lady was telling us to hit the baby with the heel of the hand on the baby’s back and also squeeze the baby.
About 5 minutes later the ambulance people arrived. I think there were 3 or 4 ambulance people. They
must have taken the baby off the couch and layed him on the table. They were ripping open packets of stuff
and shining a light down his throat. They finally got it out with tweezers and set it on the dining room table.
It was all bloody and messy, so I threw it into the trash can that was by the table. It was under a desk.
They later showed it to me at the police station. It had cigarette ashes all over it. I didn’t see anyone get it out. I just figured it was cigarette ashes because the trash can is always full of cigarette ashes. No one told me what the black stuff was on the towel, so I just figured it out. I didn’t take it out of the trash
can. I don’t know who did it. When they were leaving I went upstairs to get my coat and came back down.
I wasn’t even half way down the steps when they were leaving. I could have gone with them if I wanted to,
but I wanted to go get Jessica. There was nothing I could do for Jimmy while he was at the hospital except
pray. I went back upstairs for more cigarettes for Jessica and myself. She would probably need cigarettes at the hospital. I then left and walked to the bingo hall. I asked for Jessica, but she wasn’t there. I then went to Jessica’s sister and asked Mary’s boyfriend where Jessica was. He told me that she was at the bingo hall.
I went back to the bingo hall and Jessica was there. I motioned for her to come to me. I told her that the
baby was in the hospital. I’m not sure what she did. I don’t remember whether she went back to tell Mary
or whether she got her coat.
In analyzing this actual statement it is immediately noticeable that the suspect began by
saying, “I would say around 2 p.m. Jessica left the apartment to go to her sister’s house. She
went to Mary’s and both Mary and Jessica walked up. They were going to play bingo. They
go quite often. Jessica goes 4 to 5 times a week, her mother goes everyday. When Jessica left
she left me with my dog and the baby.”{
Sapir reports a high correlation between a suspect using the word “left” in the first sen-
tence of a homicide case, and deception. Perhaps this is because it usually leaves the sus-
pect alone with the victim, giving him opportunity to commit the crime.
Since the suspect didn’t say who Jessica (his wife) was, using what Sapir terms “a proper
social introduction,” according to SCAN, it indicates a problematic relationship.
{Underlines added for emphasis.
. . . 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 feeding 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 had a paper 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 lady was telling us to hit the baby with
the heel of the hand on the baby’s back and also squeeze the baby. About 5 minutes later the
ambulance people arrived. I think there were 3 or 4 ambulance people. They must have taken
the baby off the couch and layed him on the table. They were ripping open packets of stuff and
shining a light down his throat. They finally got it out with tweezers.
Compare the changes of language in this statement given to the police by an alleged
victim of rape:
I was walking around with Gloria. Ed see Gloria there talking I was on my way home he told her
he would give us a ride to my house. I was going to get a coat but I didn’t I told Jessica to go to her
house and get her clothes and bring the baby with her back to my place that I would have her bed
made. She didn’t come back. Ed came and broke in my apartment. I was in the shower I didn’t
hear him come in when I was taking a shower I felt someone looking at me from behind. It was
Ed and I yelled at him told him to get out! I asked for Gloria he told me she wasn’t coming back. I
ran to the bedroom to try and call the police but the phone was in the kitchen. I didn’t get to the
phone he came in the bedroom and (raped) me when he was in me meaning he had already
entered me, the phone rang I was trying to get him off me he get the phone and gives it to me
it was Gloria. I was trying to get to tell Gloria that he was in my house. I told her “He’s here,
he’s back” then he hung up the phone he pushed me back on the bed and gets on top of me again.
Then by the time Gloria got to my house he had his clothes back on she Gloria knocks on the door.
He opened it Gloria asked him where was I and if I was okay. She goes in my bedroom where I
was at she and her mother ask me if I was okay. I tell her mom “No” she asked me if he did I said
“Yes” she asked if he raped me. They ask me if I want the police I told them no to leave me alone.
Gloria told me no that they couldn’t leave me alone because he might come back and hurt me.
They took me to her house and I spend the night I took a shower I call my boyfriend, told him
what happened. Then today, I went to make a full report of what happen.
74
6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS
When the suspect began the story with unimportant information about bingo games, it could
also be determined there was a high chance the statement was going to be deceptive, and that
unimportant information (to play bingo) was very important to the suspect and the story.
When the suspect used the possessive pronoun “my” in identifying the dog, and failed to use
a possessive pronoun when talking about his son (“the baby”), the statement became highly
problematic. It is also interesting that during the entire “incident” portion of the statement,
“the baby” disappears and only “pronouns” are used to describe him. Once the “incident” is
over “the baby” is back, and in the post-incident “the baby” actually has a name, “Jimmy.”
In SCAN changes of language without a change in reality are signs of possible deception.
There are many changes in language in this statement, without apparent changes in reality:
In this confirmed truthful victim’s statement, notice that prior to being under attack, she
uses the possessive pronouns “my”; however, once under attack she no longer uses “my”
and instead uses “the.” As soon as the initial rape is over, she immediately uses
“my” again, and when he reinstitutes the attack she switches back to “the.” In this state-
ment the changes in language (my-the-my) are justified by the reality of what is happening
in the statement, and in this case serve as an indicator of truthfulness.
Out-of-sequence information in a statement is viewed as problematic and another possible
sign of deception. SCAN maintains that a person should not tell you the end of the story in
the beginning, because that would indicate he is not reliving what happened. In the statement
concerning baby Jimmy, there were portions that were clearly out of sequence:
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 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.
In this portion of the statement the suspect writes, “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.” Because there were only three people living in the house – the suspect, the
baby, and the mother – if he changed the feeding location from “his usual chair” to “the other
chair,” he is now in the wife’s chair. He then blames the incident on that chair, which is sym-
bolic of his wife, whom he actually blames for his decision to kill the baby.
Later he writes,
They were ripping open packets of stuff and shining a light down his throat. They finally got it out
with tweezers and set it on the dining room table. It was all bloody and messy, so (Explaining why
he is doing something indicates this is sensitive information. In this case he is attempting to
get rid of the evidence) I threw it into the trash can that was by the table. It was under a desk.
6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS
75
They later showed it to me at the police station. (Out-of-sequence information: telling us
what will happen at the police station while still in the apartment) It had cigarette ashes
all over it. I didn’t see anyone get it out. I just figured it was cigarette ashes because
(explaining why he is doing something indicates this is sensitive information) the trash can
is always full of cigarette ashes. No one told me what the black stuff was on the towel, so
I just figured it out. I didn’t take it out of the trash can. I don’t know who did it. When they
were leaving I went upstairs to get my coat and came back down.
After the statement was analyzed and a FAINT interview was conducted, the suspect
was informed that he was not being truthful. He subsequently confessed that his baby
was causing relationship problems between him and his wife; they (baby and wife) never
bonded. She was always going to bingo now, leaving him home alone to care for the baby,
and therefore he decided to kill him.
Sapir introduced the VIEW Questionnaire, which could be issued to suspects in a case,
allowing the investigator to focus an investigation based solely on the analysis of what
was written. This questionnaire was redesigned by one of the authors, with the assistance
of Mr. Sapir, and is referred to as the SCAN Questionnaire.
The SCAN Questionnaire uses four types of questions:
1. Open questions to obtain information
2. Specific questions to force the guilty to lie
3. Projective questions to assess unwitting verbal cues
4. After-interview questions to help identify truthful suspects
Page One: INSTRUCTIONS:
We would like you to read the following instructions very carefully before you start
answering the questions. We would like you to realize that:
• Every word is important and each one may be checked later on.
• This is not a draft and you have only one chance to write down your answers, so before
you write we would like you to think as to how you are going to phrase your answers.
• Please write your answers as detailed as you can to enable us to understand your case.
• Use only pen while writing – no pencils or typing is allowed.
• Write in a clear handwriting in order to enable reading.
• You are not to make any corrections. If you feel that you would like to change your answers,
please do it on the page provided, or put a circle around the mistaken words or sentence(s)
you want to remove and continue on. Your correction will be taken into consideration.
Page Two:
We have reached the conclusion that something took place (theft of cash, sabotaged copier, etc.).
How would you explain this? Please write in detail your ideas that would account for
this.
Page Three:
If you were going to conduct the investigation, how would you do it?
76
6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS
Page Four:
List the five most important causes that could have created this situation.
Page Five (Optional Page depending on if the crime was recent enough to allow memory
of events):
Describe in detail your work day on date, covering the time you came into work until the
time you ended your day.
or
Describe in detail your day from the time you woke up until you went to sleep on date.
Page Six:
It doesn’t mean you are right, and whatever you say is confidential; if you had to suspect
someone of doing this, who would you suspect and why?
Who would you least suspect and why?
What do you think should happen to the person that did this when they are caught?
Would you give them a second chance?
Do you think this was deliberate (crime took place) or could it be accidental (l
ost)?
Page Seven:
Do you know for sure who did this?
Did you do this?
How do you think the investigation will turn out concerning you, and whether you did this?
Page Eight:
Would you like to change any of the information you provided?
Is there anything we did not ask you about that you think is important for us to
know?
Page Nine (After Interview-Interview):
How do you feel now that you have completed this form?
Should we believe your answers?
If your answer to the last question was yes, give us one reason why.
What would you say if it was later determined you lied on this form?
While filling out this form what were your emotions?
Were you afraid?
If you were asked to pay for
, how much would you be willing to pay?
To evaluate the questionnaire the last page (After Interview-Interview) is first analyzed:
If the suspect answered question 2 (Should I believe your answers about whether you did
the crime?) with “YES” and then answered any other question with:
• “I told the truth”
• “I did not lie”
• “I did not do the crime”
Then the suspect is placed in the “truthful” group. If they did not, place the suspect in the
“problematic” group. If the suspect answered question 2 “NO” they automatically go in the
“problematic” group.
6. FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS
77
Reissue the SCAN Questionnaires to all suspects in the problematic group, with one
change to the questionnaire on the second page. Instead of saying “We have reached the
conclusion that something took place. How would you explain this? Please write in detail
your ideas that would account for this,” we now say, “We have reached the conclusion
you have not told us everything you know about the crime. How would you explain this?
Please write in detail your ideas that would account for this.”
Having to answer the questionnaire a second time is irritating to truthful suspects, and
they are more likely to answer question 2 on the last page that we should believe their
Nathan J Gordon, William L Fleisher Page 12