by conducting extensive research into verbal communication, looking into the linguistic
behavior used by people in communication.
There are two components to the SCAN system: obtaining a pure statement, and analyz-
ing the quality of the structure and content of that statement. Sapir has found that the
deceptive suspect, who does not intend to tell the truth, will express himself briefly as he
tries to run away from the critical issue. He may minimize or attempt to ignore the facts
of the crime. This will cause him to edit his statement. When we ask a person to write what
they know about the crime and how they would explain it, they cannot write everything.
They must edit it, telling us what they think is important for us to know [5].
In order for a person to establish commitment to what is being said, two requirements
must be fulfilled:
*For information on seminars in SCAN offered by Avinoam Sapir, go to www.lsiscan.com.
68
6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS
1. The person needs to connect the statement to himself by using the word “I”;
2. The person needs to connect the statement to the past by using first person singular, past tense.
The most psychologically difficult “voice” for a person to lie in is the first person
singular, past tense: “I did not touch my daughter’s vagina,” versus “I would not touch
my child’s vagina.” When looking at the suspect’s answer, evaluate the psycholinguistic
differences between truthful and deceptive suspects [5]:
Truthful
Deceptive
1. Rich in details.
Lack of details.
2. First person singular, past tense.
Deviates from the first person singular,
past tense.
3. Proper introduction of the victim: “My
Improper introduction of the victim:
daughter. . . .”
“She. . . .”
4. Uses possessive pronoun: “My daughter. . . .”
Lack of possessive pronoun: “The child. . . .”
5. No gaps in time.
Missing time: “Two hours later. . . .”
6. Appropriate emotions in the right place
No emotions.
(post-incident).
7. Will deny doing the crime before being asked.
Only makes denials to direct question.
8. Flow of story proper.
Incorrect flow of story.
The first step in SCAN is to obtain an open or “pure” statement. This is similar to the
CBSA requirement of a spontaneous and lengthy statement without interruptions. The pur-
pose of obtaining a pure version of events in the form of an open statement from the sus-
pect is to enable the assessor to break the suspect’s linguistic code. In the FAINT
interview, question 7, “Write in detail what you know about this and how you would
explain it?” serves this purpose.
Once an open statement is obtained, the assessor will evaluate the flow of the statement.
Point 8 in the box just shown describes the flow of the statement. Sapir identifies that a state-
ment has three parts: the pre-incident (what happened prior to the onset of the incident), the
incident itself, and the post-incident (what happened after the incident was over). Sapir has
found that the flow of a truthful statement is generally composed of 20% pre-incident, 50% inci-
dent, and 30% post-incident. Simply put, a truthful statement is where the post-incident is a
greater portion than the pre-incident, and the incident is usually the greatest portion of all.
Flow of a Truthful Statement
Pre-incident:
20%
Incident:
50%
Post-incident:
30%
Incident > Post-incident > Pre-incident
The reason the “flow” of the statement occurs in this manner is that deceptive suspects do
not want to have to talk about the incident. Therefore, they have a tendency to devote a lot
of time in the pre-incident as they attempt to avoid getting to the part of the statement dealing
6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS
69
with the incident, where they must lie. Once they arrive at the part of the statement where they
must lie to conceal their involvement, they tend to lie by omission, resulting in a short narrative
about the incident itself. The post-incident deals with what happened after the incident. In
statements of false allegations, such as rape and molestation, this part of the statement is where
a truthful person tells about the investigative process and their embarrassment about what was
done to them, etc. The deceptive suspect does not have these experiences, which results in a
very small post-incident portion of the statement.
Sapir also looks for signs of credibility in the statement. Credibility is established by proper
use of pronouns and using first person singular, past tense to write about what happened.
If a person is not willing to write “I” in the statement, it is problematic. For example,
when asked to write what happened the previous day (deposit was stolen from his work-
place), from the time he awoke until he went to bed, a suspects writes:
I woke up at 7 am. I got out of bed and went into the bathroom. I brushed my teeth, showered, and
got dressed. I went downstairs ate breakfast and went to work. Punched in at 8:30 and worked the reg-
ister till noon. Went to lunch until 1 pm and then went back and ran the register until 5 pm. Then I
punched out and went home. I ate dinner and watched TV until about 10 pm and then went to sleep.
Notice the pronoun “I” is in the statement before the suspect arrives at work and after he
leaves, however during the critical time period when the theft would have occurred there
are no “I’s” in the statement.
Consider the statement, “I am not having sex with that woman!” This is quite different
from “I never had sex with that woman!” This person may have had sex with the woman
in the past, but now that he has found out he is under investigation, he has terminated
the relationship. “I am not having sex with that woman!” is technically a truthful statement;
however, when stated in the first person, past singular, it is a patent lie.
In question 7, in the Forensic Assessment Interview, we request the suspect to write
or tell us, “What is this about, and how you would explain it?” As in MITT, we give our
assessment of their answer as þ1 if we believe it is truthful, 0 if we cannot decide (inconclu-
sive), or 1 if we assess it to be deceptive. To receive a þ1, the answer must allow the inter-
viewer to ask a very specific relevant question regarding the suspect’s commission of the
crime under investigation, for example, “This is about the theft of money from the bank
in the form of stolen checks.” “This is about whether I am being truthful” or “This is about
a problem at the bank” would not meet this criterion and therefore would receive a 1.
In analyzing a written statement, pronouns also serve other important roles. Pronouns
signify possession. This can be very important in cases of theft, property, and abuse. In
an arson case, a suspect wrote the following statement.
Please write what you did from the time you woke up, until you went to sleep, on Friday, January 7, 2000.
I got up. I took a shower. I got dressed. I went downstairs to the kitchen. I ate a
bowl of cereal and left for our store. It was about 6:30 a.m. I got into my car and drove to our store at 5200 Bridge Road. I opened and began setting up our registers for business. Nothing unusual occurred during the day. I did get a phone call from Joe, but we didn’t really talk about anything of importance. At 4:30 p.m. closed the store. Cleaned up.
Left with seven other employees. As the door was locked I heard the phone ring. Went in the store to answer
the phone. When I went in the store the phone stopped ringing. After a couple of minutes went back out,
locked the door and everyone went home. I went home to make dinner, but around 6 p.m. got a call that
there was a problem at the store so I went back. When I got home I ate, watched TV and went to bed. I think
it was about 10 p.m. That’s about it.
70
6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS
This statement would have been scored a 1, because after reading it you would have
had no idea as to what crime had been committed. Also, examine the use of pronouns in
this statement, as well as where they are left out:
I got up. I took a shower. I got dressed. I went downstairs to the kitchen. I ate a bowl of cereal and left
for our store. It was about 6:30 a.m. I got into my car and drove to our store at 5200 Bridge Road.
I opened and began setting up our registers for business. Nothing unusual occurred during the day.
I did get a phone call from Joe, but we didn’t really talk about anything of importance. At 4:30 p.m. (sud-
denly leaves pronoun out) closed the (our store suddenly becomes the store) store. (leaves pronoun
out) Cleaned up. Left with seven other employees. As (leaves pronoun out) the door was locked I heard
the phone ring. (leaves pronoun out) Went in the store to answer the phone. When I went in the store the
phone stopped ringing. After a couple of minutes (leaves pronoun out) went back out, (leaves pronoun
out) locked the door and everyone went home. I went home to make dinner, but around 6 p.m. got a call
that there was a problem at (leaves pronoun out) the store so I went back. When I got home I ate,
watched TV and went to bed. I think it was about 10 p.m. That’s about it.
Sapir identifies the quality of a relationship between the writer and others by how the
writer introduces people in his statement. A truthful suspect wants the reader to under-
stand his statement. People in the statement are therefore properly introduced. Failure to
do this is indicative of a possible problem in their relationship. For example, if a person
wrote, “I woke up at 7 am, got dressed and had breakfast with Kathy,” but never told
you that Kathy was his wife, that is problematic.
In analyzing a statement, Sapir looks for missing time. He maintains that the deceptive
person would rather lie by omission than commission. Therefore, we do not look for lies
in the statement to determine deception; we look for missing time and missing information.
Words and phrases such as after that, later on, I don’t remember, started, and began are all
signs that information or time may be missing.
I got up. I took a shower. I got dressed. I went downstairs to the kitchen. I ate a bowl of cereal
and left for our store. It was about 6:30 a.m. I got into my car and drove to our store at 5200 Bridge
Road. I opened and began setting up our registers for business. Nothing unusual occurred during the
day. I did get a phone call from Joe, but we didn’t really talk about anything of importance. At 4:30
p.m. (suddenly leaves pronoun out) closed the (our store suddenly becomes the store) store.
(leaves pronoun out) Cleaned up. Left with seven other employees. As (leaves pronoun out)
the door was locked I heard the phone ring. (leaves pronoun out) Went in the store to answer the
phone. When I went in the store the phone stopped ringing. After a couple of minutes** (missing information) (leaves pronoun out) went back out, (leaves pronoun out) locked the door and
everyone went home. I went home to make dinner, but around 6 p.m. got a call that there was a
problem at (leaves pronoun out) the store so I went back. When I got home I ate, watched TV
and went to bed. I think it was about 10 p.m. That’s about it.
“After a couple minutes went back out” indicates missing information as well as a miss-
ing pronoun. This was when the writer went back into the store and set the fire.
**Underline added for emphasis.
6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS
71
Sapir maintains that if a person tells us why something is happening in an open statement,
it means that it must be sensitive to the person because he felt the need to explain it. Sen-
tences with words such as since, so, or because often indicate these areas of sensitivity.
I got up. I took a shower. I got dressed. I went downstairs to the kitchen. I ate a bowl of cereal and left
for our store. It was about 6:30 a.m. I got into my car and drove to our store at 5200 Bridge Road. I
opened and began setting up our registers for business. Nothing unusual occurred during the day. I did
get a phone call from Joe, but we didn’t really talk about anything of importance. At 4:30 p.m. (suddenly
leaves pronoun out) closed the (our store suddenly becomes the store) store. (leaves pronoun out)
Cleaned up. Left with seven other employees. As (leaves pronoun out) the door was locked I heard the
phone ring. (leaves pronoun out) Went in the store to answer the phone.† (Tells us why something is happening ¼ Sensitive Information). When I went in the store the phone stopped ringing. After a couple of
minutes (missing information and leaves pronoun out) went back out, (leaves pronoun out) locked
the door and everyone went home. I went home to make dinner, but around 6 p.m. got a call that there
was a problem at (leaves pronoun out) the store so I went back. When I got home I ate, watched TV
and went to bed. I think it was about 10 p.m. That’s about it.
In a suspected homicide case, a mildly retarded man reported he was feeding his
4-week-old baby food, for the first time. As he was doing this, he was using a
paper towel to keep cleaning the baby’s mouth and face. The towel was getting slimy, so
he had to keep folding it. Eventually, it was a small wad of paper, which he allegedly “acci-
dentally” dropped into the infant’s mouth, while trying to clean out some spittle. Due to
problems with his fine motor skills, he reported he accidentally forced the paper down
the baby’s throat when he tried to remove it. As a result of his action, the baby died.
When he was asked by one of the authors to tell what this incident was about and how
he would explain it, he gave the following “open statement”:
I would say around 2:00 p.m. Jessica left the apartment to go to her sister’s. She went to Mary’s and
both Mary and Jessica walked up. They were going to play bingo that night. They go quite often. Jessica
goes 4 or 5 times per week; her mother goes everyday. When Jessica left she left me and the baby and my
dog. The baby was asleep in the living room in a playpen. The baby slept all afternoon. When he woke up
he began crying. I wanted to feed him, so I mixed up cereal and formula like it said on the box. I think it
was Gerber oatmeal. I had to mix 1 or 2 tablespoons with Enfamil in a dish with warm water. I used a
plastic measuring spoon to measure it. I was told by friends to feed the baby the formula and cereal. He
was waking up every 15 minutes when we were feeding him by bottle, so I decided to start fee
ding him
cereal and formula on this day. I placed the mix inside a plastic baby dish; the one that you put water inside to keep the food warm. I then took cereal into the living room. I picked up the baby and sat in my usual
chair. I then got up and sat in a different chair. The arms of the chair are higher and it was hard to feed the baby. The baby was on my lap with my left arm under his head or back of the neck. The cereal was on the
right side in the arm of the chair. I began feeding the baby with my right hand. I put almost all of the food into the baby’s mouth. There was 4 ounces of formula and 1 or 2 tablespoons of oatmeal in it. I think I
spent about 20 minutes feeding the baby. I spilled some of the cereal onto the baby’s shirt and over his
mouth. That chair certainly messed me up. I never said that the chair messed me up before. I had a paper
†Underline added for emphasis.
72
6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS
towel with me. I think that after I took the food into the living room and put it on the arm of the chair. I returned to the dining room to get a paper towel. I put the paper towel on a stand that was next to the chair.
I had to keep getting the towel to wipe his face and shirt. He was crying whenever I spilled it on his mouth.
The third time I dropped it on him and also the fifth time I dropped it on him. I kept cleaning him off each time I spilled it on him. He was still crying. I always kept him real clean. The towel was filling up with the cereal and it was getting wetter and wetter and got slimly and small. You have to keep moving it around to
get a clean spot on the towel. He was crying as I was wiping his mouth. Somehow, while cleaning him off,
I dropped the towel into his mouth. I tried to get it out with my finger, but I was pushing it further in. I probably put my finger in 4 or 5 times, but I couldn’t get it out. Then I tried other stuff when I got out
of the chair. I was standing up; I turned him over. I had my hand on his chest. I then hit him on his back
and squeezed on his stomach a little bit. I didn’t squeeze hard because he was a little baby. I couldn’t get it out, so I ran downstairs with the baby. I opened the door to Jessica’s mother’s apartment. All of them were
standing there: Mrs. Mary Smith (Jessica’s mother) and Jessica’s father, her brother and his girlfriend,
Terry Jones. I think I said that the baby got a piece of paper stuck down his throat. I think I gave the baby to Jessica’s mother. The baby ended up on the couch with Billy doing whatever they told him to do. Some
Nathan J Gordon, William L Fleisher Page 11