It ain't a sweater and it ain't a hoody, its a Mets jersey! |
Here is the analysis of the theft statement previously posted. Many comments posted revealed a solid understanding of the principles of Statement Analysis, and just how important it is to stay within principle.
What did you conclude?
Did the subject steal the sweater?
The subject has been accused of stealing an expensive sweater that belonged to "Tommy", while he worked for a company supporting Tommy. I asked the accused to write out a statement of "what happened" and he produced this.
I analyzed it, and then conducted an "Analytical Interview", which is just another way of saying that I interviewed him with open ended questions, used his language, and then asked questions from the analysis. This is the natural by product of the teaching of SCAN from Avinoam Sapir which can be found here.
How did your analysis come out? You can compare it to mine, which follows the original statement.
"Saturday March 23rd, Tommy had a small get
together at his house. Tommy had a monster
I asked Tommy if I could try the sweater
on with my Jacket. Tommy complied. I only
had the hoody for about 20 minutes. I
then took off the hoody and laid it
on the back of the recliner. When I
left the hoody was still on the chair.
On Tuesday, March 26th, at about 1250pm, Tommy’s
mom found me down town and accused me of stealing his hoody. I told her
as politely
as possible what I knew about the hoody
and where I last saw it. She went on
about what would happen if the hoody wasn’t found…"
This was an actual case that I was asked into. Tommy is disabled and the subject worked for the company that supported Tommy. I conducted the interview with the subject.
Here is the statement, with analysis added:
"Saturday March 23rd, Tommy had a small get
together at his house.
Do you remember the principle that says that where a subject chooses to begin a statement is important, and sometimes even the reason for writing? The subject was told NOT TO go to Tommy's apartment when he is off duty, as it blurs professional boundary. It is interesting that the subject felt the need to explain why he went to the apartment off duty. It was a "get together", which is strictly social. I did not know this when I analyzed the statement: I only knew that going to Tommy's "house" (not apartment??) was important to the subject.
Tommy had a monster
This is exactly how he wrote it out. Did you notice that which was crossed out? Did you catch that he capitalized "Jacket" when it was his, but not when it was Tommy's?
Please also note that here, it is a "sweater."
This is a great statement for learning about change of language.
Language does not change on its own: it changes, principally because of a change in reality. If the change in reality is not justified by the statement, it may ("may") indicate that the subject is not working from memory; that is, deception is present. This is important to remember because we have two (2) examples of language change and, fortunately for teaching, we have both possibilities in play."my Jacket" has a capital "J" to the possessive pronoun, "my", making it more important than Tommy's
Note that the item in question is a "sweater"
I asked Tommy if I could try the sweater
on with my Jacket.
"asked" is polite language. We trust the subject to guide us unless the analysis shows otherwise. I believe, at this point, it was a polite request. Note that it is still a "sweater" as it is still in Tommy's possession.
Tommy complied.
The polite asking came to an end, and coercion began, as the word "complied" means that the subject's will overcame, as if 'ordered' to hand it over. It is now in the subject's possession:
I only
had the hoody for about 20 minutes.
In the subject's possession, it is no longer a "sweater" (something I wear) but a "hoody", something a younger person wears, and much 'cooler' than a sweater. The item has changed possession therefore, the change of language is justified. The subject is telling the truth and there has been a change in reality. We now know:
When Tommy has it, it is a sweater.
When the subject has it, it is a hoody.
We will now seek to learn how it ends up, as a sweater, which is Tommy's, or if the subject actually stole it, meaning that it is a "hoody."
Recall the example of change of language from car insurance: "My car sputtered and died. I left the vehicle on the side of the road."
It was "my car" while it worked, but when it no longer drove, it became "the vehicle." Once repaired and running again, it will return to being a "car" and will have the possessive pronoun, "my" attached to it.
The word "just" is a comparison word. What is he comparing "20 minutes" to? This is a strong indication that he had it on much longer than 20 minutes...perhaps even to the point of wearing it out the door?
I
In the subject's possession, it is no longer a "sweater" (something I wear) but a "hoody", something a younger person wears, and much 'cooler' than a sweater. The item has changed possession therefore, the change of language is justified. The subject is telling the truth and there has been a change in reality. We now know:
When Tommy has it, it is a sweater.
When the subject has it, it is a hoody.
We will now seek to learn how it ends up, as a sweater, which is Tommy's, or if the subject actually stole it, meaning that it is a "hoody."
Recall the example of change of language from car insurance: "My car sputtered and died. I left the vehicle on the side of the road."
It was "my car" while it worked, but when it no longer drove, it became "the vehicle." Once repaired and running again, it will return to being a "car" and will have the possessive pronoun, "my" attached to it.
The word "just" is a comparison word. What is he comparing "20 minutes" to? This is a strong indication that he had it on much longer than 20 minutes...perhaps even to the point of wearing it out the door?
I
then took off the hoody and laid it
on the back of the recliner. When I
left the hoody was still on the chair.
Here it remains a "hoody" but we are confronted with another change of language:
"recliner" or "chair."
Please note that pronouns and articles 'don't lie'. Pronouns and articles are not part of our internal, personal, subjective dictionaries, but are instinctive. He did not say that he laid it on the back of "a recliner", but "the" recliner. The recliner had yet to be introduced. This is red flagged for possible deception.
Next, we find that "the recliner" became "the chair." We ask ourselves:
"Is there anything in the text that suggests a change of reality?"I see that there is nothing here to justify the change. Therefore, it is likely that the subject is not working from memory, and is not keeping track of his language. This is a strong indication that he is lying. When one is not working from memory, it is easy to get language mixed up. When one is working from memory, a change in language is a change in reality. This is why the sweater/hoody issue remains the same:
Tommy has a sweater, but the subject has the much cooler hoody.
On Tuesday, March 26th, at about 1250pm, Tommy’s
mom found me down town and accused me of stealing his hoody.
Here he introduces someone in the statement in an incomplete social introduction. He did not say "Tommy's mother, Gloria" but "Tommy's mom", which indicates a poor relationship according to SCAN social introduction. We are now on alert to learn if anything in the statement (and later in the interview) will affirm or deny the principle.
I told her
as politely
as possible what I knew about the hoody
"as politely as possible" tells us that he was restraining himself and that this was not pleasant. (The interview revealed very harsh words between them, and Tommy's mother's personal animosity towards the subject)
Note "what I knew about the hoody" is to avoid saying "that I did not take it" as this place was the perfect spot to deny the accusation that he was faced with.
In a lengthy interview, he said many words but none included "I did not take the sweater" or "I did not take the hoody"
I was seeking to learn if the hoody would return to being a "sweater", which would have suggested that it was in Tommy's possession, yet, it remains a "hoody"
and where I last saw it. She went on
about what would happen if the hoody wasn’t found…"
She threatened him.
This statement has almost all truthfulness to it, except about laying the hoody down on any chair. This is where the change of language showed deception.
When it was with the owner, it was a sweater, but when it was with the subject, it was a "hoody."
In the interview, the subject kept his written statement on his lap, often referring to it. He had asked if this was okay to do, and I assured him it was.
I asked open ended questions and allowed nature to take its course: that is, he was able to see that he was caught.
As I sometimes do, I left a copy of my analysis on the table, including using a red pen (above) and wrote "deception indicated" on it, and excused myself to go to the bathroom.
When I came back, he was visibly unnerved by it.
My job was to get to the truth.
Do you recall the teaching on "Sermonizing?"
When someone lectures you on something, it is always a sensitive issue. This subject lectured me about theft. His father and uncle were both thieves, he told me, and had served time. He hated thieves, he said, more than drug dealers! He lectured me at length about theft. How did it end?
He confessed.
He was embittered that Tommy could afford such a fancy hoody while not working, while he, the subject, had gone to school with Tommy and now worked for Tommy but could still not afford such a fancy hoody.
For this, he lost his job and admitted that he, like his father before him, was a thief.
There is more to this analysis than what I have posted, but suffice for now, it is a great sample of change of language principle. Often, a change in language indicates the subject is working from memory and is truthful. The change is seen in the change of reality:
"I pulled my gun from its holster and fired my weapon twice at the suspect, and re-holstered the gun."
When it was not in use, it was a "gun", but when it was in use, it changed into a "weapon." Once it was done being a "weapon", it returned to being a "gun." This is an indicator of veracity.
I once worked with a pretty co-worker who did not like certain neighborhoods and told a new worker, "I like going out to that neighborhood with Peter. He is a good man to have along."
A year later, I heard her say almost the same thing to yet another new worker, yet with a subtle change: "You should ask Peter to go with you there. He is a good person to have along."
I asked her if she had a crush on me a year ago. She was caught off guard and said, "well, yes I did."
I pointed out that she had just called me a "person" and asked her what caused her to change and she said, "I met Heather!"
It was Heather's presence that turned me from being a "man" (gender specific) to a "person" (gender neutral).
I wonder if she is reading this now...and laughing at me!
Did you enjoy the exercise? Please let me know in the comments if you like this type of work. On many statements, I have not only the analysis, but the benefit of having conducted an interview, or speaking to the Interviewer, and know the entire case.
As some of you already know, sometimes you can know more about a case from a statement than an investigator working the case might know, even if for a short time!