A true denial or a false confession? Assessing veracity of suspects' statements using MASAM and SVA

Abstract

Previous research on statement analysis has mainly concerned accounts by witnesses and plaintiffs. In our studies we examined true and false statements as told by offenders. It was hypothesized that SVA and MASAM techniques would enhance the ability to discriminate between true and false offenders' statements. Truthful and deceptive statements (confessions and denials) were collected from Swedish and Polish criminal case files. In Experiment 1, Swedish law students (N = 39) were asked to assess the veracity of statements either after training in and usage of MASAM or without any training and using their own judgements. In Experiment 2, Polish psychology students (N = 34) assessed veracity after training in and usage of either MASAM or SVA or without prior training using their own judgements. The veracity assessments of participants who used MASAM and SVA were significantly more correct than the assessments of participants that used their own judgements. Results show, that trained coders are much better at distinguishing between truths and lies than lay evaluators. There were significant difference between total scores of truthful and false statements for both total SVA and MASAM and it can be concluded that both veracity assessment techniques are useful in assessing veracity. It was also found, that the content criteria most strongly associated with correct assessments were: logical structure, contextual embedding, self—depreciation, volume of statement, contextual setting and descriptions of relations. The results are discussed in relation to statement analysis of offenders' accounts.

The Science of Lie Detection by Verbal Cues: What Are the Prospects for Its Practical Applicability?

“… Wojciechowski et al (2018) performed a study that investigated whether training in CBCA and a similar technique increased truth detection. One notable feature of their article is that although they found training increased truth detection to around 70%, in the range found by many other studies, they point out that this does not show that CBCA can be used by itself to assess truth that the detection rate is far from beyond reasonable doubt and that we do not currently have such tools.…”

From Suspect Statement to Legal Decision Making

“…These risk factors fall into two main categories: dispositional factors including age, mental impairment, and personality of the suspect, and situational factors including interview techniques and isolation (Kassin et al, 2010; Klaver, Lee, & Rose, 2008). The content of the statement should also be tested against intimate knowledge that the true perpetrator would have (Wojciechowski, Grans, & Liden, 2018). Israëls and van Koppen (2006) distinguish weak and strong intimate knowledge: the former referring to knowledge of information that is also known to the police, and the latter not known to the police and therefore not arising from police contamination.…”