VeriDecs Language Pattern Report

🔍 VeriDecs Analysis

Primary Label: denial_escalation

Analysis: VeriDecs detected stylistic markers consistent with this category.

Comprehensive Analysis

Overall Linguistic Analysis Summary:

          The statement contains multiple high-confidence indicators of deception. The most significant is the tense change from past to present ('decides') when describing the assault, which suggests fabrication. This is compounded by a pronoun omission ('Asked me'), distancing language ('this person'), vague terminology for the assault ('to hurt me'), and a weak statement about identification. The narrative structure is unreliable and points towards the event being invented or significantly misrepresented.
        

EVASION Score: 75/100

Measures intentional avoidance tactics.

Deception PROBABILITY: 85%

Likelihood of the statement being constructed.

Coherence Score: 30/100

Measures the logical flow and consistency of the narrative.

🧪 Leakage Severity: 85/100 *Measures the intensity of linguistic detachment, emotional conflict, or narrative complexity.

🔍 Leakage Score Justification:

          The statement exhibits multiple significant linguistic indicators suggesting it is a fabricated account rather than a genuine recollection of a past event. The most critical flaw is the repeated, inappropriate shift from past to present tense at key moments of the alleged assault, which is a strong indicator of narrative construction. This is compounded by distancing language, minimization of the struggle, and an unusual claim of knowing the assailant's thought process. The overall tone is emotionally detached and psychologically distant from the events described, undermining the statement's credibility.
        

🚨 High Leakage Detected

Severity: leakage_detected
Signals:
- Narrative Tense Shift
- Tense Shift Phrases
- Out Of Place Closeness
- Multi Word Phrase Repetition
- Pronoun or Perspective Shift
- Possessive Attribution Drift
- Prompt-Answer Tense Mismatch
- Memory Uncertainty
- Social Distancing
- Lacks Expected Emotion
- Unexpected Pronoun We
- Pronoun Omission

11 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.

🤝 Unlikely 'WE' Pronoun Alignment
In linguistic forensics, the pronoun "we" signifies a partnership, a shared goal, or a psychological bond. In a genuine crime of coercion (like kidnapping or assault), the victim and the aggressor are linguistically separate. Using "we" to describe the actions of a perpetrator and a victim suggests a lack of social distance and often indicates a fabricated or "scripted" narrative.

Flagged Alignment:

▸ "He grabbed me and we struggled"
The subject used collective language ('we') in close proximity to a coercive or criminal event. In genuine victim narratives, the victim and aggressor are linguistically separated. Using 'we' creates a false partnership and often indicates a rehearsed or fabricated account rather than an authentic experience of coercion.

Investigative Tip: This alignment often occurs when a subject is "acting" out a story rather than recalling a forced trauma. Focus the interview on the dynamics of control: "You mentioned 'we' drove off—at that exact moment, who was in control of the vehicle's direction?"

👤 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:

▸ this person
The use of the generic term 'this person' 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:

▸ "He grabbed me and we struggled"
The subject describes a peak event ('He grabbed me and we struggled') 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:

Now look, as I was locking up the storage unit this person strikes me on the shoulder and shoves me inside.

🔍 Denial Length

Words After Denial: 83 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.

🧠 Out-of-Place Closeness Detected
VeriDecs detected the use of the demonstrative pronoun "this" or "these" when referring to a person or group (e.g., “this man”, “these guys”). In forensic linguistics, this creates a specificity mismatch when the speaker claims unfamiliarity with the individual(s).

In truthful accounts involving unknown attackers, speakers typically use indefinite language such as “a man” or “some people”. Using “this” or “these” implies psychological specificity — as if the person or group already exists clearly in the speaker’s mind.

This becomes especially significant when paired with distancing or denial phrases like “I didn’t know” or “I never met”. The combination suggests a contradiction between claimed unfamiliarity and linguistic precision — a known leakage pattern in linguistic forensics.

Flagged statement(s):

Now look, as I was locking up the storage unit this person strikes me on the shoulder and shoves me inside.

🧠 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:** **He** (Before: **Asked me for my phone**)
**Analysis:** *The pronoun 'He' is omitted before the critical action verb 'Asked' which describes the start of the robbery. This omission reduces the psychological ownership of the event and distances the subject from the attacker's direct action.*

🔁 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:

▸ me (3 times)
Lexical Repetition
The word 'me' appears 3 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.
▸ he (2 times)
Lexical Repetition
The word 'he' 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.

📝 Repetition of Multi‑Word Phrases Detected
In Linguistic Analysis, repeating the same multi‑word phrases is often significant. Such repetition can indicate that the speaker is emphasizing a detail they perceive as important, or that they are under cognitive or emotional stress related to the event. It may also reflect a rehearsed or fixed narrative the subject relies on, suggesting possible sensitivity or psychological weight attached to the repeated content.

Repeated Phrases (N‑grams):

▸ "up the" (2 times)
2-Word Repetition (Statement-Wide)
The 2-word phrase 'up the' is repeated 2 times across the entire statement. This suggests a fixed, 'packaged' narrative idea or strong emotional fixation on the phrase's content.
▸ "on the" (2 times)
2-Word Repetition (Statement-Wide)
The 2-word phrase 'on the' is repeated 2 times across the entire statement. This suggests a fixed, 'packaged' narrative idea or strong emotional fixation on the phrase's content.

🧠 Memory Uncertainty & Evasion Detected
This statement contains phrases that express memory failure, uncertainty, or an unwillingness to commit to a specific detail. These are often used to create an alibi for missing information or to avoid telling a lie that could be later disproven.

Detected Phrases:

▸ i am not sure (1 time)

Why It Matters:
A high frequency of phrases like "I don't remember" or "I'm not sure" for **key events** suggests the speaker is intentionally vague. Truthful people generally say what they remember; deceptive people may use these phrases to avoid creating verifiable falsehoods or to lessen their **commitment** to an answer. While normal for minor details, heavy reliance on non-commitment language can signal **evasion** or a constructed narrative.

Linguistic Analysis Context:

📝 Non-Commitment:
Phrases like "I guess," "maybe," or "I believe" are used to avoid confirming the truth of a statement, creating a mental **out** for the speaker.
📝 Alibi for Missing Info:
Claiming "bad memory" for crucial moments is a verbal strategy to explain the **absence of detail** that a person involved in the incident should be able to recall vividly.

🕰️ Temporal Phrasing Detected
This statement contains time-related language that may reflect narrative compression, omission, or strategic vagueness. These phrases often appear when speakers skip over events, delay realizations, or avoid committing to specific timelines.

Detected Phrases:

▸ then (1 time)
Sequence & Compression
Phrasing can be used to compress time or hide skipped actions. When used ambiguously or repeatedly, it often signals an attempt to avoid scrutiny by glossing over details between events.

💡 Investigative Tip
Use flagged temporal phrases to identify narrative blind spots or inconsistencies. Look for compressed sequences, vague time windows, or uncertain timestamps that may obscure key events. Cross-reference these with known timelines, surveillance data, or witness accounts to uncover omissions or strategic reframing.

🧠 Definite Object Reference Detected
VeriDecs flagged the use of a definite article ("the") to describe an object before it was properly introduced. This may suggest prior familiarity, emotional proximity, or cognitive pre-loading — all of which can be relevant in assessing narrative authenticity.

🔍 Why This Matters:
In truthful accounts, speakers typically introduce unknown objects with indefinite articles like “a” or “an.” Using “the” prematurely can indicate that the speaker already had the object in mind — either due to personal experience or because they’re constructing the scene from imagination. This subtle shift may reflect narrative invention or psychological closeness to the described item.

📌 Example:
Consider a statement like: “I was walking through the alley when the man jumped out and pointed the knife at me.” If this is the first mention of the knife, the use of “the” suggests the speaker already knew it existed — which may imply prior knowledge or fabrication. A more neutral phrasing would be: “...pointed a knife at me.”

phone

⚡ Case-level insight:
If the article is used on an object outside the emotional core or is not related to the incident, significance is low.

📚 Synonym Drift Detected
In Linguistic Analysis, no two words are truly interchangeable. Even slight differences in wording carry distinct meaning. A person speaking truthfully will maintain consistent language throughout their statement. VeriDecs flagged a shift in the speaker’s internal dictionary — a change in word choice that may reflect narrative construction rather than genuine memory recall. This phenomenon, known as synonym drift, can be a subtle indicator of deception.

🧠 What Is an Internal Dictionary?
Every person has a unique internal dictionary — a consistent set of words they use to describe familiar objects and experiences. Truthful speakers tend to stick to this vocabulary. When someone unexpectedly swaps terms (e.g., “pistol” → “gun”), it may signal they’re constructing a story rather than recalling one.

📖 Expert Insight:
“There are no synonyms in Linguistic Analysis.”
— Mark McClish, StatementAnalysis.com

In McClish’s framework, every word choice reflects the speaker’s internal reality. Even seemingly interchangeable terms carry distinct psychological weight. A shift in terminology — without contextual justification — may reveal concealed knowledge or narrative manipulation.

📌 Why It Matters:
Synonym drift doesn’t always indicate deception. Sometimes, word variation reflects a shift in context or function. For example, a firearm may be called a “gun” when carried, but a “weapon” once discharged. However, when no clear justification exists for the change, it may suggest emotional distancing, concealment, or narrative manipulation.

“A change in language is an indication of deception — unless there is a justification for the change.”
— Mark McClish, 2013

🔍 Example:
After JFK’s assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald first said: “I only carried a pistol into a movie.”
Later, he said: “I wasn’t supposed to be carrying a gun.”
The shift wasn’t contextually justified — suggesting narrative manipulation rather than spontaneous recall.

🔹 Terms Used:

🔸 victim_reference: person, him

🎭 Voice Shift Detected
VeriDecs detected a shift between personal and group pronouns. This may reflect narrative inconsistency, authorship leakage, or strategic responsibility framing.

Pronoun Transitions:

🔄 we ➝ me

🔄 me ➝ we

📌 Tense Mismatch in Denial
VeriDecs detected a present-tense denial that may not directly address a past-tense question. This can reflect narrative evasion or scope deflection.

Trigger Phrase:

🕰️ am not

⚠️ Denial Tense Divergence
Denial Tense Divergence Detected: Text contains both present and past tense verbs. This shift often occurs when a subject moves from memory (past) to a scripted assertion (present).

🔍 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: am, decides, look, strikes

❓ Past tense: grabbed, locking, made, picked, pointed, ran, struggled, was

❓ Denials: I am, I am not

🗣️ Linguistic Analysis Report

Overall Linguistic Analysis Summary:

                        The statement contains multiple high-confidence indicators of deception. The most significant is the tense change from past to present ('decides') when describing the assault, which suggests fabrication. This is compounded by a pronoun omission ('Asked me'), distancing language ('this person'), vague terminology for the assault ('to hurt me'), and a weak statement about identification. The narrative structure is unreliable and points towards the event being invented or significantly misrepresented.
                    

EVASION Score: 75/100

⚠️ **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: 30/100

🚨 **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.

"He decides to hurt me before he ran out of the unit."

Analysis: This segment contains a critical tense inconsistency ('decides' vs. 'ran') and demonstrates guilty knowledge by reporting the attacker's internal thoughts. The language 'to hurt me' is also extremely vague for a physical assault. This is the most deceptive sentence in the statement.
"Asked me for my phone"

Analysis: The omission of the pronoun 'He' before the verb 'Asked' is a significant SCAN indicator. It serves to psychologically distance the speaker from the attacker's actions at a pivotal moment in the alleged crime.
"this person strikes me on the shoulder"

Analysis: The use of 'this person' is a distancing phrase. It is an impersonal way to refer to the attacker, suggesting a psychological effort to separate from the trauma or, in a deceptive statement, the fabricated character.
"I am not sure if I will be able to recognize him."

Analysis: This is a weak, non-committal statement that lacks the conviction of a truthful victim. The convoluted phrasing 'not sure if I will be able to' is often used to avoid a direct lie.

🔄 Significant Language Shifts:

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

BEFORE: He grabbed me and we struggled.
AFTER: He decides to hurt me

Change Analysis: The narrative tense shifts from past ('struggled') to present ('decides') and back to past ('ran'). This change occurs at the most violent part of the story, which is a classic indicator that this portion of the narrative is being invented.
BEFORE: this person strikes me
AFTER: When he picked up the phone

Change Analysis: The subject's term for the attacker changes from the impersonal 'this person' to the pronoun 'he'. This shows an initial effort to create distance that lessens as the story is told.

❌ Deception Indicators (3):

Tense Inconsistency: "He decides to hurt me before he ran out of the unit."
The shift from past tense narrative ('struggled', 'ran') to present tense ('decides') at the climax of the assault is a strong indicator of fabrication, as if the subject is creating the event in the present moment.
Pronoun Omission: "Asked me for my phone"
The subject omits the pronoun 'He' when describing the attacker's first direct command. This creates psychological distance from a critical and stressful part of the narrative.
Weak Denial: "I am not sure if I will be able to recognize him."
This is a weak and non-committal statement about identifying the attacker. It lacks the directness expected from a truthful victim and suggests uncertainty or withholding of information.

🌫️ Evasion Indicators (2):

Distancing Phrase: "this person strikes me on the shoulder"
The use of 'this person' instead of 'a man' or 'he' at the beginning of the attack is a distancing phrase used to separate the subject psychologically from the event.
Vague Language: "He decides to hurt me"
The phrase 'to hurt me' is a vague and non-specific description of a physical assault. A truthful account would likely describe the specific actions (e.g., 'he punched me', 'he hit my head').

🔑 Guilty Knowledge Indicators (1):

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

"He decides to hurt me"
The subject claims to know the internal thought process or decision-making of the attacker ('He decides...'). This is information a victim would not possess and strongly suggests the account is fabricated.

🧠 AI Powered Deep Narrative Scan
This output was generated using AI scan for cognitive dissonance and narrative leakage patterns.

        The statement exhibits multiple significant linguistic indicators suggesting it is a fabricated account rather than a genuine recollection of a past event. The most critical flaw is the repeated, inappropriate shift from past to present tense at key moments of the alleged assault, which is a strong indicator of narrative construction. This is compounded by distancing language, minimization of the struggle, and an unusual claim of knowing the assailant's thought process. The overall tone is emotionally detached and psychologically distant from the events described, undermining the statement's credibility.
      

🧪 Leakage Severity Score: 85/100

🚨 High leakage detected. Statement shows signs of psychological avoidance and tense divergence. Narrative may be reconstructed.

🔍 Deception Indicators:

Verb Tense: Inconsistent Shift to Present: ...this person strikes me on the shoulder and shoves me inside.
The narrative begins in the past tense ('was locking') but shifts to the present tense ('strikes', 'shoves') to describe the critical initial action of the assault. A truthful account recalled from memory would consistently use the past tense ('struck', 'shoved').
So What? This tense shift indicates that the speaker is likely creating the event in their mind as they speak, rather than recalling it from their memory. The action is happening in their 'now' of storytelling, not in the past, which is a classic sign of fabrication.
Missing Information: Omitted Subject: Asked me for my phone...
The speaker omits the subject ('He') who performed the action. The complete thought would be 'He asked me for my phone.' The omission is a subtle way of reducing the presence or agency of the alleged attacker in the narrative.
So What? This omission creates psychological distance between the speaker and the actions of the supposed attacker. In deceptive statements, people often subconsciously minimize the role of other characters they are inventing.
Word Choice: Minimizing Language: ...and we struggled.
The phrase 'we struggled' is problematic because it implies equal participation between the victim and the attacker. A truthful victim is more likely to describe their specific actions ('I fought back,' 'I tried to get away') and the attacker's actions ('he overpowered me').
So What? This phrasing minimizes the violence of the event and avoids providing specific details of the confrontation, which is common when details are being fabricated. It is a linguistic shortcut that papers over a gap in the experiential memory.
Verb Tense / Assumed Knowledge: He decides to hurt me before he ran out...
The speaker again shifts to the present tense ('decides') and claims to know the internal thought process and intent of the attacker. It is highly unlikely a victim would know the exact moment an attacker 'decides' something.
So What? This demonstrates a 'storytelling' perspective rather than a 'recounting' one. The speaker is creating a motive and a plot point, which is a hallmark of a constructed narrative. A truthful account would describe the action ('He hurt me'), not the preceding decision.
Lack of Commitment / Conviction: I am not sure if I will be able to recognize him.
This statement expresses doubt about a future possibility. While it can be truthful, in a statement with other deceptive indicators, it often functions as a preemptive disclaimer.
So What? This lowers future expectations for cooperation (e.g., identifying a suspect) and provides the speaker an 'out'. It shows a lack of commitment to the account and can indicate the speaker's awareness that since the event didn't happen, they will be unable to provide a useful description or identification.
Distancing Language: ...this person strikes me...
Using 'this person' instead of a more descriptive term like 'a man' or an immediate pronoun like 'he' is a form of distancing. It is an impersonal and detached way to refer to the central figure in the assault.
So What? This language psychologically removes the speaker from the event they are describing. It reflects a lack of genuine experience with the 'person' being described, which is common in fabricated accounts.

🧠 Possessive Reframing Detected
VeriDecs observed a shift in possessive framing for one or more objects. This may reflect emotional distancing, disownership, or narrative staging.

Transitions:

🔄 phone (Personal to Neutral Drift): my ➝ the

🧭 Structural Imbalance Detected: Cognitive Priority Trace Psychological Stalling Confirmed

VeriDecs has mapped the **cognitive priority** of the statement, revealing that the speaker over-invested in the setup phase. The way a person tells a story reveals where their focus lies. A reliable account follows a natural narrative flow, while an unreliable one often deviates to avoid the central event. A reliable account places the highest priority (approx. 50-67% of the words) on the **Event** itself. When the **Introduction** exceeds the **33%** threshold, it suggests the subject is **stalling, avoiding, or constructing an alibi** before addressing the critical, sensitive details of the Event.

📊 Quantitative Results:

Introduction: 63.9%

Event + Conclusion: 36.1%

Introduction (Setup) Event (Crisis)

Split Point: The narrative transitioned to the main event at the earliest possible detection point: "he grabbed me"

Qualitative Flaw (Psychological Interpretation):

▸ Long Introduction Trigger: Intro: 63.9%
The Introduction accounts for 63.9% of the statement. In forensic linguistics, an intro exceeding 33.3% often suggests the subject is spending excessive effort on alibi building or socially desirable self-presentation before reaching the sensitive main event.

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

Now <look>, as I was locking up the storage unit this person <strikes> me on the shoulder and shoves me inside.
^ Asked me for my phone and I pointed to the one on the shelf behind me.
When he picked up the phone, I then made a move to step toward the exit.
He grabbed me and we struggled.
He <decides> to hurt me before he ran out of the unit.
I <am> not sure if I will be able to recognize him.

1. Source Statement

2. Linguistic Pattern Indicators

🔍 VeriDecs Analysis

🔍 Denial Length

🗣️ Linguistic Analysis Report