Krogh Decker Questions & Comments re Part Two

Hope you were able to attend the entire Part Two presentation. If you have a question/comment that you didn’t/couldn’t make in the Q&A at the presentation’s end, you are welcome to do so thru this page. As with Part One, if there was a teaching point in Part Two that (you believe) was unclear … WRONG … correct, but impractical … inconsistent with another teaching point … overstated re its value to CE … or unethical, please share same with your colleagues and me: an anonymous compilation (PDF) of everyone’s questions/comments – including my non-anonymous responses – will be sent ASAP to Peter Catalanotti for distribution.

The list below (numbered for your/my ease of reference) comprises the 26 deceiver arguments and, #27, the oft mentioned trio of “Lead, Reason, Rhetoricate.” My regrets if several of the deceiver arguments were discussed too briefly … or not at all. I adhered to the time limits given me.

1. Argument: Witness’s admission of a speaking or performance “error” was in fact a deception cover story.
2. Argument: Witness’s admission of a deception-flaw was motivated by necessity, not virtue; thus witness is not deserving of any “honesty points.”
3. Argument: Witness’s claim re knowledge, motivation, & decision was so implausible that it can/should be viewed as an attempt to deceive.
4. Argument: Witness’s claim re a practice (its existence, rationale, or witness’s adherence to/deviation from) was so implausible that it can/should be viewed as an attempt to deceive.
5. Argument: Witness’s claim re dissimilar responses to “similar” situations (but too few to constitute a practice) is best explained by understanding witness engaged in a deception.
6. Argument: Witness’s claim re knowledge (or lack of knowledge) was so implausible that it can/should be viewed as an attempt to deceive.
7. Argument: Witness’s claim re motivation (or lack of motivation) was so implausible that it can/should be viewed as an attempt to deceive.
8. Argument: Witness’s claim re the kind/magnitude of feelings (or lack of feelings) was so implausible that it can/should be viewed as an attempt to deceive.
9. Argument: Witness’s claim re the info considered (or not considered) re decision-making was so implausible that it can/should be viewed as an attempt to deceive.
10. Argument: Witness’s claim re reasoning was so implausible that it can/should be viewed as an attempt to deceive.
11. Argument: Witness’s claim re a failure to remember was so implausible that it can/should be viewed as an attempt to deceive.
12. Argument: Witness’s claim re an ability to successfully remember was so implausible that it can/should be viewed as an attempt to deceive.
13. Argument: Witness’s claim re (not) being physically able to perceive a subject was so implausible that it can/should be viewed as an attempt to deceive.
14. Argument: Witness’s claim re (not) being intellectually capable or sufficiently trained to understand a subject was so implausible that it can/should be viewed as an attempt to deceive.
15. Argument: Witness’s mischaracterization of the truth – overstating or understating it – was so implausible that it can/should be viewed as an attempt to deceive.
16. Argument: Witness’s values, as revealed by witness’s words or actions, flunk the “good citizenship test”; thus witness does not deserve respect; thus witness’s claims do not deserve belief.
17. Argument: Witness made contradictory or differing claims re the same subject because witness attempted to deceive.
18. Argument: Witness admitted having a motive to deceive [note: denial was not a plausible option], thus witness’s self-serving claims should be viewed with skepticism. Alternatively, witness’s claim that minimized/outright denied having a motive to deceive was so implausible that it can/should be viewed as an attempt to deceive.
19. Argument: Reliable external-source evidencere rebutted (refuted?) witness’s claim. Explanation: witness’s claim was a deception.
20. Argument: Witness’s claim was not corroborated by reliable external-source evidence and should have been had the claim been true.
21. Argument: Witness tried to influence a person’s statements/actions to create a deception … Or tried to hide /destroy/ fabricate/alter a document or real evidence.
22. Argument: Witness’s question-dodging can/should be viewed as an attempt to deceive.
23. Argument: Witness’s testimonial behavior was so “curiouser” that witness can/should be viewed as a deceiver.
24. Argument: Witness’s claim re skill or ineptitude was so implausible that it can/should be viewed as an attempt to deceive.
25. Argument: Witness’s claim re good/bad luck or coincidence was so implausible that it can/should be viewed as an attempt to deceive.
26. Argument: Falsis in unam, falsis in omnibus.
27. Lead! Rhetoricate! & Reason! re all arguments.