Forensic Statement Analysis is a technique used to identify lies and for finding missing information. When a subject writes a statement, he/she provides more information than they realize. We each have our own linguistic code referred to as the "norm." As retired GBI agents in Georgia, we can find out if the subject is being deceptive and if they are concealing information which might be valuable to the interviewer.
The technique was developed by Avinoam Sapir, Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation (LSI). Southern Professional Investigations investigator, Michael Rundles, received specialized training in scientific content analysis (SCAN) under Mr. Sapir and he taught for LSI throughout the southeast. Investigator Rundles used this technique as a GBI Agent to help solve sexual assault cases, false allegations, internal investigations, theft cases, and assault cases.
If a crime has been committed at work or at a social gathering, as private investigators the first thing we do is to investigate each person who was at the location, who was employed by the business or attending the social engagement. We begin by asking them for a written or a verbal statement. We then analyze the statement and begin the interrogation process where verbal inflections and body language are also analyzed. This investigation process has a proven track record of helping to determine who the guilty party is.
- Forensic Statement Analysis using Scientific Interrogation
- Internal Investigation of all Parties Concerned
- Background Checks and Surveillance
- Independent and Internal Forensic Investigations
Forensic Statement Case Analysis Example:
A business recently contacted us and reported an internal theft. The suspect had entered into the business during the early morning hours and disarmed the alarm. The suspect went directly to the location in the secretary’s office where the money was hidden. He used a key to unlock the cabinet and removed the money. He then reset the alarm and departed. It was obvious it was an “inside job.”
Management had an idea who might have committed the theft but there were other personnel who also had access to the money and needed to be eliminated as suspects. Investigator Rundles gave each employee a questionnaire to fill out and return. After reviewing the questionnaires which contained their written statements, Investigator Rundles identified the one employee he felt had committed the theft.
SPI Investigators interviewed the employee and learned during the interview that he had been implicated in the past in missing funds from his church. The employee admitted to the theft. Management elected to accept the employee’s resignation and restitution in lieu of prosecution.