lunch break, he always confers with his lawyers and eats sandwiches prepared by his wife. Suppose that today, when he asked his wife if she prepared sandwiches, she got annoyed and said: “John, I can't make you sandwiches every day, week after week, I have other things to do!” And if they wife rarely angry with each other, Poindexter could be upset because of this. Later, when Nunn asked him about lunch and he mentioned sandwiches, the emotions that had arisen from the quarrel with his wife were agitated, and we saw expressions of precisely these feelings, and not signs of guilt caused by lies about some aspect of the Iran- contras or fear of being caught in a lie.
I will never know how reasonable this line of reasoning is. I just want to emphasize that a specialist should always try to consider alternative explanations and collect information that can help eliminate them. The Poindexter example only indicates that lunch with Casey is a “hot” topic. We do not know what this is connected with, so we should not come to the hasty conclusion that Poindexter lies, until all other explanations are ruled out.