The Hunt - Chapter 4: Something Smells Like Shit in Here
Is that what the truth would look like? Detecting bullshit in writing.
This is Chapter 4 in The Hunt, our ongoing serial. Read Chapter 3 here.
Gary Robertson’s curriculum vitae — at least the one he was using from 1999 through 2003 — described his educational history in a somewhat unusual way; enough so that it raised red flags for the gentlemen who cross-examined him in Saskatoon and Stanislaus County.
Robertson’s CV listed the following “Education.”
Graduated 1971 Algonquin Institute of Technology in Electronics
Graduated 1973 Algonquin Institute of Technology in Photogrammetry
1973 Funding by the Canadian Government and under the auspices of NRC (National Research Council) trained under Post Doctorate Dr. J. Jachimslci in Close Range Photogrammetry.
1974 - 1976 Contract funding by the Canadian Government for practical research and development in close range photogrammetry at NRC (National Research Council).
1976 - 1977 Under Government sponsor attended Ottawa University to complete credits for certification in Civil Engineering
Where a document has been written with care and the author is under a duty to tell the truth – and this would apply to most documents filed with courts, securities filings, investor disclosures, financial statements from public companies, other corporate filings, tax documents, and the like – anything that doesn’t look like “the truth” might just be a very special kind of bullshit:
A true statement that invites the reader to tell themselves a lie.
Leaving the legal world. A student rushes into class, ten minutes after the bell. Jacket half off, backpack muddy, hair uncombed. Professor asks, “What happened?”
“There was a fire in my building last night. I haven’t been home since. I can’t even find my laptop.”
Professor is sympathetic. Student struggles through class, and at the end, comes up to ask for an extension on the final paper. Professor grants it. After all, the student has been through so much. His house nearly burned down, and he couldn’t even save his computer.
But is that what he said?
“There was a fire in my building last night.”
No indication of how severe. The student didn’t even say he was there when it happened.
“I haven’t been home since.”
The student didn’t say the fire was why they hadn’t been home.
“I can’t even find my laptop.”
No causal relation there, either. And where would he have looked, if he hadn’t been home?
Each individual statement might be independently true. Each might, arguably, be an appropriate response to the far-too-open ended prompt from the professor. But the closer you look, the easier it is to see what the student didn’t say. He didn’t say the fire was in his apartment; he didn’t say he was home when it happened; he didn’t say that his laptop was burned, or even in the building during the fire.
Odd, or awkward phrasing, departures from parallel construction, apparent non-sequiturs, open ended statements concerning past events, the absence of conjunctions — all of these – can be used to arrange the truth into a configuration that allows the reader to believe a lie.
Gary Robertson described his education like this:
Graduated 1971 Algonquin Institute of Technology in Electronics
Graduated 1973 Algonquin Institute of Technology in Photogrammetry
1973 Funding by the Canadian Government and under the auspices of NRC (National Research Council) trained under Post Doctorate Dr. J. Jachimslci in Close Range Photogrammetry.
1974 - 1976 Contract funding by the Canadian Government for practical research and development in close range photogrammetry at NRC (National Research Council).
1976 - 1977 Under Government sponsor attended Ottawa University to complete credits for certification in Civil Engineering
The first two bullet points are very, very close to what one would expect on a curriculum vitae. A graduation date. An institution. A field of study. The only thing missing is the type of degree, certificate, or credential obtained. Still. Not so bad. Vocational training varies a lot; there’s no shame in obtaining something that’s not quite a standard degree.
The next two bullets are bit odd; each lists a funding source, rather than an institution, and describes, rather sketchily, activities, rather than formal education. Receipt of grants, particularly prestigious or competitive ones isn’t entirely beyond the pale on a resume or curriculum vitae, but jamming them into the “education” section stands out.
The final one is the flag that won’t stop flapping.
Robertson contends that he “attended” Ottawa University “to complete” credits “for certification” in Civil Engineering. In that sentence, he does not say that he “completed” credits, received a certification, or, in fact, was actually enrolled in any particular program, during the period of time listed. The statement establishes only that he was physically on the campus, at some time, at government expense.
At least, that’s what he admitted on the stand, in Saskatoon in 2003:
Q: Well then let's look at P-96, that's the C.V. that you prepared, correct? P-96 that's in front of you. It's your curriculum vitae, the one you provided for the purposes of this proceeding.
A: Right, the C.V. states that, yeah.
Q: And it states, "1976 to '77 under government sponsor attended University," sorry, "attended Ottawa University to complete credits for certification in civil engineering."
A: Right.
[...]
Q Did you complete any of those courses at the University of Ottawa?
A No.
Q No?
A I attended them…
[...]
Q: So you didn't complete them?
A: No, and I didn't say that I completed them.
He testified a bit differently in Stanislaus County, California:
Q: Did you ever go to any other schools?
A. Ottowa University.
Q. Tell us about your experience at Ottowa University.
A. It was a government -- they sent me for my certification to get a professional engineering certificate.and they took the course criteria of the photogrammetry plus the course criteria of the Association of Professional Engineers for an examination, and then I had to attend the University of Ottowa, and at that point it was full-time day classes in third year and fourth year structural analysis.
Q. So you did that?
A. Yeah.
Q. And if I were to show. you a FAX from the University of Ottowa that said you took only-one course and didn't finish it, would that be true?
A. No, that's not true.
True statements, carefully arranged, can be as misleading as lies. And that’s the kind of bullshit that appears, most often, in very serious documents. The types of documents people pay a lot to create, and expect others to rely on. Without question.
For example, a seemingly benign statement, like “[a]s of the close of Q3, the board was in possession of no credible information suggesting…” should immediately raise the following red flags: (1) Yeah, motherfucker, no credible information? What incredible information was there? (2) Why are we limiting it to what the board knows? (3) What the fuck happened in Q4 that you’re keeping from the board?”