Could we have known the fraudulent Trump supporter was a liar?
Could we have known the fraudulent Trump supporter was a liar?
Deception detection lessons
Last week, Minnesota man Denis Molla pleaded guilty to fraud. In 2020, he staged a fire attack on his home, saying he had been targeted because he was a Trump supporter.
Could we have worked out in 2020 that he lit the fires himself? Let’s look at the words used by Denis, and his wife Deana, at the time.
Facebook
First up, a Facebook post from Deana. It starts:
This morning, at 3:48am our house was supposedly targeted by BLM/Antifa.
I’m curious as to why she began with the very precise time, 3:48am. It’s the first thing she says, so it’s obviously significant to her, but why?
The word supposedly feels like it is in the wrong place. There was a fire at the house, so the house was definitely targeted, not supposedly targeted. Supposedly would be more natural before the words “BLM/Antifa” but most natural of all would be to not have supposedly in there.
One line into the Facebook post, and I’ve got my first flag that something might be up. However, one marker does not indicate deception. Are there any more?
The post continues…
We woke up to a loud explosion, and saw that our camper was on fire, along with both of Dennis ‘s trucks, his garage and our entire backyard.
The pronouns here reveal a lot about the family. Deana shows the camper and the backyard are considered to be shared through her use of “our” and the trucks and the garage belong to her husband.
There’s nothing wrong with this, but it allows us to see something of their relationship.
Deana tells us they woke up and saw that our camper was on fire. The use of saw is interesting. Assuming they were in bed, they would wake up and have to get up and look outside to see the fire. The getting up and looking out are missing here. It reads as if they were looking at the camper all the time, even when asleep.
Thank God our main house is safe. We are safe. Our children are safe.
I’m always wary when people bring God into it. Invoking God doesn’t mean the person is a liar, but it does mean we should watch for someone trying to convince us they are a good religious person and therefore couldn’t be up to no good.
Deana’s pronouns are intriguing again. She says, we are safe and then our children are safe. Why do the children not get covered under the first “we”? Why are Deana and Denis separated from the children in these words?
Thanks police
Thank you so much to the Brooklyn Center Police Department, Minnesota for helping us get our family out of the house, and a special thanks to officer C. Jordan and another officer and firefighters for saving our dogs.
Again I see a split between Denis and Deana and others. She thanks the police for helping US get OUR family out.
I don’t know the events of the night, but there is way more in the way of thanks to the police than to the firefighters. It is possible the police did more to deserve thanks, or this could be a way to ingratiate herself with the police.
He said it was so hot they almost had to leave them.
Thank you God we are alive and safe, and pray that justice is served.
Deana finishes with another mention of God and then a very odd line.
The call to pray isn’t assigned to anyone. It’s not “we pray that justice is served” or “please pray that justice is served”. We know now that they wouldn’t want justice to be served as it would mean her husband being in trouble, so it’s no wonder that she didn’t want anyone praying too hard.
Justice
And justice for what? Her Facebook post is a collection of events, but it is missing a lot. Firstly, she is never clear why she thinks it was BLM that targeted the house.
Then there is no emotion at all. Nothing to convey the shock of waking up to an explosion, no fear expressed and no anger towards the perpetrators of the fire.
So, with analysis, there are some markers in the Facebook post that some deception may be happening.
Learn to spot what people are really saying
TV Time
Let’s look at some quotes that the couple gave to local media at the time. Starting with Denis:
I heard just a big, loud boom, or a bang. The first thing for me was my kids, my wife. What's going on?
The word just gets me on alert for deception whenever it is used. To be clear, when someone uses the word just, it doesn’t mean they are lying, but it is always worth checking the surrounding words.
In this case, the use of just could indicate more happened that what he said just happened.
His words a slightly different from his wife’s post. She said we woke up to a loud explosion. He says I heard just a big loud boom or a bang.
It’s congruent with her description, but he doesn’t say it woke him up. I get that if something has woken you up your memory of what it sounded like could be hazy, but why the need to say it was a boom or a bang? Firstly, he doesn’t say it woke him up and secondly, if he’s vague about what it was, why doesn’t he use a catch-all term like his wife’s explosion or just noise?
Our family's safe, that's the main thing. All this is material, it's all material. It's not as important as our family.
In the TV interview he uses his hand to indicate that the this in all this is material references his property.
The repetition of material shows that material (property, possessions and money) could be an significant concept for him.
Some sort of belief
It just shocked me. This kind of stuff should not happen, especially over beliefs of some sort.
Here’s the word just again. As with his wife’s Facebook post, there’s a lack of emotion. Shock doesn’t last very long. Given the events he described, including the danger to his family, I’d expect more emotion than the shock. There is no anger or fear here.
And it is vague with talk of stuff and beliefs of some sort.
I think things have gotten way out of control. I’m not one of those confrontational people. … I just feel very sorry for my parents, just because they wanted to leave the USSR for us to have a better future and life in America. … For them to see me express my beliefs as a Republican, it’s crazy to think it came down to this.
It took me a long time to understand what Denis meant by these words. That’s because he left the attack on his home out of it. It’s minimised down to simply this at the end of the words.
When someone tells me what they are not as in I’m not one of those confrontational people I always ask why they feel the need to tell me. How possible is it that they are what they claim not to be?
So with Denis, I see indicators of deception in his words. He doesn’t express any emotion he feels now about the attack, and he minimises it right down to “this”.
Words of his wife
What did Deana say at the time?
We heard an explosion that shook the house.
This is the third different way the start of the event is described. All are congruent but like Denis, Deana doesn’t say it woke them up here.
We're just very happy to be alive, and praise God that we're alive
More invoking of God from Deana. Here she says they are happy to be alive, but doesn’t say why. There is no peril expressed or any thought shown as to why they may not have come out of this alive.
They saw that we have a jungle gym and toys in the backyard. To put our babies in harm’s way because you don’t agree with our politics; just don’t put our kids in danger. My son smells like smoke.
How does she know what the fire raisers saw? I’d prefer if this was expressed as an assumption “they must have seen we have a jungle gym” or a fact “we have a jungle gym”. To say she knows what they saw is interesting.
And once more I see a division between Deana, Denis and the children. It’s understandable that if someone set fire to her property that her kids are a bigger concern, but she shows no concern here for her and Denis, almost as if they weren’t in any danger.
So with Deana too I see markers of deception.
Conclusion
It’s easy with hindsight and knowing that Denis started the fire to spot the flaws in their words. However, it’s notable how many of the classic markers of deception are present. If I’d have looked at their words at the time, I would have concluded that there was more to the story than was being said.
The giveaways are:
Three different versions of the start of the incident.
The lack of emotions.
No in depth descriptions of the events.
The split of peril. The kids were in danger, Denis and Deana didn’t seem to be.
Deana knowing what the fire raisers saw.
The invoking of God and ingratiating the police.
There was a small indicator this was about money with Denis repeating it was material.
As always, any one of these markers doesn’t mean that the person MUST be lying. But when they start to add up, you can be sure deception of some kind is taking place.
Their pronoun use says a lot about their relationship. Denis is the head of the house and stands alone. Deana allows Denis is position as the head and underneath it is “we”, she doesn’t once express anything about herself personally.
That indicates that Denis was the instigator of the plan. From Deana’s words, I’d say she knew about it and her prime concern was that her children should not be in any danger when it was carried out.
As a footnote, I don’t think Denis is much of a Trump supporter. He describes the incident as being over beliefs of some sort which is very vague, and says he has my beliefs as a republican. There’s nothing showing any depth to these views. I think he saw a chance to make money out of the political tension and that was it.
What do you think? Get the conversation going in the comments or on the Facebook Group.