There are women who say you know when a man is lying when he moves his lips. If only it was that simple. If we didn\u2019t know it before, the latest shenanigans from New Jersey remind us that lying is a major currency in the games of politics. When we hear someone say something that is incredible, we sometimes rack our brains to figure out if he\/she is lying or simply misinformed.<\/p>\n

How do we determine if someone is lying? Are the words the best guidepost, or is it someone\u2019s eyes, their posture, or what?<\/p>\n

A story in Phlly.com<\/a> cites an Australian study that indicates that women can predict with some accuracy whether an unfamiliar male will cheat, just by looking at his face. The study found that men were not good at predicting cheating; they mistakenly assumed that attractive women would, and others would not.<\/p>\n

Back to New Jersey. We currently have a major \u201cshe said,\u201d \u201cshe said\u201d argument. On one side is Hoboken mayor Dawn Zimmer, who states<\/a> that she met with Lieutenant Governor Kim Guadagno (R) in May 2013, after Hurricane Sandy.<\/p>\n

Zimmer shared this diary entry which she said she wrote later that day. \u201cAt the end of a big tour of ShopRite and meeting, she pulls me aside with no one else around and says that I need to move forward with the Rockefeller project. It is very important to the governor. The word is that you are against it and you need to move forward or we are not going to be able to help you. I know it\u2019s not right \u2013 these things should not be connected \u2013 but they are, she says, and if you tell anyone, I will deny it.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

She goes on to say:<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019d be more than willing to testify under oath and \u2013 and answer any questions and provide any documents, take a lie detector test,\u201d Zimmer said, referring to the Christie administration\u2019s denials. \u201cAnd, you know, my question back to them is, \u2018Would all of you?\u00a0Would all of you be willing do that same thing, to testify under oath, to take a lie detector test?\u2019\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

On the other side is Guadagno, who according to Zimmer said she would deny Zimmer\u2019s account of the story. And sure enough Guadagno did:<\/p>\n

\u201cMayor Zimmer\u2019s version of our conversation in May of 2013 is not only false, but is illogical and does not withstand scrutiny when all of the facts are examined,\u201d Ms. Guadagno said at an event to commemorate Martin Luther King\u2019s Birthday. \u201cAny suggestion that Sandy funds were tied to the approval of any project in New Jersey is completely false.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Okay, we have dueling descriptions of what happened in May 2013. Either one person is telling the truth and the other isn\u2019t, or both of them are telling partial truths. We may never find where the truth lies. Most likely the \u201cfinal determination\u201d will be made through the legal system. As we all know, the legal system is not necessarily the best way to find out the truth (e.g. O.J., George Zimmerman). Since the determination of the courts is somewhat of a crap shoot, we as citizens are allowed to speculate. Our judgments will be raw and unrefined, but we will take into consideration far more factors than will be allowed in the legal system. We can indeed consider someone\u2019s eyes, their body language, even the setting in which they are speaking. We have to get better at this, since lying is truly a cash crop in the world of politics. So here goes, clips of each of them talking.
\n