Statement Analysis: What Do Suspects’ Words Really Reveal?
Susan H. Adams, M.A.
Special Agent Adams
teaches statement analysis as part of interviewing and interrogation
courses at the FBI Academy. This Article Originally Appeared in the
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, October 1996.
In statement analysis,
investigators examine words, independent of case facts, to detect
deception.
Susan Smith stood outside
her burgundy sedan and released the parking brake. The car plunged
down the ramp into South Carolina’s Long Lake, with her sons,
Michael, 3, and Alexander, 14 months, strapped into their car seats.
To cover her actions, Susan told police that the boys were abducted
at gunpoint, launching a nationwide search for the victims and their
abductor. During the investigation, Susan tearfully told reporters,
“My children wanted me. They needed me. And now I can’t help
them.” Yet, the boys’ father, David, who believed Susan’s
story, tried to reassure her by saying: “They’re okay. They’re
going to be home soon.”2
Police subsequently
arrested Susan for the murder of her children. She was tried and
convicted and is currently serving a life sentence in a South
Carolina correctional institution. Many investigators use a technique
called “statement analysis” to discern the truth in statements
like the ones given by Susan and David Smith. In statement analysis,
investigators examine words, independent of case facts, to detect
deception. They also remain alert for information omitted and
question why the suspect may have done so. Investigators then analyze
the clues unintentionally provided by a suspect and use this insight
during the subsequent interview.
In the case of Susan
Smith, by analyzing the statements made by the victims’ parents,
one could conclude that the father believed the boys were alive and
the mother knew the children were dead. The key to this deduction
lies in simple English grammar, specifically, verb tense. The father
referred to the children in the present tense; the mother used the
past tense. Of all times, when the “abducted” children really
would need their mother, she speaks of them in the past tense, e.g.,
“They needed me.” The children could no longer want or need her
because they were no longer alive.
This article gives a
brief overview of statement analysis. It examines four components of
statement analysis–parts of speech (pronouns, nouns, and verbs),
extraneous information, lack of conviction, and the balance of the
statement. A word of caution is warranted here. There is much more to
statement analysis than what is provided in this article; space
limitations preclude incorporating other statement analysis
components, such as the remaining parts of speech and the numerous
indicators of missing information. Still, armed with the information
presented in this article, investigators will be able to use these
basic techniques to gain insight into a suspect prior to conducting
an interview. By learning more about a suspect and determining
whether that person is being deceptive, they have a much better
chance of identifying the guilty party and gaining a confession.
The Technique
Statement analysis
follows a two-step process. First, investigators determine what is
typical of a truthful statement, referred to as the norm. They then
look for any deviation from this norm. Truthful statements differ
from fabricated ones in both content and quality.3
Although spoken words can
be analyzed, investigators inexperienced in statement analysis will
find it easier to begin by examining written statements.
Investigators can make transcripts of oral statements. Or, even
better, they can have suspects write a statement that details what
they did from the time they woke up until the time they went to bed.
This account provides a totally untainted version of the day’s
events and increases the validity of the analysis. Statement analysis
is an aid that can be used to obtain a confession; it is not an end
in itself. Therefore, whenever possible, investigators should analyze
the statement before interviewing the suspect.
Important Parts Of Speech
Parts of speech form the
foundation of statement analysis. To analyze a statement,
investigators first need to examine the individual parts of speech,
particularly pronouns, nouns, and verbs, and to establish the norm
for each. If a deviation from the norm appears, they then should ask,
“Why?”
Pronouns
Pronouns are parts of
speech that take the place of nouns. Common examples of personal
pronouns include I, me, you, he, she, we, they, and it. In statement
analysis, particular attention should be given to the personal
pronouns “I” and “we” and all possessive pronouns, such as
my, our, your, his, her, etc. The Pronoun “I” Investigators have
noted that truthful people give statements using the pronoun “I,”
which is first person, singular. Any deviation from this norm
deserves close scrutiny, for it could be an indication that the
person is not totally committed to the facts in the statement and,
therefore, is not telling the whole truth.
The following written
narrative begins with a clear commitment, then shows a definite lack of commitment :I got up at 7:00 when my alarm went off. I took a shower and got dressed. I decided to go out for breakfast. I went to the McDonald’s on the corner. Met a man who lives nearby. Talked with him for a few minutes. I finished breakfast and drove to work.
The first four sentences of the statement match the norm of first
person, singular–the use of the pronoun “I”; the next two
sentences show deviation, because this pronoun is missing from the
statement. What caused the writer to stop using the pronoun “I”?
Any change in the use of pronouns is significant, and at this point,
investigators should realize that the statement now becomes devoid of
personal involvement. Could there be tension between the writer and
the man mentioned in the statement? During the interview,
investigators should draw out specifics about this relationship to
determine if this part of the narrative is really true or if the
writer omitted information.
I versus We
Because using the first
person, singular pronoun is the norm for truthful statements,
investigators need to look for a lack of the pronoun "I"
and overuse of the pronoun "we," which is first person,
plural. The following version of a teen-ager's account when asked to
relate what he did on Saturday evening illustrates the norm:
I met four friends at the movie theater, watched a movie, then stopped to get something to eat with them. We had a few drinks at the bar on the way home. I stayed until just after midnight. I drove home....
The following version of
the same account, when contrasted withthe above statement, indicates
deviation from the norm:
We all met at the movie theater, watched a movie, then stopped to get something to eat. We had a few drinks at the bar on the way home. We stayed until just after midnight. We each drove home....
Because the second
statement contains only "we," instead of the expected norm,
which uses mostly "I," the investigator should wonder why
there is no individual involvement. Perhaps the teenager hopes to
conceal something or at least to avoid sole responsibility for some
act.
The Pronoun "We"
In speech and the written
word, linguists consider the shortest way to say something as the
easiest and clearest way to communicate. The pronoun "we"
is a short, clear way to describe one's self and others after proper
introductions have been made. "We" also denotes
togetherness; it indicates a relationship between persons. Omission
of the pronoun "we" is significant, particularly when the
individuals are spouses. In the following versions of an account of
events given by a husband, the first statement indicates the norm;
the second one denotes deviation:
My wife and I were invited to a neighbor's 50th birthday party. We arrived at the party a little late. The party was still in full swing when we left for home.My wife and I were invited to a neighbor's 50th birthday party. My wife and I arrived at the party a little late. The party was still in full swing when my wife and I left for home.
The second statement
reveals distance between the husband and his wife. Once the husband
introduces his wife into the statement, using the pronoun "we"
is the shortest way to communicate. Yet, the husband avoids this
word. Why? Perhaps because there is no "togetherness" in
the relationship.
If later that night the
wife is murdered, and the husband, when recounting the day's
activities, provides a statement devoid of the pronoun "we,"
investigators questioning the husband should focus on the couple's
relationship. If the husband admits to marital problems, but
vehemently denies any involvement in the death, investigators may
clear him as a suspect, barring contrary evidence. However, if the
husband responds that the couple was very close, investigators should
be wary, because statement analysis reveals otherwise.
A shift from "they"
to "we" also is significant, for it reveals personal
involvement. In white-collar crime cases, the guilty person who
denies complicity may find it difficult to keep the pronoun "we"
out of a statement completely. In such instances, investigators need
to search the entire written statement for "we." Then,
during the interview, they should focus on the transaction described
with "we." This pronoun indicates that the writer was
involved.
Another example of this
shift in the use of pronouns often can be found in alleged rape
reports. In the following two statements taken from rape reports, the
focus is on the pronoun "we":
He forced me into the woods,versusWe went into the woods.
The first statement
represents the norm. The second statement, which contains the pronoun
"we," is a deviation from the norm. Veteran rape
investigators are alert to the sudden appearance of the pronoun "we"
in a victim's statement. From their experience interviewing rape
victims, they have normed the rape victim to use the pronouns "he"
and "I," not the pronoun "we," to describe the
assailant and herself. Because the pronoun "we" denotes
togetherness, the investigator reading "we" in an alleged
rape statement should ask if the victim knew the assailant and if
they were together before the rape occurred. If the victim denies
this, there is reason to believe the statement is a fabrication.
In reports of an
abduction, the use of the pronoun "we" also can indicate
that the victim may not be telling the whole truth. For example, a
young woman who reported that she had been abducted at a shopping
center provided the following written statement:
I parked and started getting out of my car when a white male about 200 pounds, 6 feet tall approached me and told me to get in the car or he would hurt me. He then got in the back. I got in the front and began to drive. He told me to drive west on the highway. He asked me if I had any money. I told him no. We drove for about an hour. During that hour, he hit me repeatedly on the right side of my face. When we got to the exit, I told him I had no gas. He got mad and told me to get off the exit. We went straight off the exit for about 4-5 miles. He told me to turn down the first street on my left. We went down it about 1/4 of a mile. He told me to stop. He opened the door, put both feet out, hit me, and took off walking quickly. He took off to the east of where I was parked. After that, I took off and lost sight of him.
Investigators experienced
in statement analysis would question the truthfulness of the above
declaration. A true abduction statement, when normed, includes
phrases like "He forced me to drive..." or "He made me
get off at the exit...." Traumatized victims who are telling the
truth do not use the pronoun "we" to describe assailants
and themselves. Investigators concluded that the above statement
revealed deception. When interviewed, the woman subsequently
confessed that no abduction occurred. She was, in fact, with a man
she knew.
Possessive Pronouns
Possessive pronouns,
e.g., my, our, your, his, her, and their reveal the attachment that
the writer or speaker acknowledges toward a person or object. A
suspect will change the pronoun, or drop the pronoun completely,
when opting not to show possession or admit association with a
particular object or person. For example,
I was cleaning my gun. I was putting my gun away. The gun discharged.
This person, wanting to
disclaim ownership of the gun that discharged (either accidentally or
intentionally), stopped using the possessive pronoun "my."
It no longer was his gun, under his control; it became the gun.
Another example can be
found in a written statement made by a person whose home burned to
the ground :
I left my house right after breakfast to join my friends at the track for the day.... I drove back to my house, made a few phone calls, then went out to dinner with Stan Thompson.... Stan dropped me off at my house around 10:00. After I changed my clothes I left the house to spend the night at my cousin Tom's. Around midnight we heard fire engines and got up to see what was going on.
In this account, after
the writer consistently used the pronoun "my" to describe
his house, he omitted the pronoun the last time it was mentioned. Was
it because the house burned down, and it was no longer his house? If
so, then this change should have occurred much later, after midnight,
when the writer learned that the house was burning. Based on the
statements made, investigators should question why the switch in
references occurred the last time the writer was in the house. Was it
because the writer had spread accelerant on the floor of the house?
Was the writer already giving up possession because he had set the
fire? Just as arson investigators try to discover if valuable
possessions have been removed from a house prior to a fire, those
skilled in statement analysis look for the exact point at which the
owner stops taking possession by failing to use the pronoun "my."
Nouns
Nouns denote persons,
places, and things. Yet, nouns take on different meanings, depending
on the individual. When examining the words used by a suspect, the
investigator needs to note any changes, because a "change of
language reflects a change in reality."4 If suspects substitute
a different word after using one word consistently, they telegraph
the fact that something in their lives has changed. Although language
changes can occur with any part of speech, they are observed more frequently with nouns.
In a statement written by
a suspect in a homicide investigation, a significant change in noun
usage occurred. A young man shot his wife in the face with a shotgun.
The woman died instantly, and the husband claimed the shooting was
accidental. Investigators asked the man to write a statement of the
events that occurred during the day of the shooting. The husband
wrote a detailed statement, using the noun "wife" seven
times to refer to his wife. He then wrote:
...I lost control of the gun. I sensed that the barrel was pointing in Louise's direction and I reacted by grabbing at the gun to get it back under control. When I did this the gun discharged. It went off once and I looked over and saw blood on Louise's face.
What caused the husband
to start using "Louise," his wife's first name? Did this
occur at a significant point in the narrative? Prior to this point,
investigators had normed the husband as using the noun "wife."
When the spouse went to church with her husband, she was "my
wife." When she later called to her husband, she was "my
wife." But when the barrel of the gun was pointing in her
direction and when there was blood on her face, two critical points
in the statement, the spouse was no longer referred to as "my
wife." She became Louise.
Investigators have
determined that perpetrators find it nearly impossible to admit to
harming a family member. The husband in this case could not admit
that he had killed his wife. He removed the family relationship
by substituting the name "Louise." The husband also failed
to introduce Louise to the reader. After using the noun "wife"
seven times, the name "Louise" suddenly appears. The reader
does not know for certain who Louise is. It only can be assumed that
Louise is the wife, but the husband gave no proper introduction, such
as "my wife, Louise."
The norm for healthy
relationships is a proper, clear introduction. But in tumultuous
relationships, introductions often are confusing or missing
completely. The lack of a proper introduction most likely indicates a
poor relationship between the husband and his wife. Knowledge of this
prior to the interview could assist investigators in uncovering the
truth.
Verbs
Verbs express action,
either in the past, present, or future. In statement analysis, the
tense of the verb is of utmost importance. When analyzing statements,
investigators need to concentrate on the tense of the verbs used. In
a truthful statement, the use of the past tense is the norm, because
by the time a person relates the
event, it has already occurred. For example, the
following statement typifies the norm:
The next statement shows deviation from the norm:It happened Saturday night. I went out on my back deck to water the plants. It was almost dark. A man ran out of the bushes. He came onto the deck, grabbed me and knocked me down.
It happened Saturday night. I went out on my back deck to water the plants. It was almost dark. A man runs out of the bushes. He comes onto the deck, grabs me and knocks me down.
The shift to present
tense is significant, because events recalled from memory should be
stated by using the past tense.The change to present tense could
indicate deception. Knowing this, an investigator interviewing the
victim of the second statement is forewarned that the account may be
fabricated. The use of past or
present tense also is significant when referring to missing persons.
In such cases, the norm is to describe the person in the present
tense, as in, "I just pray that Jenny is all right." When
children are missing, in the parents' hearts and minds, the children
remain alive, sometimes long after the point of reason. As evidenced
in the Susan Smith case, use of past tense almost immediately after
the alleged abduction showed a significant deviation from the norm.
Extraneous information
Extraneous information in
a statement also can provide clues to deception. A truthful person
with nothing to hide, when asked the question, "What happened ?"
will recount the events chronologically and concisely. Any
information given that does not answer this question is extraneous.
People involved in crimes may feel the need to justify their actions.
In such cases, the information in the statements will not follow a
logical time frame or will skirt what really happened. They also may
include more information than is necessary to tell the story. In such
instances, investigators should scrutinize this extraneous
information and question why this person felt the need to include it.
For example, in a homicide investigation involving a young woman shot
by her husband, the husband told police officers that he was cleaning
his gun when it accidentally discharged. Investigators then asked the
husband to write a statement about his actions on the day he shot his
wife. He provided a detailed statement, writing at length about the
rust on his gun and a previous hunting trip. He failed, however, to
describe fully his activities on this specific day. The amount of
extraneous information prompted the investigator to view the husband
as a suspect.
Lack of conviction
Another important factor
in statement analysis is a person's lack of conviction. When
analyzing a statement, investigators should note if the person feigns
a loss of memory by repeatedly inserting "I don't remember"
or "I can't recall." They also should look to see if the
person hedges during the
narrative by using such
phrases as "I think," "I believe," "to the
best of my knowledge," or "kind of." These phrases,
also called qualifiers, serve to temper the action about to be
described, thereby discounting the message before it even is
transmitted.5 Clearly, the person giving the statement is avoiding
commitment, and warning bells should ring in the investigator's ears.
The following is a
transcript of an oral statement of a college student who reported
that a man broke into her apartment at 3:30a.m. and raped her. A
statement regarding such a traumatic experience should brim with
conviction, which this statement clearly lacks.
"He grabbed me and
held a knife to my throat. And when I woke up and I was, I mean I
was really asleep and I didn't know what was going on, and I kind of
you know I was scared and I kind of startled when I woke up, You
know, You know I was startled and he, he told, he kept telling me to
shut up and he asked me if I could feel the knife."
It is important to
consider the phrase, "I kind of startled when I woke up."
Certainly, this is not a normal reaction for a woman who awakens in
the middle of the night to see an unknown man at
her bed and to feel a
knife at her throat. The word "terrified" more
appropriately comes to mind. Using the words "kind of startled"
shows a gross deviation from the expected normal reaction of terror.
Another example of lack
of conviction can be found in a written statement given by a relative
of a woman who mysteriously disappeared. Investigators asked the
missing woman's sister-in-law to recount the activities that took
place on the weekend of the disappearance. After claiming memory
lapses and showing a general lack of specificity, the sister-in-law
ended her statement with:
"...that was about
it. These were my actions on the weekend to the best I can recall."
Any investigator reading
the above statement should seriously question whether the events were
described accurately and completely.
Balance of the statement
A statement given by a
suspect or an alleged victim should be examined by investigators for
overall balance. Statements should be more than just a series of
details. They need to sound like an account of the event. A truthful
statement has three parts. The first part details what was going on
before the event occurred; it places the event in context. The
second part describes the occurrence itself, i.e., what
happened during the theft, the rape, the fire, etc. The last part
tells what occurred after the event, including actions and emotions,
and should be at least as long as the first part.
The more balanced the
three parts of the statement, the greater the probability that the
statement is true.6 A statement containing the same number of lines
in the before, during, and after parts, i.e., 33 1/3 percent in each
part, indicates truth, although some degree of variation from perfect
balance can be expected.
If any part of a
statement is incomplete or missing altogether, then the statement is
probably false. The following breakdown of a statement written by a
man whose home burned shows a deviation too great from the balanced
norm. The man provided a 56-line account of what happened that day,
divided as follows:
BEFORE the fire: 33
lines -59.0%
DURING the fire: 16
lines - 28.5%
AFTER the fire: 7 lines
- 12.5%.
Investigators concluded
that the above distribution indicates deception, because the three
parts of the statement are clearly out of balance. The "before"
section is too long and the "after" section is too short.
Examination of the statement revealed that in the first part, the
writer provided too much information totally unrelated to the fire.
This signaled the investigators to ask themselves, "Is the
writer stalling or trying
to justify his actions?" Also, the statement contained sparse
information on what happened after the fire and lacked any indication
of emotion. There was no sign of anger, shock, or sense of loss. The
writer, who showed no concern about the consequences of the fire,
ultimately confessed to setting it.
Conclusion
Statements contain a
wealth of information far beyond what the suspect or alleged victim
intends to communicate. Fortunately, investigators can use this
information to their benefit. Statement analysis provides
investigators with vital background data and details about
relationships to explore during the interview process. It also can
determine whether the intent of the statement is to convey or to
convince, that is, to convey the truth or to convince through
deception.7 Armed with this knowledge, investigators can enter the
interview room with increased confidence to identify the perpetrator
and gain a confession.
Notes
1 The Washington Post,
November 5, 1994, A15.
2 The Washington Post,
July 26, 1995, A7.
3 Udo Undeutsch published
this hypothesis in German in 1967. It also was reported in "The
Development of Statement Reality Analysis," Credibility
Assessment, ed. John C. Yuille (The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, NATO ASI Series, 1989). The Germans generally are
credited with the advancement of statement analysis for investigative
purposes. German psychologists devised a system to assess the
credibility of statements made by children in child abuse cases.
Called criteria-based content analysis, the technique became mandated
in German courts in 1954 in cases involving a disputed allegation of
sexual abuse of a child.
4 Avinoam Sapir,
Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN) (Phoenix, AZ: Laboratory of
Scientific Interrogation, 1987), 52.
5 Walter Weintrab, Verbal
Behavior in Everyday Life (New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co.,
1989), 13.
6 Don Rabon,
Investigative Discourse Analysis (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic
Press, 1994), 17.
7 Ibid., 35.