updated: see solution at bottom
A dispute broke out between two married sisters over an expensive piece of jewelry.
One sister claims the other sister stole it, but the other says she only tried it on, but left it on a chair upon leaving.
In the "she said, she said" scenario, Statement Analysis shines. In 'he said, she said' dilemmas, Statement Analysis becomes a quick polygraph test.
Due to the expense of the item, discernment was needed by an insurance investigator, of which the accused sister wrote a statement about the date in question.
Your task is to determine if the jewelry was stolen. If it was stolen, the insurance company is going to press the investigation for criminal activity, in order to cover its payout.
Did the sister steal the jewelry? Or, is the other sister attempting to commit insurance fraud?
Using the principles of Statement Analysis, list your reasons for your conclusion.
Mak sure you include your reasoning in your response. If posting anonymously, pick a name for interaction. She knew that her sister had accused her of stealing and that this statement was for an insurance investigator who needed guidance from Statement Analysis to get to the truth.
"I asked her if I could try on the necklace. It matched my earrings nicely. I asked her if I could try the necklace on and she said it was okay. I didn't have the pendant on more than 20 minutes. I left it on the recliner. When she said that I had the pendant, I told her that I didn't and that it was on the chair. Later, her husband got into my face accusing me of stealing the pendant and said that there would be consequences, but I told him the same thing, I tried it on and that it must be there somewhere, for I had only tried it on to see how it looked and that was it."
This is the only evidence the insurance investigator had to go on. He recognized the bitterness between the two sisters, one with money and one without, but both were questionable: was it a scam? Did the rich sister really have the jewelry and is just attempting to scam the company, or did the non-rich (middle class) sister actually take it? Another option he could not rule out was the sisters working together, but this appeared unlikely as the bitterness was extreme and divided the family. In fact, in the interviews, there was no "we" from either sister.
Fortunately for him, this statement itself told him what he needed to know.
Stay only within principle. You do not want body language nor voice inflection, tears, etc to influence you. "The subject is dead; the statement is alive" is all you need.
Your answer?
For our answer: Scroll Down to solve below. (way down). Christina was able to solve this mystery.
almost there...keep scrolling down....
Solution:
"I asked her if I could try on the necklace. It matched my earrings nicely. I asked her if I could try the necklace on and she said it was okay. I didn't have the pendant on more than 20 minutes. I left it on the recliner. When she said that I had the pendant, I told her that I didn't and that it was on the chair. Later, her husband got into my face accusing me of stealing the pendant and said that there would be consequences, but I told him the same thing, I tried it on and that it must be there somewhere, for I had only tried it on to see how it looked and that was it."
*****Solution: The jewelry was stolen by the sister. ******
As many pointed out, there is no denial of taking the jewelry. We will cover this in another case.
There are two simple things to note within this statement regarding analysis: change of language.
Note that a "necklace" became a "pendant."
Note that a "recliner" became a "chair. "
Change of language should represent a change in reality. Our most common examples:
1. "My car sputtered and I finally pulled over, left the vehicle on the side street."
This would appear reliable as the "car" became a "vehicle" when it no longer worked. This is common in auto insurance language.
2. "I put my hand on my gun, and told the suspect to show me his hands. When he pulled his gun, I unholstered my gun, fired my weapon, and returned the gun to the holster. I called 911..."
Here, the "gun" became a "weapon" while being fired, but returned to being a "gun" when it was back holstered.
Change of language should represent a change in reality.
Note here that the "necklace" was a "necklace" as long as it was in the owner's possession, but once stolen, it became a "pendant". This change was due to the feeling that the thieving sister felt: sometimes things are 'renamed' to make the thief feel as it is it their own possession, not someone else's. Psychologically, it is a way to attempt to alleviate guilt. The ability to name something (even a pet) shows authority.
Next, the "chair" and "recliner"
Question: Why did the subject change the wording from "recliner" to "chair"?
Answer: Since there is nothing within the context to justify the change, it is likely that it did not come from memory, but was a fabrication.
The interview revealed just that very thing:
The jewelry was not left anywhere, but taken. While giving her statement, she fabricated about the chair.
Principle: there are no synonyms in Statement Analysis. Where language changes, there should be justification by a change in reality. If you do not see any change in reality to justify it, you are likely looking at deception: it isn't coming from memory, but is being made up on the fly, therefore, since the subject isn't taking the language from her memory bank, she didn't even realize that she had changed "recliner" and "chair" as it was chosen in the free editing process.
No doubt you have seen other things in the statement which indicate sensitivity, including "tried on" is repeated (indicating sensitivity). She didn't simply "try on" something; and the reason why she kept repeating the phrase is because to her, it was sensitive, since it is false.
No comments:
Post a Comment