by Peter Hyatt
The following is a statement for readers to analyze in an exercise.
Each one of us has a personal, subjective, internal dictionary. The work of an analyst is to "break the code" and understand what the subject is reporting. This is critical in police statements.
Good interviewing, whether it be by police, a therapist or a journalist, should be done in a way in which new language is not introduced to the subject, so that the subject may enter the Free Editing Process (FEP) where his own words are chosen. This is critical for discerning truth.
You have previously read here that it is not expected that the pronoun "we" should enter a sexual assault victim's language, after the assault, concerning herself and the perpetrator. In fact, it can indicate deception in a false claim.
Pronouns are instinctive.
"We went to the theater together but after everyone emptied out, we stayed there talking. It was dark and he grabbed me and I told him "no" but he would not stop. He drove me home and I told my parents..."
In this statement, the pronoun "we" begins the narrative, but once he "grabbed" her, there is no more "we" in her language. For her, this is a separation due to his action. She is truthful.
Take this truthful statement versus the following:
"He and I drove out to the commons, and he attacked me and threw me out of the car, but then let me back in again. We drove home and I said I never wanted to see him again and we agreed to cool things off for awhile..."
The pronoun "we" indicates unity, and cooperation. We find in sexual assault cases that once the assault has taken place, there is no more "we" between the victim and the assailant. In fact, even in the statements of assailants who want the assault to appear to be a willing consensual relationship, that the pronoun "we" is absent from the guilty man's statement. In the quick thinking of pronouns, the guilty man instinctively knows that there is no "we" or unity between them.
The following is for your consideration, and is only a portion of the statement. The assault has already taken place, where he allegedly grabbed her and she allegedly resisted.
"I stayed away from him after that, but kept seeing him around the hall. He looked at me a few times. I went with him to the basement because the supervisor told us to get the buckets. I ignored him and he then asked me, "We ok?" and I said, "We ok, as long as you don't touch me again."
After that he kept away from me and I kept doing the work that I thought I was hired for, like washing up the grease on the walls, scrubbing the floors, or whatever the supervisor asked me to do. I made it through the shift and asked my husband what he thought I should do but he was too angry to even talk to me, so I didn't know what to do. I called the police.
What do you make of the pronoun "we" in her statement, knowing that it has come after the alleged assault?
Write your response in the comments section, and scroll down for the analysis.
***************************************************************************
Conclusion: She is truthful.
The use of the word "we" in the subject's language after the assault can indicate deception. However, context is important.
The use of the word "we" after the assault is due to the subject entering into the assailant's language. She was asked, "We ok?" by the nervous assailant, and she used reflective language, his own words, in her response.
She did not produce the pronoun "we", after the assault, in the Free Editing Process.
By entering into his language, she merely parroted his words, nervously seeking to not be engaged in conversation.
What do you make of the pronoun "we" in her statement, knowing that it has come after the alleged assault?
Write your response in the comments section, and scroll down for the analysis.
***************************************************************************
Conclusion: She is truthful.
The use of the word "we" in the subject's language after the assault can indicate deception. However, context is important.
The use of the word "we" after the assault is due to the subject entering into the assailant's language. She was asked, "We ok?" by the nervous assailant, and she used reflective language, his own words, in her response.
She did not produce the pronoun "we", after the assault, in the Free Editing Process.
By entering into his language, she merely parroted his words, nervously seeking to not be engaged in conversation.