“He had me drive out north of town,” she said. The attractive girl was a juvenile who reported that she was abducted one evening outside a convenience store. She had never seen the suspect before but provided a detailed description. Independent video showed the suspect and victim having an apparent conversation outside the store. Soon, law enforcement located the suspect and arrested him.
The victim stated the suspect didn’t force her to do anything but said ugly things to her. Eventually she said, he let her go. Her parents rushed to the police department. Thankfully, no harm was done but they thought of the possibilities. How close were they to losing their daughter?
The suspect wasn’t known to local law enforcement but when they ran his criminal history, they got an education. He had a number of incidents with the law, to say the least. He was a convicted felon. When questioned, he denied abducting the victim. He said he spoke to the victim and even acknowledged making a sexual comment about her appearance. What happened next was interesting.
A second detective chimed in that he was skeptical of the victim’s account. His instinct thought something was wrong but he didn’t articulate why. One of the problems is that detective number two’s “instincts” weren’t always correct. Although he was viewed as intelligent, he made one incorrect calculation after another. If he didn’t like something, he tended to dismiss it or rationalize why something did or didn’t happen. Not because of any facts or deductive reasoning but because of a feeling. Not because of his skill, training or education. To say other officers didn’t appreciate him, was an understatement.
The suspect was looking at a long time in jail. He undoubtedly thought of all the mistakes in life he had made. The city where the abduction took place, had a high crime rate but blended in were good honest citizens. Citizens, who believed in justice and would readily send him to the penitentiary. Besides, why would anyone make up such a story? Who should they believe, a convict or the victim?
At detective two’s urging, the initial detective requestioned the victim. Detective number one went back and forth between the victim and the suspect who was detained in another room. He observed the suspects account of his activity was consistent, without any hesitation. In addition, he didn’t avoid any questions or dismiss his criminal past. He seemed strikingly candid.
Detective number one was now beginning to question the victim’s account, more so from reasonable deduction. He pulled the parents aside. “I need to question your daughter again but this time alone. Something is not right. I need to get firm with her when I talk to her.” The parents agreed and said, “We just want the truth.”
Further questioning of the alleged victim revealed cracks in her story. Detective number one began to talk about consequences (the suspect was facing) and the importance of the complete truth. As the questioning continued, the victim began to change. Finally, she admitted she had fabricated the story. No abduction had ever occurred. It was a hoax. Her parents while not amused, were relieved the incident never took place. They asked for extended apologies to the suspect.
Why? Why would she lie? This is a question often asked by victim’s advocates, juries and everyone involved in the justice system. What possible reason would exist? No ethical person would have someone arrested, convicted and sent to prison. Motivations for false claims can vary. Understand, they do in fact exist. In the case of the young juvenile, we learned more. She had an argument with her boyfriend earlier in the day. She felt dejected. In the end, she wanted attention and reassurance – to be appreciated. This story sadly, has often repeated itself.
Thankfully, the suspect was cleared, released and said he would never come back to town, on his way out the door. In this case, the road to the truth began by a flawed detective’s instinct – which turned out to be correct. An Atlanta private investigator and former law enforcement officer says, there is another way that can help to extract information.
The investigator has been trained in linguistic analysis. It involves, listening to speech and examining the written statements of parties. “Words tend to creep out naturally and unintentionally,” he says. It can provide rich information on where to inquire further. It’s not as overt as giving someone a polygraph. It’s scientific and referred to in some circles as forensic statement analysis. Fortunately, he says modern day law enforcement does receive the training but not enough, as only a few instructors exist.
The discipline has been around for some time but still under used according to the investigator. “I’m convinced buried in a file somewhere, linguistic clues exist that could shed light on matters.” He goes on to say, “Think about someone who escapes justice or worse, is falsely accused then is sentenced for a crime they didn’t commit. In the workplace, a long-time harasser could go unpunished or the innocent lose their job because something was missed.”
He says instincts are fine but not always correct. “A common belief is to trust your first instinct but think about an impression you’ve had on a person or situation. Later it was determined you were incorrect. Perhaps a bias was present or maybe you didn’t have enough information. Making big leaps in an investigation because of instinct is terrible. Sure, pursue an instinct but don’t rely on it to determine a person’s credibility. Be able to support your theory. A person’s own words is a great inroad.”
He clarifies that forensic statement analysis is not normally admissible; however, because the words come directly from an accuser, witness or defendant, it can be explored in greater detail. “In the Jussie Smollett case in Chicago, he gave a number of linguistic clues that placed doubt on his story. While it was separate from conventional evidence, it showed he was deceptive early on.” He adds that the more information the better. In criminal matters, the results could certainly be used in closing arguments to a jury. “When analyzing a person’s statement, you’re simply pointing out what someone said or didn’t say and applying to the rules of language.”
The investigator who is also a fraud examiner explains the science is not perfect or the be all end all. He says, it’s one more tool that can be layered into investigations. “In claims of sexual assault, abduction, robbery and workplace sexual harassment, it has proven very telling. “At times, it’s not necessarily one person completely fabricating a story. Facts and truth can rest in between. I wish more attorneys and human resource professionals would ask for the service.” In the end, we just want the truth.