Shortly after WW2, there were a number of sexual abuse claims against the state. Statement veracity analysis techniques were used to analyse the evidence given by children. Over time, the techniques were developed and Professor Udo Undeutsch’s research led to the principles of Statement Analysis being mandated into the German legal system in 1954.
It has been researched extensively since then and was developed by Avinoam Sapir, an Israeli Rabbi, into today’s Statement Analysis.
Statement Analysis is based on the premise that truthful stories exhibit certain consistent patterns and norms of language, content, phrasing, logic, sequencing etc. Lying or deception will leave evidence of itself, which can be detected by the Analyst.
The stress of lying or deceiving manifests both physically and in our language; how a person says or writes. Statement Analysis looks at the verbal and written manifestations.
The examination of any questioned statement (oral or written) can detect deception and obtain information. This information can then be used by the investigator to probe the areas where the “hot spots” lie in order to establish the truth through further questioning and hypotheses.
Statement Analysis techniques are used by many investigation and intelligence agencies worldwide.
It is an artistic science that can be used in the following areas:
Advantages of statement analysis over other methods of truth detection:
As a Statement Analyst, I was approached by an employer to analyse a written statement an employee had written for them after an i-phone and i-pad went missing from their home while they were under the employee’s care.
The employee was the nanny to the children and the employer had been away for a period of 2 weeks when the technology went missing. The children were in the nanny’s care at the time. The employer informed me that the door to their house was always open so that their dog could enter their house, thus creating the potential that their Gardener could have stolen the two items. In addition, they had painters at their house and they too could have stolen the technology.
The instruction given to X was the following: the police want a statement from her stating what she thought happened to the i-phone and i-pad as they are investigating the matter. They did not directly inform her that she is a suspect in the matter.
The most concerning point about X’s statement is that she didn’t write the statement in accordance with the instruction put to her.
The employer asked her to state what she thought happened to the i-phone and i-pad. She did not answer this question at all. She has put no opinion into her statement, and in fact has left out quite a few facts.
I broke the statement down into 3 sections: T1 (introduction), M1 (content) and T2 (conclusion).
Her T1 was 15 % of her total statement. The norm for an honest statement is 20 – 30 %. Her T1 is substantially shorter than it should be.
Usually a person gives background information to the incident at hand.
A short T1 is often a sign that the statement is deceptive. However, we do not take signs in isolation.
The short T1 possibly indicates deception in that she hadn’t spent sufficient time working out how she was going to explain the story.
Her M1 was 78 % of her total statement. The norm is 40 % to 70 %. Her M1 is longer than normal and is a possible indicator of deception.
Again, this percentage is not necessarily a sign of deception. However, with the other signs, it cannot be overlooked.
Most concerning in this section of her statement is that her explanation significantly lacks facts.
Her T2 was 7 %. The norm for an honest statement is 30 %.
Usually in an honest statement, the person finishes off their statement with what happened after the event. A short T2 could be indicative of a deceptive statement in that the person has spent so much time thinking of how they are going to explain the situation, that they haven’t take the time to finish the story.
Her T2 is exceptionally short and again is a possible indicator of deceptiveness. She hasn’t taken the time to complete her fabrication to follow through with her story.
I find it concerning that throughout her statement, and even at the conclusion, she never actually says that she doesn’t know where the gadgets are.
Overall I find X’s statement to be deceptive.
She hasn’t answered the question that was put to her.
An honest person usually finds it imperative to clear their name as they don’t want to be unfairly accused of something they are innocent of. X has not cleared her name. She has not excluded herself as a suspect in the loss of the two items and therefore I also cannot exclude her as a suspect.
082 371 5701
Forensic Handwriting Analysis