Book Review by PI Magazine

Great book review of "Getting the Truth" by the editor of PI Magazine​, Grace Elting Castle, in PI Magazine's March 2015 issue.  Her review ended with:

"But, my truth is, also, that I recommend this book for every PI, no matter your level of experience, or how great you believe you are at
interviewing or interrogating. It will make you think, squirm, question your past interviews and interrogations, and likely lead you to reconsider what you thought you knew about his case examples. It probably will also cause you to recommend it to others---especially those you send out from your own office to seek the truth."    

You can purchase Mr. Koenig's book, Getting the Truth by clicking "BOOKSTORE" above.

Getting the Truth

From the book, "Getting the Truth"

"Like water seeking its own level, the body relieves itself of stress, seeking calmness.  The greatest stress reliever known to man is truth-telling. It's a relief valve, a bloodletting, a purging. Nature demands it in order to begin the rebuilding process." You can purchase Mr. Koenig's book, Getting the Truth by clicking "BOOKSTORE" above. 

Poker Players - This Book is for You

Things aren't always what they appear to be. If you master the principles in "Getting the Truth" and become a "Trained Observer," the good poker player will acquire an edge over many pros.  An excerpt from "Getting the Truth," available at Getting the Truth:

“To become Trained Observers we need to train ourselves to see without filters, to hear without distinguishing, to taste without discriminating, to touch without reacting, and to smell without concluding. Simply put, we need to be objective. Know and identify your prejudices and work hard to set them aside. 

And there should be a sixth sense — one that kind of parallels the other five. One that should always be there, in full use, and operational: empathy. Without empathy, you will not become a Trained Observer. Empathy isn’t feeling sorry for someone — that’s sympathy. Sympathy causes a bias that will keep you from getting the truth. Empathy is much more neutral than sympathy. Empathy is putting yourself in their shoes, using all your senses to experience what they experience. That requires research, patience, work, and commitment. Empathy is a means to understand. It’s only through the peephole of understanding that you can ‘sense’ the true message.”

The poker player who is a trained observer will see that movement, hear that inflection in the opponent's voice, will "sense" when an opponent is confident and when he/she is not. And that will give the trained observer the edge over the competition. Getting the Truth will get you there.

Tom Brady and Deflategate

Can we determine that Tom Brady is lying based upon his response to the following press conference question?

Q.  Is Tom Brady a cheater?

Tom Brady:  “I don’t believe so.”

On the surface, his response is not what you would expect a non-cheater to say.  A poor denial lends credibility to the accuser/allegation.  Is this denial simplistic and precise?  No. This is a suspicious denial.  But can we say he lied? 

We have wiggle words in “cheater” and “believe," both left undefined.  So, Mr. Brady can interpret and use those words how he wishes, deceptively if he chooses to his advantage. Everybody interprets words differently.  We cannot assume “cheater” is a mutually understood word.  The dictionary definition includes “dishonesty” and  “intentional breaking of rules.”  Did he “intentionally” break the rules if the ball boy, on his own, deflated the balls? What if Brady told the ball boy to lower the psi in the balls while mistakenly thinking the ball boy knew the legal limits? 

Here’s another question. Is it "intentionally breaking the rules," if the rules are never enforced? QB’s are able to massage, brush, scratch, condition, and otherwise manipulate the balls to their liking. While those actions are apparently within the rules, it seems only a slight extension to think a 1 or 2 less psi is OK too.

The question also connotes present tense: “Are you a cheater?”  Brady hasn’t been officially determined to be a “cheater.” So, technically and probably legally, he isn’t a “cheater” until evidence determines him to be. He therefore, “believes” he is not a “cheater.” Our rationalization process allows us to say “I’m not a cheater,” until we’re officially determined to be a cheater. I’m not guilty until determined to be guilty.

Also, he could say he interpreted “cheater” to mean what people thought of him.  Given that definition, it doesn’t matter what really happened, it only matters what people thought.  If he unknowingly used deflated footballs and people thought he knew it, then he’d be considered a “cheater,” even though he was an unwitting QB. Therefore, with this scenario, he doesn’t believe he’s a “cheater,” but everyone else might. 

So, we don’t know if he lied.  We may think he did, but we can’t conclude that based on his response.  That’s the trouble with a poorly structured question.  It leaves us unable to get the truth.  

Here is where you can find out more about Mr. Koenig's book, "Getting the Truth," and how to properly construct questions:

Get "Getting the Truth"