VeriDecs Language Pattern Report

🔍 VeriDecs Analysis

Primary Label: denial_escalation

Analysis: VeriDecs detected stylistic markers consistent with this category.

💔 Cheating Risk Score: 80

Unfaithfulness Likelihood: High

The subject's statements show strong indicators of deception. The consistent use of blame-shifting, vague language, and evasive denials when confronted with specific information suggests a high probability of concealment.

⚠️ Deception Signals Detected (Leakage)

Severity: leakage_detected
Signals:
- Narrative Tense Shift
- Unnecessary Words
- Pronoun Omission
- Tense Shift Phrases
- Stalling Questions
- Social Distancing
- Lacks Expected Emotion

7 narrative leakage pattern(s) detected. Each flagged feature may reflect emotional detachment, memory reconstruction, or intent reframing. Interpret carefully and triangulate with context.

📚 What Is Leakage?
In the context of Linguistic Analysis, leakage refers to the unintentional release of information by a person who is trying to be deceptive. It is the core concept behind these techniques.

The fundamental premise is that when a person is lying, they cannot completely conceal the truth. Instead, the truth "leaks" out through subtle, often subconscious, linguistic cues. An honest statement is a report of an event as it happened, while a deceptive statement is a fabrication. The process of creating and maintaining a lie is cognitively demanding, and this cognitive load can manifest in specific patterns of language that can be detected through careful analysis.

✂️ Why Sentence Length Matters
One of the foundational principles in Linguistic Analysis is: “The shortest sentence is the best sentence.” — Mark McClish.

Truthful people tend to speak in short, direct sentences. Their words reflect what they experienced, not what they’re trying to construct. In contrast, deceptive individuals often use longer, more complex sentences filled with qualifiers, justifications, and emotional padding.

These longer structures may indicate cognitive strain or an effort to manage perception. When leakage is present, it often appears alongside verbose or overly detailed statements — a sign that the speaker is working hard to maintain a fabricated narrative.

🔍 Unnecessary Words Detected
This statement contains words that may not affect sentence clarity but can reflect emotional distancing, discomfort, or verbal control. While some may be stylistic, others may signal deeper psychological patterns such as minimization, persuasion, or embedded self-correction. Check the flagged words used: if used often it may be subject's way of speaking, if only used once check the context. The word 'so' often used may signal the person is explaining his actions.

Detected Terms:

▸ just (2 times)
Minimizing
The word 'just' is used to minimize the significance of an action or event. It can be an attempt to downplay responsibility.

👤 Social Distancing & Depersonalization
The subject refers to a participant using generic terms like "somebody," "a guy," or "this person." While common when discussing total strangers, in many deceptive narratives, this language is used to create psychological distance from the "actor." By stripping the person of unique characteristics or a name, the speaker avoids creating a vivid, humanized memory.

Flagged Terms:

▸ someone
The use of the generic term 'someone' creates a psychological distance. In truthful narratives of close-proximity events, subjects often use more descriptive or specific language. Generic labels can signal a lack of genuine interaction or a rehearsed 'scripted' character.

Investigative Tip: Depersonalization often masks a "scripted" character. Ask the subject: "When this 'person' was behind you, what was the very first sensory detail you noticed—a scent, a sound of fabric, or a specific breathing pattern?"

❄️ Clinical Account Detected (Missing Reaction)
The subject describes a high-stress "Peak Incident" but provides no immediate sensory or physiological reactions. Truthful trauma recall typically includes sensory anchors (sounds, physical sensations, or startle responses) due to adrenaline. A purely clinical description often suggests a rehearsed script or a lack of genuine lived experience.

Sanitized Moments:

▸ "My phone died"
The subject describes a peak event ('My phone died') but provides no physiological or sensory details (heart rate, sounds, physical sensations) within the immediate context. Genuine trauma usually records these sensory details even when emotions are suppressed.

Investigative Tip: The subject has provided the "what" but not the "feel." Ask: "At the exact second you felt that object in your back, what was the very first physical sensation that went through your body?"

🌀 Narrative Tense Shift Detected
VeriDecs flagged a shift in grammatical tense, moving from past to present. This kind of transition often signals a change in how the speaker is mentally framing the event — it may reflect emotional intensity, reconstructed memory, or a deliberate reframing of reality. When someone recounts a story from memory, they typically use the past tense. But when the narrative slips into the present, it can suggest the speaker is no longer recalling but instead reimagining or performing the event. In deception contexts, this shift may indicate the story isn’t anchored in lived experience, but is being constructed in real time.

Detected Phrases:

I didn’t notice until later.

🔍 Denial Length

Words After Denial: 58 words

The number of words following a denial (e.g., after saying "No") can reveal how cognitively loaded or rehearsed the response is. The shortest answer tends to be the best answer, but a clipped and vague denial may reflect emotional certainty or avoidance, while a longer denial often indicates the speaker is elaborating, justifying, or reframing — behaviors that can signal discomfort, guilt, or narrative control.

In simple terms: the more someone talks after denying something, the weaker that denial tends to be. A strong denial usually stands alone. When a denial is followed by extra explanation, it often means the speaker feels the need to reinforce it — which can suggest internal doubt or external pressure.

VeriDecs tracks this metric to assess whether the denial is spontaneous or strategically constructed.

🧠 Pronoun Omission Detected
Linguistic Analysis methodology flags all pronoun omissions as areas of analytical interest. In many cases this is normal grammatical structure. However, when such omissions occur near sensitive narrative zones, they may sometimes reflect psychological distancing or narrative compression. Context determines significance.

Detected Omissions:

▸ **Omitted Subject:** **I** (Before: **Went to the bar and had a few beers.**)
**Analysis:** *The omission of 'I' before the first verb in the subject's account of the evening serves to create psychological distance from the actions being described, reducing a sense of ownership and commitment to the story.*

🚪 Strategic Exit Language Detected
This statement contains exit verbs such as "left" or similar transitional phrasing that may indicate psychological distancing or a controlled closure of the narrative. These verbs sometimes appear when a subject attempts to move away from sensitive details or emotionally charged moments.

Detected Exit Patterns:

▸ went
Strategic Exit Verb - Vagueness
The exit verb 'went' is followed by vague resolution language, potentially indicating omission or avoidance of detail.

🔁 Repetitive Language Pattern Detected
Repetition of the same word in close succession can reflect cognitive stress, emotional preoccupation, or narrative rehearsal. While some repetition may be natural, clustered usage can signal internal tension or fixation.

Repeated Terms:

▸ what (2 times)
Lexical Repetition
The word 'what' appears 2 times within a short span. In linguistic analysis, this kind of 'lexical loop' can indicate the speaker is struggling to move past a specific point in the narrative or is fixated on a specific person or object due to internal stress.
▸ youre (2 times)
Lexical Repetition
The word 'youre' appears 2 times within a short span. In linguistic analysis, this kind of 'lexical loop' can indicate the speaker is struggling to move past a specific point in the narrative or is fixated on a specific person or object due to internal stress.

⏳ Stalling Questions Detected
This statement contains questions that may serve as verbal stalls — often used to delay answering, express feigned confusion, or mentally regroup. These phrases can signal discomfort, strategic evasion, or narrative control. While not inherently deceptive, their presence in high-stakes contexts like 911 calls or interrogations may warrant closer scrutiny.

Detected Phrases:

▸ what? (1 time)

Why It Matters:
Answering a question with a question is a common stall tactic. It allows the speaker to buy time to formulate a response, especially when faced with a sensitive or unexpected question. This can indicate that the speaker is not being spontaneous and is carefully constructing their answer, which may be a sign of deception. In high-stakes situations like 911 calls or interrogations, these phrases may signal discomfort, evasion, or an attempt to mentally regroup.

Real-World Examples:

📞 Michael Peterson – 911 Call (2001)
911: Is she conscious?
Peterson: What?
911: How many stairs did she fall down?
Peterson: What? Huh???
These repeated questions reflect confusion or delay, often interpreted as stalling under pressure.
📞 Casey Anthony – 911 Interaction (2008)
911: Can you tell me what's going on?
Casey: I'm sorry?
This response is a classic stall tactic, buying time before answering a sensitive question about her missing daughter.

⚠️ Denial Tense Divergence
Denial Tense Divergence Detected: Text contains both present and past tense verbs. This suggests your answer may not align with the timing of the accusation. Consider whether you reframed the scope or shifted the event window.

🔍 Example:
Joey Buttafuoco said in 1992: “I don’t cheat on my wife.”
This denial is in the present tense and may have been technically true at that moment. But it did not address past behavior. A year later, he admitted to having had an affair in 1991. Because he didn’t say “I didn’t cheat” or “I’ve never cheated,” his denial avoided lying while still misleading.

📌 Why It Matters:
Verb tense reveals the temporal scope of a denial. Present-tense statements like “I don’t…” can be used to dodge accountability for past actions. In deception analysis, tense divergence helps identify loopholes, evasions, or truthful misdirection. It’s a subtle but powerful linguistic cue.

Trigger Phrases:

⚡ Present tense verbs: avoiding, being, didn’t, don’t, going, talking

🕰️ Past tense verbs: been, had, must’ve, paranoid, told, was

🗣️ Linguistic Analysis Report

Overall Linguistic Analysis Summary:

                        The subject's statement exhibits multiple significant indicators of deception and evasion. Key red flags include a meaningful pronoun omission at the start of their narrative, the use of weak, speculative denials when confronted with specific information, and a consistent pattern of deflecting questions by attacking the partner's state of mind. The language suggests concealment and an unwillingness to provide a straightforward account of events, leading to a high probability of deception.
                    

EVASION Score: 90/100

⚠️ **HIGH Evasiveness:** Subject shows consistent patterns of linguistic deflection and non-commitment.

Deception PROBABILITY: 85/100

🚨 **HIGH DECEPTION PROBABILITY:** A critical mass of indicators strongly suggests the narrative is incomplete or untruthful.

Coherence Score: 35/100

🚨 **LOW Coherence:** The narrative is highly fragmented, chronologically disrupted, or lacks critical detail (a sign of a rehearsed or edited account).

🔥 Most Problematic Segments:

Top 3-5 segments with the highest concentration of deception/evasion indicators.

"Went to the bar and had a few beers."

Analysis: The subject omits the pronoun 'I' when describing the first action of the night. This is a classic SCAN indicator of distancing oneself from the action, suggesting this part of the story is sensitive or deceptive.
"That must’ve been someone else. I don’t know what you’re talking about."

Analysis: When faced with a specific accusation, the subject responds with a weak, speculative denial ('must've been') rather than a direct, credible one ('That wasn't me'). This is followed by a blanket dismissal, which is a highly evasive sequence.
"You’re just being paranoid for no reason."

Analysis: This is a direct deflection that avoids answering the question by invalidating the partner's feelings and concerns. The subject shifts focus from their behavior to the partner's alleged 'paranoia,' a common tactic to evade accountability.

🔄 Significant Language Shifts:

Points where the subject's linguistic pattern changes (e.g., tense, pronoun usage).

BEFORE: I was just out. Went to the bar and had a few beers.
AFTER: What? That must’ve been someone else. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Change Analysis: The subject's strategy shifts from providing a vague alibi to employing strong denial and deflection when confronted with specific evidence. This change indicates the initial narrative was fragile and could not withstand scrutiny, forcing a move to more aggressive, evasive tactics.

❌ Deception Indicators (2):

Pronoun Omission: "Went to the bar and had a few beers."
By omitting the pronoun 'I', the subject subtly distances themself from the stated action. This reduces personal ownership and is often seen when a person is uncomfortable with the statement they are making.
Weak Denial: "That must’ve been someone else."
A truthful person would likely issue a direct denial (e.g., 'That was not me'). The phrase 'must've been someone else' is speculative and weak, suggesting an attempt to create doubt without committing to a firm, potentially disprovable lie.

🌫️ Evasion Indicators (3):

Non-Answer: "You’re reading way too much into this."
This statement does not address the partner's questions about the subject's whereabouts or actions. Instead, it attacks the partner's perception, attempting to shut down the inquiry by framing it as an overreaction. This is a non-answer designed to shift blame.
Vague Language: "I was just out."
In response to a direct question about their whereabouts, 'I was just out' is intentionally non-specific and provides no new information, forcing the partner to press for details that the subject is unwilling to volunteer.
Repeating Question: "What?"
Responding to a direct and serious accusation with 'What?' can serve as a stalling tactic, giving the subject a moment to process the new information and formulate a deceptive response.

🔑 Guilty Knowledge Indicators (1):

Segments revealing information the subject shouldn't possess if innocent.

"That must’ve been someone else. I don’t know what you’re talking about."
A person with no guilty knowledge would likely ask clarifying questions ('Where was I seen?', 'What car?'). The subject's immediate jump to a weak denial and a blanket dismissal suggests they know what the partner is referring to and want to end the line of questioning immediately.

💔 Relationship Dynamics Analysis
This analysis focuses on linguistic and behavioral indicators of deception and unfaithfulness.

🗣️ Extracted Subject Statements

"Nothing’s going on. I told you, I was just out. Went to the bar and had a few beers. My phone died. I didn’t notice until later. You’re reading way too much into this. What? That must’ve been someone else. I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m not avoiding anything. You’re just being paranoid for no reason."

Final Verdict Cheating Risk Score: 80/100

Shifting Blame
                            The subject repeatedly deflects from their own actions by attacking the partner's state of mind, using phrases like 'You’re reading way too much into this' and 'You’re just being paranoid.' This is a significant indicator as it shifts the focus from the subject's questionable behavior to the partner's reaction, a common tactic to evade accountability and control the narrative.
                        

Lack of Specificity
                            The subject describes their activities with minimal detail, using general terms like 'just out,' 'the bar,' and 'a few beers.' Truthful statements are typically rich with specific, sensory details because recalling an actual event is easier than inventing one. This vagueness requires less cognitive effort and provides fewer details that can be challenged or verified, suggesting a potential fabrication.
                        

Protesting and Denial
                            When the partner observes 'You’re avoiding the question,' the subject responds with 'I’m not avoiding anything.' This is a denial focused on the process of the conversation rather than the substance. A person focused on the truth is more likely to answer the question directly than to protest the accusation of evasion, which can be a sign of consciously managing the conversation to conceal information.
                        

Evasive Dismissal
                            When confronted with a specific, verifiable claim ('seen getting into someone’s car'), the subject issues a blanket dismissal ('I don’t know what you’re talking about') rather than seeking clarifying details (e.g., 'What car?', 'Where was this?'). This immediate shutdown of inquiry is more indicative of someone who wants to end a dangerous line of questioning than someone who is genuinely confused and innocent.
                        

✨ Leakage Highlighted Across The Full Statement Chronological sentence breakdown with visually marked leakage patterns.

Nothing’s going on.
I told you, I was just out.
^ Went to the bar and had a few beers.
My phone died.
I didn’t notice until later.
You’re reading way too much into this.
What?
That must’ve been someone else.
I don’t know what you’re talking about.
I’m not avoiding anything.
You’re just being paranoid for no reason.

1. Source Statement

2. Linguistic Pattern Indicators

🔍 VeriDecs Analysis

🔍 Denial Length

🗣️ Linguistic Analysis Report