The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly – The Art of Bluffing

Copyright held by The John Cooke Fraud Report. Reprint rights are granted with attribution to The John Cooke Fraud Report with a link to this website.

By Barry Zalma

A Successful Technique Used by Interrogators Is The Bluff.

A “bluff” is a statement made by the interrogator implying he or she knows something that, in fact, is unknown. The fastest way to end an interrogation is for the interrogator to use a poorly thoughtout bluff, since if the subject calls the interrogator’s bluff, the interrogation will end abruptly and unsuccessfully.

For example, it is not uncommon for insurance claims investigators to say something like:

“I have an eyewitness who saw you set that fire.”

or

“I know you never owned that color television; why don’t you just drop your claim?”

or

“Your friend Bill told me that no credit card was issued to you by American Express, so why don’t you tell me how you got this one?”

Faced with such a statement, most subjects reply:

“Oh yeah? Bring him in and let me hear him say I am involved.”

or

“Show me the proof.”

If the interrogator cannot produce the proof he or she might as well go home; the rest of the interrogation will be wasted. The witness will know the interrogator lies. He or she will lose all trust in the professional.

The wise interrogator will avoid bluffing that he or she knows everything. For example, a man’s house burns down. Investigation establishes that several hours before the fire the man bought 10 gallons of gasoline in cans. The firefighters reported that gasoline was found in all parts of the house. The kitchen has the greatest damage; therefore, an inference can be drawn that the fire started in the kitchen.

The interrogator is in a position to get useful information from the insured, who, with financial gain as a motive, is the prime suspect. The interrogator can destroy his position of control by saying to the witness:

“Sam, you bought 10 gallons of gas at Joe’s Gas Station. You had Joe put it in 2 five-gallon cans; then you brought it to the house and threw it all over the house. You then started the fire in the kitchen. We know it and we can prove it.”

If the interrogator indeed knew all of the facts stated, this approach might work. The only thing wrong with this approach is that the interrogator doesn’t know the fire started in the kitchen; he or she is only working off an inference. If the witness started the fire in the hallway, he gains a great deal of confidence as soon as he realizes that the interrogator is not as knowledgeable as he claims. He knows the facts, since he committed the crime, and is not intimidated by an obviously incorrect bluff.

The interrogator should keep to the facts. He should never include in his statements to the witness conclusions drawn or inferred from those facts. The facts tying the insured or claimant to a fraudulent claim are sufficient to induce fear. If the witness realizes that the interrogator knows the basic facts, he or she will be compelled to tell the truth to avoid being caught in a lie. A more effective approach might be:

“Sam, you bought 10 gallons of gas at Joe’s Gas Station. Joe put it in 2 five-gallon cans. After the fire we found 2 five-gallon cans with gasoline residue in your house. What happened to the gasoline you bought?”

With this approach the witness believes you have more information than you have divulged. He knows he must account for the two cans of gasoline. He is not being accused of a crime. He is faced with an interrogator who, by body language and tone of voice, makes it clear to the witness that he only wishes to have all of the facts so that he can eliminate the witness as a suspect. The honest suspect will do everything possible to help prove his innocence. The insurance criminal will fabricate a story that, by physical inspection, can be proved false.

If the interrogator is to use the bluff as an interrogation technique it must be kept as simple as possible. The interrogator should limit the bluff to those facts that the witness knows the interrogator could have obtained from investigation.

During the interrogation the value of the bluff is enhanced by the witness’s belief that all big corporations, like insurers, have unlimited funds to investigate claims. In the example above, the interrogator only reveals what he knows. The interrogator does not divulge to the witness the inferences he has drawn. The witness is left to guess what other facts the interrogator may know that are not disclosed. He worries that if he lies the interrogator will know he is untruthful. The interrogator now has the advantage.

The bluff does not require a statement of fact. The bluff can be unstated. The investigator’s body position and tone of voice should lead the witness to conclude that the interrogator knows how he set fire to the house, even if the interrogator knows nothing. The best bluff is one that is inferred by the witness rather than the bluff that is blatantly stated.

The interrogator never attempts a bluff that does not include some aspects of truth or one that he or she can be caught at.

Bluffs are seldom useful in an insurance interrogation. Only when that insurance interrogation is dealing with a crime should it be tried at all. Even when called for, the bluff should only be used when there is no possibility that the bluff will be called by the witness.

The interrogator will be called upon to prove the truth of all factual assertions made in a bluff. A bluff will be difficult to explain in a later “bad faith” lawsuit brought by the insured. In an insurance investigation the bluff should be used with caution and tact.

At the least, an unsuccessful bluff will embarrass the interrogator. At the worst, the bluff will be trotted before a jury as evidence of the bad faith of the insurer for whom the interrogator is working.

Bluffs should never be used by a professional at the policy inception stage or at the inception of a claims investigation. The bluff should never be used when there are no facts to support the bluff.

At the early investigation stage a bluff must be used cautiously and only when the possibility of gain by the bluff exceeds what can be lost by a bluff that fails.

The interrogator has many tools available to him or her that are better than the bluff. The interrogator, faced with the rare occasion where a bluff will be attempted, must remember a bluff is more useful to a police interrogator.

The professional should also acknowledge that for a bluff to work:

It must be delivered at a time when the witness is uncomfortable.

The witness must be deprived of contact with family, friends or other support.

Most of the statements made to the witness must be true.

The statements made by the interrogator, if not true, must be credible.

The witness must believe, or infer, that the interrogator knows more than he is divulging to the witness.

If any of the elements of a successful bluff are not present, the bluff should be avoided.

Barry Zalma of the Culver City, California, Law Firm of Barry Zalma, Inc., is also the president of ClaimSchool, Inc., and the publisher of How Your Friends and Neighbors are Screwing You and Stealth Interrogation. He can be reached at (310) 390-4455.

© Copyright 1996 Alikim Media