You suspect that your wife is having an affair so you start looking for evidence. You find it, so you accuse her. She denies it so you show her a piece of evidence. She at first denies that it’s real, then accuses you of spying on her, then explains it away, then admits that, yes, she was at a bar with her handsome coworker when she had told you that she had to work overtime, but they finished the project early and went to celebrate before going home and that’s all there was and anyway he’s married.
You show her the next bit of evidence and she DARVOs again before admitting that, yes, they went to a hotel but that was only because he was too drunk to drive so she brought him there and that’s all that happened.
You show her the next bit of evidence… The truth is admitted only in trickles.
Or take another scenario: A government agency has been accused of violating not only the law but the Constitution and the ordinary expectations of decent treatment for honest citizens. The department spokesman denies the accusation. The next day, after proof of, say, warrantless surveillance having been conducted has been revealed on the morning talk shows, the spokesman acknowledges that it appears that a person may have been investigated without all the paperwork being in order. The next day, he admits that the problem may go further than first realized. And so on, with the admissions never, ever going beyond what’s been publicly demonstrated and usually not going even that far.
Or say a politician has been caught taking money from an unregistered foreign agent. Deny deny deny, well, yes, she had hired my consulting services and it was all aboveboard and I just haven’t gotten around to writing the invoice yet, deny deny, I regret that my actions gave the appearance. Once again, no admission going further than what the evidence proves has happened and counter-accusations fly just as thick as the explanations and the non-apologies.
There may be a reason that most men don’t trust women, bureaucrats, or politicians.