A man reported his car stolen in the middle of the day. It was a Mercedes 500SL. He was agitated with police who, after asking him questions, asked him to write out what happened. He appeared as a self-important, too busy to be bothered, kind of guy. He refused at first, stating that he had to get back to work and that it was their responsibility. One officer pressed him and finally said, "Sir, I am concerned that you refuse to put your answers into writing." Feeling challenged, he wrote the following:
"Got into the car and drove around for a while. Car parked on 5th and Main. Got coffee. Who knows what happened after I left the car? This is for you guys to figure out. This crap happens all the time here and it is why people like me don't like to come downtown. I am very busy and you need to do your jobs. The vehicle is gone and if you don't do your job, then hard working people like me are stuck."
Now the same statement with analysis:
Got into the car and drove around for a while. Car parked on 5th and Main.
Note the missing pronoun. Pronouns are instinctive in language and in Analysis, they are vital. Here, the pronoun is missing which suggests that the subject is removing himself from the situation.
Question: Did he state that he got into the car and drove it around for awhile?
Answer: No, he didn't.
The subject is dead; the statement is alive. If he does not tell us that he drove the car, we should not conclude that he drove the car. We are to hear what he tells us and not interpret for him. Lying is stressful and it is avoided by withholding information.
Note "car parked" is passive. He does not say that he parked the car and we know a car cannot park itself.
At this point, the analyst is asking himself or herself why the subject is distancing himself from both driving and parking the car. Was he the driver? Was it someone else? The analyst is now on the lookout for someone else involved.
Got coffee.
In an interview, or when analyzing a statement, we highlight "coffee".
Why?
Simply for the interview follow up question:
"Was anyone with you?"
Crazy little stat: coffee is often brought up in statements indicating the presence of another person.
If you see or hear "coffee", the proper question is then, "was someone else with you?" as many people who feel the need (importance) to bring up "coffee" do so because they are remembering being with someone else. Coffee is a bit of a social drink, besides just an eye opener. In any situation, lots of people drink coffee alone. We flag coffee because it was important enough for the subject to mention, therefore, it is important for us. This is a principle:
Always note insignificant, seemingly unimportant details added. An unimportant detail is deemed 'doubly' important to us.
Here. the investigation did reveal that he met someone for coffee which is why he added it to his statement. The conversation over coffee, in a diner, was extremely stressful to him, which is why he made it during the giving of the statement.
Who knows what happened after I left the car?
Always flag a question found in a statement is important. Here, he asks a question that he can answer.
This is for you guys to figure out.
This is a truthful statement. Note that they must "figure" it out; not that they must find the car.
This crap happens all the time here and it is why people like me don't like to come downtown.
The language reveals high-mindedness. It did not take long to find out why work is so important to him as the investigation showed he lost his job and his wife filed for divorce.
I am very busy and you need to do your jobs.
Being "very" busy is sensitive. He did not have a job, was behind on payments, and terribly frustrated about his crumbling image and hoped to cash in on insurance. The man he met over coffee was to make the car 'disappear' to Canada and then to the Middle East for resale. It was a foolish plot.
The vehicle is gone and if you don't do your job, then hard working people like me are stuck."
The "car" is now a "vehicle". The change of language should always be noted. If there is no justification for the change, deception is likely present. Here, it may have been a "car" while he was involved with it, (in spite of distancing himself from it early on) but now that it is "gone" it is only a "vehicle" of which to get insurance money for.
He was arrested after cracking in the interview when the Interviewee kept going back to the cup of coffee, which made the subject nervous, while others made quick phone calls (including to his estranged wife). He was in a rush to get out of the station because he knew the more he spoke, the more he would give away.
Jobless and facing a divorce now looked more appealing than what he now faces.
No comments:
Post a Comment