Finding the missing: using statement analysis to assist in missing persons cases

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to address the complexity of missing persons cases and highlight the linguistic differences that arise in this type of crime. Missing persons cases are typically very complex investigations. Without a body, crime scene forensics is not possible, and police are often left only with witness and suspect statements. Forensic linguistics methods may help investigators to prioritise or remove suspects. There are many competing approaches in forensic linguistic analysis; however, there is limited empirical research available on emerging methods. Design/methodology/approach This research investigates Statement Analysis, a recent development in linguistic analysis that has practical applications in criminal investigations. Real-world statements of individuals convicted of or found to be not guilty of their involvement in missing persons cases were used in the analyses. In addition, Behaviour Sequence Analysis was used to map the progressions of language in the suspects' statements. Findings Results indicated differences between the guilty and innocent individuals based on their language choices, for example, guilty suspects in missing [alive] cases were found more likely to use passive language and vague words because of high levels of cognitive load associated with the several types of guilty knowledge suspects in missing persons cases possess. Of particular interest is the use of untruthful words in the innocent suspects’ statements in missing [murdered] cases. While typically seen in deceptive statements, untruthful words in innocent statements may result because of false acquittals. Originality/value This research provides some support for Statement Analysis as a suitable approach to analysing linguistic statements in missing persons cases.

Sequencing statements: using behaviour sequence analysis with statement analysis to indicate deception

“…This may be due to a lack of opportunity to detect deception should a suspect invoke their Miranda right to remain silent and as a result, increases the likelihood of investigator confirmation bias (Frantzen and Can, 2012). In addition to NVC, research has also focused on forensic linguistic techniques and temporal methods (Richards and Keatley, 2023; Richards et al , 2023). Understanding what and when deceptive cues occur in linguistic communication is important to law enforcement, as the verbal or written statements of an accused person may be the only available evidence in an investigation (Porter and Yuille, 1996).…”

“…A good lie detector is determined by their ability to listen carefully when presented with verbal cues, focusing on vagueness and contradictions within a statement. Methods and analyses that can assist investigators with what indicators to listen for are of particular importance (Keatley, 2023; Richards and Keatley, 2023; Richards et al , 2023). Theoretical approaches to linguistic deception that have influenced current lie detection practices by law enforcement include: the leakage and deception cues approach (Ekman and Friesen, 1969); interpersonal deception theory (IDT) (Buller and Burgoon, 1996); and the self-presentational perspective (DePaulo et al , 2003).…”

“…NVC is typically only open to interpretation if a movement is present or absent; linguistic analysis, however, takes account not only of whether a word is present or not but the type of words used. The current training of police in deceptive statements continues; therefore, recent developments to linguistic deception detection literature may help further progress this training (Richards and Keatley, 2023; Richards et al , 2023). It is important to note that large differences between lies and deception exist (Vrij et al , 2011).…”

“…If techniques are not sensitive to the different types of lies and deception, then methods aimed at “counting lies” in police practice may miss the nuances. It is therefore important to look beyond only NVC and continue to develop research that examines linguistic cues in investigative settings in addition to assessing the various types of deceptive indicators and potential deceptive indicators broadly (Richards and Keatley, 2023; Richards et al , 2023). This awareness of types of deception also improves information gathering in interviews, as assumptions about lying are not made.…”

“…Declaring a person is a liar on one possible indicator of deception is not recommended (Keatley, 2023). Instead, understanding whether deception was criminal is important and building complex accounts of deceptive verbal patterns is gaining support (Keatley et al , 2018; Richards et al , 2023).…”