If you have ever been the victim of a physical assault, there is an invasive sense to it that shows up in the language.
In this sense, it is personal and the language should reflect this.
Here, an 18 year old woman said she was the victim of a "hate crime" assault in the UK.
What do her words tell us?
"I feel shocked and really scared that someone could attack you for no reason.
After an attack, victims are afraid. It is not necessary to say so, yet here, she tells us that the attack was for no reason.
Note the need for emphasis.
Note that it was "someone" who did the attacking, which is vague. This vagueness is then shown in the reason: the someone (gender neutral) had "no reason" for attacking.
"you" and not "me"
This is a distancing language that is not expected in unclose personal assault where intrusion into one's personal space has taken place.
A potential exception is in sexual assaults of women who were acutely sexually victimized in very early childhood and do not grasp the concept of personal boundaries due to disruption of development. Yet, in these cases, if violence is part of the sexual assault, the victim will use personal, intrusive language.
I don't feel safe at all now.
I was walking to the train station to meet some friends when someone shoved me from behind.
In her account, she shows that she has a need to place herself at the location of the crime. This is an unnecessary explanation. We view this has highly sensitive unless someone asked, "Why were you at that location?" The answering of this question in an open statement shows a need to preempt the question being asked. Since this was at an average location, there should be no reason to ask it, and the offering of it suggests that the subject feels an unnecessary need to, in her story, place herself where she was alleged to have been assaulted. This is often found in deceptive statements. The deceptive subject is concerned..."someone is going to ask me why I was here, so I better invent a reason..."
Here the attacker is "someone" which continues the gender neutral description. Remember, she has included emotion, which suggests either:
a. artificial editing
b. long time to process
Since she is looking back and recounting the alleged assault, "someone" repeated now, appears as an attempt to conceal identity of the alleged attacker.
When I turned around he punched me in the face and then just went off.”
A small unnecessary word allows us insight. "just" is a dependent word, meaning that the subject is thinking of what the "someone" who is now "he" (not the attacker) did in comparison to something she is thinking about.
She added: ”I was really upset afterwards.
This is, again, an unnecessary repetition of emotions. We now see someone who is trying to persuade her audience of her own emotions. This is another indicator of deception.
"I can only think it was because he saw my hijab as he didn't take my bag or anything.”
Here is another dependent word: "only" meaning she is thinking of something else while speaking this new motive.
We note that for "no reason" now has a reason. Both are given in hindsight, which is why the "no reason" is actual story telling.
She wants to communicate a story that does not come from memory. This is 'story telling' or the language of fiction.
When we write a fictitious story, we add in such detail to let the reader know the element of 'surprise' and 'not knowing' what happened. Consider that this is something that the 18 year old has read and been read to since early childhood; we all have. It is why deceptive accounts 'sound' like story telling; they mimic the same principles of fiction, including the editorializing of emotions and the attempt to guide the listener to a specific experience. 'Here, I was shocked, and here I thought there was no reason for what he did, and here I figured out...' It is what fiction looks like in writing and in story telling.
In accounts from experiential memory it is not so.
Speaking of the Paris attacks, Choudhury employed tacquia, the religious belief in lying to propagate Islam. She said: "It's made life harder for innocent Muslims.
We don't want people to be killed, that's not our religion. Our religion is all about peace.
My parents are so scared that they're telling me to take my hijab off.”
Note that coverings are prescribed to avoid sexual assaults. Those who do not wear coverings are thus exposed as 'infidel' women, of whom 'Allah has given to your right hand' to 'molest.' By wearing a covering she is immune from molestation, leaving those without covering to be targeted.
Analysis Conclusion: Deception Indicated
The UK police checked surveillance cameras and found no attack had taken place and the subject has been fined for making a false report and wasting the time of police.
If you wish to learn deception detection, visit Hyatt Analysis Services for at-home courses, certification, CEUs for professional licenses, and hosting seminars.