When asked about your trip to Miami for the game ...
by Ofcr. Tim McCarthy (2013-01-11 16:42:04)

In reply to: That was for the tour *  posted by Winter Celtic

... you spontaneously started talking about how lucky you were to get "access" to the stadium tour? And not about how lucky you were to get thousands of dollars of game tickets for free?

Like I say, even with all the practice you've had, you're still bad at this.

And Bonger, you're on something of a fool's errand. You'll never catch a liar in his lies by asking him for more explanations, because he can always make up some more. Instead, you compare his story to what you know, both specifically about him and generally about how the world works. Specifically, for instance, this guy first said he got "access" from a buddy in game security. When advised that we can all see him wearing actual game tickets around his neck, the story is that the buddy gave him thousands of dollars of tickets for free. Now, when it's pointed out that didn't say he got free tickets, he said he got "access," he says that when he said "access" he meant the dinky little stadium tour and just forgot to mention the thousands of dollars worth of free tickets. And others note that his facebook page showed him doing other costly things -- which he now simply denies, claiming he drove back to his Mom's house in Orlando every night.

More generally, he visibly was begging for money at the same time he was going to the BCS championship game in Miami. So flag pops up there. Then he says a buddy he met at Comic-con and who was a manager of the game security force not only snuck him into the stadium tour (what?), but gave him the thousands of dollars worth of free tickets. As grown people we know that's just not plausible, and adding that to what we know specifically gets us further down the road.

And once you've confronted a liar, you're not going to get far by asking more questions and listening to what he actually says in any detail. Instead you ask more questions and watch him, and listen to how the story changes rather than the details of what's in it. Does the story simultaneously get more elaborate and less plausible? Check. Does he get defensive ("You're a very judgmental person")? Check. Does he throw up roadblocks to dangerous questions ("What, now you want my buddy's name and address and hat size?"). Check. That behavior, combined with what we know about his story, gets to the conclusion.

He was caught in a lie from the start. When confronted, he gave an explanation that didn't come close to explaining the truth and that was itself implausible. Everything he's said since then has been just what you would expect a cornered liar to say. There's a very simple way for him to square it -- give the money back and have the donors tell us he's done so -- but he's not interested. So. He's lying, and he's a con man. He's not going to change just because the thread gets longer.