The detective says, "The first thing I learned on the job, know what it was? How to spot a murderer. Let's say you arrest three guys for the same killing. Put them all in jail overnight. The next morning, whoever is sleeping is your man. If you're guilty, you know you're caught, you get some rest - let your guard down, you follow?"

When the whole Larry Craig fiasco came out, I thought back to that scene.

In case you've been out of the country (or in case you don't live the the U.S.), the Republican Senator from Idaho was arrested on June 11th at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer. The officer was investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men's public restroom.

On August 8th, he pled guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct. He paid more than $500 in fines and fees, and a 10-day jail sentence was stayed, with one year probation.

Craig's spokesman said it was a "misunderstanding".

And yet, he pled guilty.

Craig later said, "I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously."

This is where I see incongruity with Mr. Craig:

1. If you're wrongly accused of a crime, you don't plead guilty. You just don't. You put up a fight. (This isn't to say that criminals don't use the same strategy, but especially if you're innocent, you don't plead guilty.)

2. Senator Craig never called an attorney. That's absolutely the first thing anyone does when they are arrested.

3. By saying, "I am not gay - nor have I ever been gay," he believes that it is possible to be gay, say six months ago, then become ungay, say last week. This points towards a "waffling" and cover up.

Lastly, but maybe the most incongruous of all:

4. He didn't go home and tell his wife about the incident. If something as outrageous as this happened to any one of us and had absolutely no basis in truth, wouldn't we all go home to our spouses (or families or friends) and say, "You're not going to believe what happened to me today. It's the most absurd thing..."

Then Senator Craig decided that the media was to blame.

It's all because of the Idaho Statesman. They've been "relentlessly and viciously" harassing him.

The media is easily vilified and a safe scapegoat, but here with his "history" it doesn't ring true.

As persuaders, how, in either situation - whether the allegations are absolutely false or absolutely true - could we frame the story if we were in his shoes?

Did his incongruity give him away? And what can he do to unframe himself?