57 online
 
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 6 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

Lying Under Oath for Dummies

By       (Page 3 of 4 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.   1 comment
Message Stephen Pizzo
Become a Fan
  (12 fans)
When asked a question that requires forgetfulness you gain entry to the Fuzz Zone with answers like this: 

“I have no particular recollection of that meeting.”
“I don't recall that conversation.”
“I have no independent recollection of that.”
“I do not believe I said that.”
“I don't recall making that remark.”
“I have no memory of seeing that memo.”



Shouldering Responsibility without Shouldering Guilt
If you were the head of an agency or organization at the time of the matter being investigated you can still enter the Fuzz Zone, but must do so with greater care. In particular you need to avoid answers that make it appear you are trying to avoid responsibility for things that happened under your command. When faced with a question where forgetfulness may lead to such suspicions, be proactive -- assume responsibility first, then “forget.”

“As the person in charge I take full responsibility for what happened. It was my responsibility to make sure such things don't happen, they did anyway, and I take responsibility for that. As soon as I became aware of this I took steps to assure they never happen again. But, having said that, I have no independent recollection of personally having anything to do with the events (meetings, memos, emails, orders, statements, etc) you mention.”


Terms like “no independent recollection” are particularly useful when the questions center on matters in which you suspect confirming evidence may exist or is likely to surface later in the investigation. 

When confronted with proof of prior knowledge, you can go back to your original answer;

 “I believe I testified that I had no independent knowledge. Of course, at some point I learned about it by reading of it or being told about by others. But until then, as I testified under oath earlier,  I had no independent -- that is personal -- knowledge of the matter.”


If asked who told you, you reply, “I don't recall.”  If you want to get fancy you can throw that question back at the questioner;

“But if you know you know and can refresh my memory on that maybe we can move past this issue.”


Such a reply, while appearing pretty checky under the circumstances, is actually a safe gambit, since you know that no one told you, that you knew all along –  something your questioner can't prove.

How sweet is that? “I don't recall” -- the lie that cannot be proven. No one can look inside your head and prove or disprove the state of your memory. So say it as often as you must to keep your ass out of jail -- “I don't recall.” It's a dodge that, while it may wear thin with prosecutors, is the gift that keeps giving for the guilty. 


3) The “You know I am precluded from answering...”  Gambit
This technique only works if you can credibly claim to be in possession of state secrets or privileged executive matters.

When using this technique it is extremely important that you appear “pained” that you cannot simply answer the question. As you “struggle” with your response be sure to insinuate that your answer, were you free to provide it, would fully support your claim of innocence.

“Sir, there is nothing I would love more than to answer that question. But, as you know, I am legally precluded from doing so.”


This technique, if properly deployed, not only protects inconvenient truths, but can recast you from suspected perp to hostage of circumstances beyond your control. (“If only I were free to answer...”)

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings

Stephen Pizzo Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Stephen Pizzo has been published everywhere from The New York Times to Mother Jones magazine. His book, Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans, was nominated for a Pulitzer.

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

 
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Secrets Kill Too

Dying for Change

What's the Matter With Gaza?

Who You Callin' Un-American?

Worst Clinton Contributor Ever

I Was At the Birth...

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend