It was on 17th August of 1998 when Clinton was testifying before the Grand Jury concerning his suspected affair with Monica Lewinsky. Also, on several occasions, Clinton had to provide answers concerning his personal secretary (Betty Currie) who had gone to Lewinsky’s resident to deliver presents from Clinton. The main question was whether the President had requested her to do so. Kenneth Starr’s prosecuting team inquired twice whether Clinton had instructed Currie. Clinton denied having instructed Currie two times, which clear indications or a remarkable behavior. In both instances, Clinton never moved, sat up, and stared straight to the camera. Initially, his behavior was very surprising, when he denied claims before the interviewer could complete his question. He persisted with the rigid behavior, looking straight into the camera even during moments of silence that followed following his denials. From these scenes, it is clear that Clinton intention was to create an honest impression on the Grand Jury and Starr’s team using non-verbal cues (facial expression, eye contact, and attentiveness. During the testimonial, the Jury was able to observe 23 non-verbal and verbal cues that Clinton displayed. Clinton’s display of non-verbal and verbal cues was fundamental in determining whether Clinton was telling the truth (Vrij 77).
From the example above, we can ascertain that during Bill Clinton’s testimonial, he intended to create honest impressions through non-verbal cues such as facial expression, eye contact and physical gestures and posture, which were constantly being decoded, revealed, and subconsciously evaluated by the Jury. According to Hennick, there is a complex interaction between human facial muscle and what they think, feel, or perceive (pathos or non-verbal cues). In his testimonial, Clinton stares straight into the camera and does not move, intending to convince the jury and Starr’s team that he was innocent from the claims presented on the table. In some situations, such non-verbal cues as displayed by Clinton occurs involuntarily and he did not realize that he was exposing his lies when adopting such cues. Thus, facial expression, posture, and gesture were momentarily at odds with what he intended to communicate to the Jury the prosecuting team. Also, during the testimonial and when leaving the podium, Clinton showed brief emotional reactions (anger) that are known as micro-expressions, and which indicate deception. These expressions revealed that he was lying. In essence, showing a brief emotional reaction was meant to mask the evidence, without the knowledge that others will decode the message differently, as a defensive gesture. At some point, Clinton was pointing in one direction while his head and eyes faced in another direction and his head remained stationary when claiming “I did not have sexual relations.” This created a conflict between his non-verbal cues, exposing his lie. All through the testimony, Clinton wore defensive gestures that are linked to a demonstration of a lack of openness and suggests the possibility of concealing some information. In Clinton’s case scenario, the use of non-verbal cues can be adopted in attempts to hide the truth. However, when wrongly applied, they are the first tools that expose a lie.
The use of non-verbal cues during communication impacts on how people create initial impressions (Clinton’s case). The competence concerning the knowledge of non-verbal communication determines the outcomes of an interaction (Ronald, Tucker and Keith). Individuals who think they have more ability to express themselves using non-verbal cues often gain more attention and engage people in a charismatic way, making it possible to propagate a lie into a truth (Clinton’s case). Moreover, the use of non-verbal congruence makes people believe a lie. Non-verbal congruency is the consistency that is created amongst different non-verbal expressions in a particular cluster. Often times, non-verbal congruence in communication becomes exceedingly effective and credible compared to conflicting or ambiguous non-verbal cues. Nevertheless, although Clinton may have intended to have a congruency of his non-verbal messages, there was still the possibility of the Jury decoding such a message in a manner that could not match his initial intent. This is due to the fact that non-verbal expressions are distinct with respect to the degree of conscious encoding (Bella, Brian and James). In such a case the multidimensional nature of the non-verbal cues Clinton displayed generated the potential for both elevated credibility and ambiguity, making it possible to expose whether he was telling the truth. Often liars use non-verbal cues in attempts to suppress such behaviors. For instance, Clinton attempted to make convincing impressions through suppressing of his nervousness or masking evidence through microexpressions. Nonetheless, when trying to regulate his body language, he overcontrolled his behavior, exhibiting a body language that seemed rehearsed, planned, and devoid of spontaneity.
Therefore, non-verbal communication can be used in making lies to appear truthful, but when wrongly used they exposes a lie. Bill Clinton used non-verbal cues to try to propagate a lie to appear truth but was exposed when taking an oath regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
References
Bella, M. DePaulo, et al. "Cues to Deception." American Psychological Association 129.1 (2003): 74-118.
Hennick, Lawson. "Was it something I said? Non-verbal cues in court." Ontario Trial Lawyers Association 02 March 2017. .
Ronald, E. Riggio, Joan Tucker and F. Widaman Keith. "Verbal and nonverbal cues as mediators of deception ability." Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 11.3 (2011): 126–145.
Vrij, Aldert. Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities. 2nd Edition. Hoboken: John Wiley " Sons, 2011.
