Confirmation Glancing & The Prince Andrew Interview

I have written about detecting deception before, looking at both verbal and non-verbal clues. In this article I want to look specifically at non-verbal facial cues, and how these can be used to detect deceit. Whenever we look at interpreting facial expressions, it is worth reminding ourselves that we need to see an individual’s expression in context, or we may misinterpret their emotional state etc. We just simply aren’t good at recognizing and identifying emotions from facial expressions without any contextual information (to read more about this click here). The other thing we need to be aware of when using facial cues, is that they may be very small, and at times constitute what Eckman refers to as “micro expressions”; which are much easier to detect when playing/replaying a video of a person talking, rather than trying to identify them in the moment. To illustrate some of the cues, I’m going to use footage of a 2019 BBC interview with Prince Andrew, that was part of a Newsnight Special about his relationship with financier Jeffrey Epstein (a convicted pedophile). Prince Andrew was involved in his own sex scandal at the time, having been accused of raping a minor at one of Epstein’s properties; he later settled with his accuser for 20 million dollars. Although his advisors told him not to take part in the interview, he ignored them and went ahead, obviously believing he could steer the narrative; something he failed at quite spectacularly. You don’t need to watch the interview (which can be accessed by clicking here) to read the article, but I will put timings next to the cues I write about so that if you would like to see an actual example, you will be able to watch it on the video.

               Before talking about specific facial cues that may reveal deception (it’s importance to state “may”, because we may not always have a “baseline” from which to judge behaviors e.g., somebody may naturally blink a lot, and so what may seem excessive eye movement, actually isn’t the case – with Andrew we can judge that his blinking was excessive because there are other interviews to compare it with), it’s worth mentioning some more general things about the interview to get an idea of the context within which it was conducted. It is very likely Andrew received some form of coaching by his aides, as to how he should sit, and the approach he should take. For an interview that lasted nearly fifty minutes, he only ever moved his hands and his feet, not even his arms and his legs, suggesting that somebody on his team was aware that if he used larger gestures, changed his posture, moved his body etc. these could be used to detect deception. It would appear that he wanted to give as little away as possible, and so kept the same rigid and unnatural posture for the entire interview. He also takes the tactic of attacking what may be minor and insignificant inaccuracies in the interviewer’s facts e.g., he denies that he threw a birthday party for Epstein’s girlfriend and co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell (who was also found guilty of child sexual abuse and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence), stating that it was a “shooting party”, and then referring it as a “straightforward shooting weekend” (4:55), in order to make it appear even less significant, whilst adding in an extra fact to make it seem a less important event; weekend versus party. The strategy here is to correct a lot of minor and unimportant details in order for the questioner’s/interviewer’s knowledge and facts to not appear as credible. This flawed logic if taken to the ridiculous extreme would be akin to saying something along the lines of, “You say I stole $100 from you, however it couldn’t have been me because I only stole $20. Get your facts right before you start calling me a thief”.

Both physically and verbally this is one of the strangest interviews/interrogations I have ever seen, with some of the most bizarre explanations as to why he couldn’t have sexually assaulted his accuser – she stated amongst other facts, that he was sweating profusely, when he actually has a rare condition that doesn’t allow him to perspire. Giving multiple, and too many reasons (over denying) why you didn’t do something when the first reason you gave – that you weren’t there at that time – would explain how it couldn’t have been you etc., has the appearance of a guilty man over-explaining his innocence.

               The first facial cue I want to look at is something referred to as “confirmation glancing”. If you are giving a truthful account of a series of events, you don’t need confirmation from the person that you are talking to that they believe you. However, if you are engaged in deception, you need to check as you tell your story that the person you’re telling it to believes you. Someone who is lying needs to keep checking/confirming with their audience that they are being believed. If they’re not, they may need to alter their story somewhat. This is why If you are ever questioning someone in an interview or interrogation setting (The Wicklander-Zulawski method classifies an interview as being where the goal is to gather information, and an interrogation, being something that is directed at a suspect), a good approach is to allow the individual being questioned the opportunity to tell their story without interruption e.g., if you are asking someone about the route they took home from work on a particular evening, and you notice an inaccuracy or inconsistency in something they say and bring this up in the moment, then at that point you give them the opportunity to revise their account. If you let them move on with their account uninterrupted, they may mention something that becomes dependent on their initial inconsistency, which prevents them from revising or explaining it. Those engaged in confirmation glancing, are waiting for this engagement i.e., “you don’t believe me”, then tell me now; if you don’t, I’ll assume that you do believe me because you’re not telling me otherwise etc. Silence is taken as acceptance.

               Despite saying at the start of the interview that he had always wanted to do it (0:50), one facial expression that betrayed this was that throughout the interview his mouth was constantly tense, when listening to facts being presented or questions asked etc. This is not the relaxed facial expression of someone who wants to talk. He is there because he feels he has no other choice but to state and argue his case. It should be remembered that everyone around him had advised him not to do this interview, so it would have been something he would have spent some time considering, and possibly looking for alternative ways to claim/prove his innocence, however once he realized this story wasn’t going to go away, and questions were continuing to be asked, he probably believed he would be able “win” any interview. It was conducted in Buckingham Palace, so he may have felt that having home turf advantage, and him being a member of the Royal family, that whoever interviewed him would be intimidated by the process. Unfortunately for him, he was interviewed by Emily Maitlas, who was prepared to express her feelings towards his answers, and lack of them e.g., when Andrew said he regretted his relationship with Epstein whose actions were “unbecoming” (48:05), she reminds him that he is talking about a child sex offender.  

               Although not a facial expression, Andrew makes an interesting head movement that may betray his real motives for spending time with Epstein. At (2:20), the interviewer states/confirms that Epstein’s appeal to Andrew was purely professional, as he listens to her say this he verbally confirms “yes”, whilst at the same time shaking his head i.e., saying no. Some people will look on this as a definite tell, and state that his body language is the true/correct answer or “leakage”. It is more likely that the contradiction between his head movement, and his verbal response is more that of a confusion in his answer i.e., he wants it to be seen that his relationship with Epstein was simply a business one, but he understands that although this was part of it, their relationship was somewhat more complex and involved than that. 

               Another facial expression that those engaged in deception use, is to sneer, in order to ridicule what is being said, making it out that what is being presented is outlandish and preposterous. Andrew does this around the (11:50) mark in the interview when he refutes that he was the “Guest of Honor” at Epstein’s release party in 2010. This response is often used when given a minor detail, rather than a major one. As mentioned before the focus on the insignificant in itself is a good indication that someone is engaged in deception. It is an approach that attempts to treat all facts as being equal, in order to dismiss and diminish the seriousness of the actual subject matter e.g., the interview was not about establishing whether Andrew invited Epstein to Sandringham, for a birthday party or a shooting party etc. It was about giving him an opportunity to explain why he wasn’t a sex offender like Epstein and wasn’t involved in that part of Epstein’s life. The other point of sneering is to try and mock the other person, treating them as if they are an idiot to believe such a fact/piece of information and then have the stupidity to present it to them. This is one of the strange things that often happens in acts of deception; the individual switches between wanting to appear polite and helpful, but then behaves in a nasty manner which looks to undermine the other person’s position. Sneering is more than a representation of frustration, it represents an opportunity for the other party to make a power play and undermine the person asking the question. Sneering is a way to communicate to the interviewer that they don’t really know what they are talking about.

               Towards the end of the interview, the interviewer asks the question that now that Jeffrey Epstein is dead, how will Prince Andrew move on. On being reminded that Epstein is dead, Andrew laughs and his facial expressions change to ones of abject relief (40:37), and for the first time in the interview he relaxes, knowing that the nature of his relationship with Epstein, and many of the things the two were privately involved in, will never be known as they effectively went to the grave with Epstein, the moment he committed suicide. There is also probably relief that the interview is coming to an end, and that he has discovered through the process what evidence the BBC has and what the organization does and doesn’t know. The most significant “smoking gun” moment occurs at the (13:43) mark when the interviewer informs Andrew that the literary agent John Brockman, reported that he saw Andrew getting a foot massage from a young Russian woman. When told this he reacts in a surprised manner. However, the degree of his surprise is so great it is hard to determine whether it is genuine or deliberately exaggerated i.e., he uses a look of extreme surprise to try and make the statement seem too outlandish. This is one of the difficulties when using facial expressions to discern deception, as the person engaged in deceit can make deliberate responses in order to deflect, however Andrew’s hand movement – he starts to open them up for the first time, whereas before he has been pressing the fingers together throughout – suggest that the surprise may be genuine; it is hard to consciously manage all of these things together. Also, he questions whether Brockman was there (saying “really”), and then later goes on to say that he doesn’t know who Brockman is – if you don’t know who someone is you wouldn’t know whether they were there or not etc.

               Andrew’s relief towards the end of the interview – especially when he is reminded that it is coming to a close (4:43) – is obvious. While this is understandable, for someone who is looking to prove their innocence, it is also a strange response. He claimed that he wanted and was willing to engage in this process, because it offered him an opportunity to clear his name/explain his relationship with Epstein etc., however if this was truly the case, and he had irrefutable proof as to his innocence (which has to be questioned in light of him financially settling the case brought against him), he would likely be looking for more opportunities/time to provide evidence that he didn’t commit any offenses. People who are innocent of a claim against them are often desperate to keep providing details and information that show they are/were not guilty of the offenses laid before them, however Prince Andrew, actually presents very few “facts” and details in the 50-minute interview, despite the interviewer (Emily Maitlis) giving him the space and room to do so. From a content analysis perspective, this is indicative of deception i.e., he wants to give as few details as possible that could be investigated further, at a later date. Whatever “truth” Andrew is hiding, that he is engaged is deception and hiding something is fairly evident, however the interview does illustrate the fact that there are no clear rules for detecting deception, there is no one sign or “Pinocchio’s nose”, but it is the totality of content, body language and facial expressions that must be used.