Trying to figure out that someone had lied is a complex process, if it were not life would be much easier to deal with. I will make this a short post as there are books on the subject matter of lying and I just want to get straight to an example and explore it a bit.
In this example I will of course be using a sample from the George Zimmerman case; what else right? And so for here I will be addressing a situation regarding Angela Corey.
So let us go back to April 11, 2012, at the announcement of George Zimmerman’s arrest and charges and to what Corey said in response to a reporter’s question. @15:30 of the video linked below, the reporter asks Corey “Did you talk to George personally—” Corey interrupts, “I did not Catherine. We don’t talk to any defendant who’s represented by council unless he waives his right to council. We never even had to address that situation.”
Now, the suspected lie that I will address comes at the end of Corey’s statement; “We never even had to address that situation.” But is that true? Or is it a lie? Let’s get one thing out of the way first. When Angela Corey says “we”, one must understand that she means “we” as in the Office of the State’s Attorney, not any one member as an entity unto themselves, including herself, or as a team, she and everyone else in her office is merely a representative of the State. So if any one member of her office acts they do so in the name of that office and not themselves personally. And so in this case of the suspected lie we can then look to Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda.
It is a fact that on March 25th and March 26th Detective Serino called George to set up a meeting with him, Bernie de la Rionda and various other LEO’s the following Wednesday. One of the main points Serino made in both of those calls was on a very particular point; “the situation”. Yes, the very situation Corey expressed to the reporter; “We don’t talk to any defendant who’s represented by council unless he waives his right to council. We never even had to address that situation.”
Here’s our problem. Serino is not a representative of the State Attorney’s office therefore whatever he does cannot be placed as a responsibility of that office. Even if he is acting upon request of the State Attorney’s office, as long as it was not officially documented, they have plausible deniability. Serino could have in fact been acting on his own. But then what does this say of the former lead investigator on the case? Does it mean he is lying? Unless we get confirmation from the State Attorney’s office that Serino was acting on their behalf then yes it could very well mean Serino is lying to George but if they do so then they will be admitting that they have lied to us.
So here we are stuck wondering and left to speculate. The fact remains though; either Angela Corey lied to the public or Serino lied to George. The possibilities are numerous as to why. One, of the not so nefarious sort, is that it may have been true that the State Attorney’s office did ask Serino to ask George if he could come into Florida for a meeting with them. However, they never truly intended on actually meeting him but rather did so to satisfy some other purpose. Perhaps to see if George still maintained his usual attitude of cooperation with law enforcement especially at this time given a new prosecutor has taken over the case. So in that scenario, although Corey did lie to us, it wasn’t really a bad lie so to speak, after all we can’t forget they did include the calls from Serino to George in the discovery however as to date no further information regarding it has been released.
I will have more to say on this particular situation in the future but I think this example will satisfy for now and is a good lesson on the difficulties in spotting a lie.