Dateline: To Catch a Predator

Have you seen the series produced by Dateline NBC: To catch a predator? It’s a difficult show to watch, but also a show you don’t want to turn away from. The realization that we have that many sexual predators openly approaching strangers houses in city after city after it is widely known that the show is traveling around the country is mind boggling.

We are facing an epidemic in sexual compulsive behavior where predators feel they can safely and privately lure their victims without anyone knowing — and it is clear they are getting away with it more than any of us would ever like to know.

If only we could profile these guys — so we could look out for them. But sadly, if you have watched this show, there is no profile that fits these guys. They come from all walks-of-life.

I thought it would be interesting to review the red flags I spot in cases where we are unsure someone is lying — to a case where we know for sure someone is lying.

What is interesting about this guy is he doesn’t do any of the classic liar signs that most people look for during most of his lies. He doesn’t shift his eyes, he doesn’t look away — he looks straight into Chris Hansen’s eyes. But he does give off classic “thinking clues” in his lies. He is thinking as he talks and it clearly shows. When we tell the truth –we don’t have to think about it. We intuitively know what we did. When we lie, we have to think about it. It’s not a guarantee that someone is lying – – but if someone continually does it over and over — your red flags will pile up into an undeniable outcome.

At time marker 3:24, the predator says: “I’m sorry, I’m not here to really do anything, though.” What is interesting is his use of words: I’m not here to ‘really‘ do anything ‘though‘. Notice the choice of words shows his own self-doubt. When we are confident and telling the truth, we don’t speak like this. This is a classic thinking-on-the-spot lie.

Time Marker 2:58: (Predator denying he knew victim was 13) “You know, it was due…I was actually home at that time, really drunk. I probably didn’t even pay attention.” Again, classic thinking-on-the-spot red flag. Stuttering in his speech, fragmented sentence and the weak conviction of “I probably didn’t even…”. When we tell the truth, we are certain. We don’t “probably”, “maybe”, “really”, “perhaps” excuse ourselves.

When Chris Hansen says that the girl was really 13, the predator says “Wow”. What is scary about this is it hints that he may be accomplished at deception. He quickly fakes an expression with the hopes of fooling you. This response alone and out of context might fool most people. I maybe no exception — though the guy is subdued over all — and that is a red flag. If you were truly honest in this situation, I would expect fire and fury if you realized what you were being accused of. I would not expect such a dull, and dead — lack-of-emotions response.

Time Marker 2:46: Chris Hansen asks, “And how old are you?” The perpetrator says “I’m twen…ty…(he looks off to his left and pauses)…actually twenty-eight. Yeah.”

Yeah? He is answering his own question!! That’s not normal behavior. Clearly, here you can see this is a thinking clue. He is trying to decide how old he is and once he decided, he answers himself. Oops! Do you answer yourself by accident ever? Whenever someone can’t answer a basic question like that on the spot– it’s likely a red flag (though of course not always).

Time Marker 1:43: The perpetrator says, “I mean look at me. Do you think I would do something like that? I’m very professional.” Here this man is playing on your doubts and he obviously has had practice doing it. This in itself is a red flag because of the tone he is using. He is trying to be all soft and sweet and kind — playing on Chris Hansen’s emotions (whereas an honest man would be mad, angry, frustrated anything but kind and soft) .

Most people hate to accuse other people of lying — and this guy knows that if he connects with you emotionally and gets your sympathy — he’ll win you over. If he shows you he is soft, kind and patient — you won’t believe he is deceptive. He may be able to change your mind. He’s definitely done this before.

Furthermore, do you notice he has no emotions? He doesn’t act any different when he is trying to be nice earlier compared to when he is being accused of lying? His emotions are baseline. That is always a red flag. Your emotions should match your situation and when they don’t — red flag!

Time Marker 1:11: Later with an investigator, the perpetrator continues to insist he believed the girl was 19. “I was drinking at that time, and I didn’t really….um….you know, pay attention while she’s 13…like I mean, if I was awake and I had known, I would not be here.”

Classic thinking-on-your-feet lie. Classic Joran van der Sloot behavior, isn’t it? This predator’s sentence is fragmented, doesn’t make logical sense, and is inconsistent. First he says he was drunk, then he says he wasn’t awake. Which is it? Earlier he told us he didn’t come here for that — but then he says if he had known her age — he wouldn’t be here. Two different stories! Inconsistencies in fact. You really have to watch the little details. These are what will point out a liar quickly and swiftly even if you missed all the other red flags. And facts won’t make you doubt your emotions. They either match or they don’t. It’s black and white.

This perpetrator continues on — still believing he is going to convince someone that he is a good guy – even after all of the evidence against him. He doesn’t give it up. He continues to defend himself in a mild manner. It likely means he has convinced other people before successfully that he is honest when in fact he is not. This hints at how it is likely this guy is accomplished at deception.

Did you find this interesting? Helpful? Would you like me to do more?