Fool Me Twice

What happens when love, lies and betrayal collide? In this episode, Bradford Oakes and Steve Van Aperen explore the messy world of cheating, emotional affairs, secret finances, online flirting and the stories people tell when they are caught.Before getting into the serious stuff, Bradford reflects on teaching an MC training course and explains why an event without a host can quickly fall apart. That sparks two workplace confessions: Steve recalls causing a traffic accident while distracted by models during his days directing Melbourne traffic, while Bradford shares an unfortunate encounter with a runaway floor-polishing machine outside a nurses’ cafeteria.Then the conversation turns to deception in relationships. Drawing on his work conducting polygraph and eye-detection tests, Steve shares real cases involving affairs, gambling, drinking, escort agencies, suspicious messages and an uncomfortable love triangle. He explains why one lie often creates several more, how people reveal only what their partner can already prove, and why “trickle truth” can be more damaging than the original betrayal.Bradford and Steve debate whether flirting online counts as cheating, whether checking a partner’s phone is ever justified, and whether someone can love you while repeatedly lying to you. They also examine emotional cheating, financial secrecy and the difference between harmless social lies and deliberate deception designed to conceal damaging behaviour.Along the way, Steve identifies familiar warning signs: deflection instead of a direct denial, gaslighting, changing timelines, contradictions, secret calls, hidden messages and turning the accusation back on the person asking questions. But appearances can also be misleading, as one case involving an accused businessman and a vindictive personal assistant demonstrates.There are stories of a cheating golfer in Thailand, an Ashley Madison discovery, incriminating photos appearing during family dinner, a burglar who dropped his wallet at the crime scene, a comedian short-changed on tour, and a serial cheater whose guilt revealed itself through gifts of jewellery.It is a funny, frank and sobering discussion about trust, motive, privacy and the consequences of believing you will never be caught. Bradford Oakes and Steve Van Aperen bring humour, policing experience and behavioural insight to one of the most complicated subjects in any relationship.Have you caught a partner cheating, spotted a red flag or heard an unforgettable excuse? Share your story in the comments below.

What makes someone lie about serving in the military, and how far will they go to keep the deception alive?In this episode of Fool Me Twice, Brad Oakes and former detective Steve van Aperen dive into the extraordinary world of stolen valour: people who invent, exaggerate or completely fabricate military service, ranks, deployments and medals in order to gain status, respect, employment, money or admiration.The pair examine the astonishing case of former Northamptonshire Police Chief Constable Nick Adderley, whose claimed military history included service in the Falklands War, despite being only 15 when the conflict began. They explore allegations surrounding medals, naval ranks, elite training and how false claims can move beyond embarrassing lies into serious misconduct and fraud.Brad and Steve also look at Australian cases, including people marching in Anzac Day parades wearing medals and uniforms they were never entitled to, as well as the remarkable story of Arthur Rex Crane, who became president of an ex-prisoners of war association while falsely claiming to have been captured and tortured during World War II.But this episode isn’t only about military imposters.Why do people continue lying when the truth can easily be checked? Why do colleagues, friends and witnesses sometimes suspect something is wrong but stay silent? And what happens when a liar becomes so deeply invested in their invented identity that admitting the truth becomes almost impossible?Drawing on Steve’s experience as a detective and Brad’s trademark humour, the discussion explores deception, ego, bravado, impersonation, fraud, investigative questioning and the subtle details that can expose someone whose story simply doesn’t add up.Along the way, expect stories about lost cars, police encounters, fake comedians, camouflage pants, nightclub bravado and the very important question: what exactly does a liar look like?If you’ve ever encountered someone claiming military service, medals, qualifications or experiences you suspected weren’t genuine, we want to hear your story.Leave a comment or send us your questions and experiences for a future episode.LINKSBook Steve Van Aperen as your next keynote speaker: Click hereGet coached in stand-up comedy with Brad Oakes: Click here

In Episode 30 of Fool Me Twice, comedian Bradford Oakes and former detective Steve Van Aperen explore how easily people can be influenced, misled, or persuaded by polls, social behaviour and poorly framed questions. The conversation begins lightheartedly, with Steve recovering from having a wisdom tooth removed and the pair exchanging painful and funny dental stories.The discussion then turns to the Australian Logie Awards and comedian Tom Gleeson’s successful campaign to win the Gold Logie. His campaign demonstrated how an apparently democratic voting system could be manipulated when people were able to vote repeatedly. Rather than proving who was genuinely the most popular television personality, the system could simply reward whoever generated the greatest number of votes. This becomes the starting point for a wider discussion about political polling, television ratings and surveys.Bradford and Steve question whether polls are truly representative when the sample sizes, methodology and wording of questions are not always transparent. They discuss political elections in Australia, Britain and the United States where widely reported polling failed to predict the eventual result. Steve emphasises that the way a question is framed can strongly influence an answer, particularly when questions are ambiguous, leading or contain assumptions.One of the episode’s funniest examples is the story about putting out the bins. In Australia, residents commonly put their rubbish bins outside the night before collection. One person puts a bin out, a neighbour sees it and assumes it must be bin night, then several more neighbours copy them. Soon the whole street has bins outside simply because everyone assumes somebody else knows something they do not. Steve describes this as a form of social influence, demonstrating how quickly behaviour can spread without anyone checking the original information.Steve Van Aperen also draws on his experience as an investigator. He explains that good investigators do not simply accuse people or rely on nervous behaviour as proof of guilt. Instead, they ask open questions, gather evidence and examine whether a person’s account remains consistent. Fabricated stories can unravel because liars must continually remember invented details, while genuine memories often contain richer contextual and sensory information.Ultimately, Bradford Oakes and Steve Van Aperen encourage listeners to question polls, statistics and persuasive claims rather than accepting them at face value. Their message is simple: examine the questions, methodology and evidence, and never assume it is bin night just because your neighbour has put the bins out.LINKSBook Steve Van Aperen as your next keynote speaker: Click hereGet coached in stand-up comedy with Brad Oakes: Click here

In Episode 29 of Fool Me Twice, Bradford Oakes and Steve Van Aperen explore deception, interviewing techniques, body language, tunnel vision, and the importance of rapport when trying to uncover the truth. The episode begins with some light-hearted conversation about Bradford’s recent country comedy gigs, wildlife on Australian roads, and the differences between metropolitan and regional audiences. Bradford explains that country audiences often share a stronger sense of community, which can make them more relaxed and willing to participate, while Steve reflects on how observation and audience feedback are essential skills in both comedy and investigative work.The discussion then shifts to Steve Van Aperen’s experience as an investigator and his training with the FBI. Steve argues that effective interviewing is not about intimidating or blaming suspects. Instead, investigators should build rapport, listen carefully and make it easier for people to talk. He describes the FBI concept of “theme development,” where responsibility may be framed around circumstances, pressure or mistakes rather than immediately condemning the person being questioned. Steve also recounts interviewing a bikie suspected of involvement in a stabbing. Although the man repeatedly answered “no comment” during the formal interview, an earlier conversation about his estranged son helped establish enough rapport that he secretly left Steve the name of the person police were seeking.Bradford Oakes brings humour and scepticism to the conversation, questioning familiar crime-show conventions such as FBI agents announcing themselves from a distance before suspects inevitably run. Steve responds with real policing stories showing that suspects do sometimes flee, although announcing an arrest too early is not always wise.A major theme is the danger of tunnel vision and confirmation bias. Steve warns that investigators can become attached to a theory and selectively interpret evidence to support it. Bradford compares this with comedy, where people can invent an explanation for almost any situation if they begin with a fixed assumption.The pair also challenge simplistic interpretations of body language. Crossed arms, fidgeting or looking in a particular direction do not automatically indicate deception. Steve stresses the need to establish a behavioural baseline, watch for changes, and examine clusters of verbal and non-verbal cues. Ultimately, the episode argues that detecting deception requires evidence, careful listening, behavioural observation and an open mind, not reliance on stereotypes or single “tells.”LINKSBook Steve Van Aperen as your next keynote speaker: Click hereGet coached in stand-up comedy with Brad Oakes: Click here

Episode 28 of Fool Me Twice features Bradford Oakes and Steve van Aperen discussing lying, deception, false confessions, false memories and common mistakes people make when trying to read others.The conversation begins with Brad describing his frustration with artificial intelligence after spending hours using large language models that appeared to ignore instructions, apologise repeatedly and provide unreliable information. This leads into a broader discussion about misleading information, misplaced confidence and the difficulty of determining whether something is accurate.Steve draws on his experience as a detective to challenge common assumptions about deception. Nervousness, fidgeting, looking away, blinking, over-explaining or appearing uncomfortable do not automatically indicate guilt. An innocent person may be anxious because they fear not being believed, have never dealt with police, come from a background where authorities are distrusted, or simply feel uncomfortable in an interview setting.Brad and Steve discuss how context can change the meaning of behaviour. Their main point is that stress is not proof of deception and that no single behavioural indicator should be treated as evidence of lying.The discussion then turns to false confessions and unreliable memory. Steve explains that people can confess to crimes they did not commit for a range of reasons, including coercion, threats, exhaustion, a desire to end an interrogation, protecting someone else, seeking attention, or because of cognitive and intellectual vulnerabilities.They also examine the limitations of eyewitness memory and how trauma, neurodivergence and other factors can affect recall. A truthful account may change over time without necessarily indicating deception.Steve emphasises that effective interviewing should focus on establishing what happened rather than forcing an admission or relying on intuition. Statements need to be assessed alongside available evidence and the broader context.Episode 28 also covers bias, profiling, authority and the risk of tunnel vision when interpreting behaviour. Bradford Oakes and Steve van Aperen argue that truthful people can appear nervous, confused or inconsistent, and that detecting deception requires evidence, context and careful questioning rather than stereotypes or assumptions about body language.LINKSBook Steve Van Aperen as your next keynote speaker: Click hereGet coached in stand-up comedy with Brad Oakes: Click here

Are we being sold beauty, or being sold insecurity?In this episode of Fool Me Twice, Brad and Stephen take a sharp, funny and sometimes uncomfortable look at the multi billion dollar cosmetics and beauty industry, asking how much of what we’re promised is reality, how much is clever marketing, and how much crosses the line into deception.From products claiming to “reverse the ageing process” to impressive sounding phrases such as “clinically tested”, “natural” and “90% noticed a difference”, the conversation explores the language advertisers use to make products appear more scientific, effective and trustworthy than they may actually be. What was tested? How many people were involved? Was the finished product studied, or just one ingredient? And what does “clinically tested” really tell the consumer?Brad and Stephen also examine the psychology behind beauty marketing. Rather than simply selling a moisturiser, cosmetic or hair treatment, are companies first selling us a problem, wrinkles, ageing, baldness or the fear that we don’t look good enough, and then offering the solution?The discussion moves into social media, filters, celebrity endorsements and influencers, where appearance, authority and trust can become powerful selling tools. Why are we more likely to believe a product when it is promoted by someone we admire? And when temporary visual improvements are presented as something more permanent, where should the line be drawn?The boys also turn their attention to men, hair loss, hair transplants, hair dye, toupees and the extraordinary lengths people can go to hide the ageing process. Brad’s disappearing hair inevitably becomes part of the investigation, along with some stories that prove vanity can produce both deception and comedy.Underneath the laughs is a bigger question: why are human beings so vulnerable to promises about youth, beauty and appearance?Is the beauty industry simply giving consumers what they want, or does successful marketing deliberately create insecurity and then monetise it?Join Brad and Stephen as they unpack the psychology, persuasion, advertising tricks, questionable claims and very human vanity behind the business of looking younger.And tell us in the comments: have you ever bought a beauty, skincare or hair product that promised far more than it delivered?LINKSBook Steve Van Aperen as your next keynote speaker: Click hereGet coached in stand-up comedy with Brad Oakes: Click here