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, strong indicators of deception. The most significant is the tense change from past to present ('decides') when describing the assault, which suggests this part of the event is being fabricated. This is supported by the use of vague language ('hurt me'), a distancing phrase ('this person'), a critical pronoun omission ('Asked me for my phone'), and a weak, non-committal closing statement. The narrative lacks the coherence and conviction of a truthful account.
        

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, strong indicators of deception and narrative fabrication. The account begins with a persuasive framing ('Now look,'), suggesting an attempt to manage the listener's perception rather than simply recounting an event. The narrative is characterized by significant psychological distancing, evident in the use of 'this person' and the unnatural description of the assailant's internal state ('He decides to hurt me'). The most critical red flags are the two separate shifts into the present tense ('strikes', 'shoves', 'decides') during the core actions of the assault. This linguistic pattern strongly suggests the event is being invented in the moment rather than recalled from experiential memory. Furthermore, key details of the assault are conspicuously vague ('to hurt me'), and the statement concludes with a non-committal sentence about recognition, which may be a preemptive attempt to manage future expectations. Collectively, these indicators point to a statement that is likely not a truthful account of a real event.
        

🚨 High Leakage Detected

Severity: leakage_detected
Signals detected:
- Narrative Tense Shift
- Tense Shift Phrases
- Out Of Place Closeness
- Synonym Usage Drift
- Pronoun or Perspective Shift
- Possessive Attribution Drift
- Prompt-Answer Tense Mismatch
- Memory Uncertainty
- Lacks Expected Emotion
- Unexpected Pronoun We
- Temporal Phrases
- 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 Linguistic Analysis, leakage refers to the unintentional release of information by a person trying to be deceptive. The truth "leaks" through subconscious cues because maintaining a lie is cognitively demanding. An honest statement is a report of memory; a deceptive statement is a fabrication that requires constant management.

✂️ Why Sentence Length Matters
“The shortest sentence is the best sentence.” — Mark McClish.
Truthful people tend to be direct. Deceptive individuals often use longer, more complex structures filled with qualifiers and justifications as they work to manage the listener's perception of the event.

🤝 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?"

❄️ 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 subject omits the pronoun 'He' when describing the assailant's first direct command. This occurs at a critical moment and reduces the speaker's psychological commitment to the statement, distancing them from the event they are describing.*

🔁 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)
▸ he (3 times)

The word appears multiple times within a short span. In linguistic analysis, this kind of “lexical loop” often suggests the speaker is struggling to move past a particular point in the narrative or is fixated on a person, object, or idea due to internal stress.

🧠 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 (Pre-introduction)
VeriDecs flagged the use of "the" for an object not yet introduced. In a spontaneous memory, a new object is typically introduced as "a" or "an" (indefinite).

🔍 Why This Matters: Using "the" prematurely suggests the speaker already had the object in mind—a sign of cognitive pre-loading or narrative rehearsal. The speaker is linguistically "skipping ahead" to a known prop in their mental script rather than recalling its first appearance.

Flagged Terms:

phone

⚡ Case-level insight: Significance is highest when applied to "core" objects (weapons, entry points, etc.). If used on incidental items outside the emotional core, significance is low.

📚 Synonym Drift Detected
In Statement Analysis, no two words are truly interchangeable. Truthful speakers maintain a consistent Internal Dictionary—a unique set of words used to describe their reality.

⚖️ The Forensic Rule: “A change in language is an indication of deception—unless there is a justification for the change.” — Mark McClish

Unexpectedly swapping terms (e.g., “pistol” ➝ “gun”) without a change in the object's function suggests narrative construction. The speaker is no longer recalling a fixed memory, but is instead linguistically distancing themselves or "re-labeling" the event in real-time.

Detected Terminology Shifts:

🔸 Victim Reference: him ↔ person

Investigative Note: Check if the shift occurs at a "hot spot" in the story. A change in vocabulary often marks the exact moment of highest psychological stress.

🎭 Voice Shift (Pronoun Transition)
VeriDecs detected a shift in how the speaker identifies themselves within the narrative. In Statement Analysis, sudden pronoun changes often signal a change in the speaker's commitment to the story.

Pronoun Transitions Found:

🔄 me ➝ we

🔄 we ➝ me

🧠 Deep Analysis:
* "I" to "We": Often indicates Responsibility Dilution. By moving from a personal pronoun to a group pronoun, the speaker subconsciously spreads the blame or the weight of the action to others.
* "I" to "You/One": This is known as Depersonalization. The speaker generalizes the behavior ("You know how it is...") to make a specific personal action seem like a normal, universal reaction.
* The "Dropped" Pronoun: If a speaker stops using "I" entirely (e.g., "Woke up, went to the store" instead of "I woke up"), it may indicate a lack of personal conviction or a subconscious desire to remove themselves from that specific timeframe in the narrative.

Insight: Truthful speakers usually maintain a consistent "ownership" of their actions through steady pronoun usage. A shift often marks the exact moment where the speaker feels the most psychological discomfort.

📌 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: Subject shifts into present-tense verbs while describing a past event. This often indicates a transition from memory-based recall to rehearsing assertions.

🕰️ The Memory Rule: When a subject describes a past event from actual memory, past tense is expected. A sudden shift to the present tense ("I don't" instead of "I didn't") suggests the speaker may be constructing the story in the moment or creating a "truthful loophole" that only applies to the present day.

⚖️ Tense Matching: Always check if the answer matches the question’s tense. If asked "Did you do it?" (Past), an answer of "I don't do things like that" (Present) is a non-denial. It addresses a general habit rather than the specific incident.

Detected Indicators:

                    ❓ 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, strong indicators of deception. The most significant is the tense change from past to present ('decides') when describing the assault, which suggests this part of the event is being fabricated. This is supported by the use of vague language ('hurt me'), a distancing phrase ('this person'), a critical pronoun omission ('Asked me for my phone'), and a weak, non-committal closing statement. The narrative lacks the coherence and conviction of a truthful account.
                    

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 tense inconsistency, a classic indicator of deception. The shift to the present tense ('decides') suggests the subject is inventing the action as they speak, rather than recalling a past event. The term 'hurt me' is also evasively vague.
"Asked me for my phone"

Analysis: The pronoun 'He' is omitted before the verb 'Asked'. This occurs at a critical moment—the assailant's first demand. Omitting the pronoun reduces the speaker's commitment to the statement and creates psychological distance from the event.
"this person strikes me on the shoulder"

Analysis: The subject uses 'this person' to refer to the assailant. This is a distancing phrase that avoids personalizing the attacker and can indicate a lack of genuine experience.
"I am not sure if I will be able to recognize him."

Analysis: This is a weak, evasive statement. A truthful victim is more likely to be definitive about their ability (or inability) to identify an attacker. The uncertainty expressed here suggests a reluctance to be held to a factual statement.

🔄 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 subject shifts from a consistent past tense narrative ('was locking', 'strikes', 'shoves', 'pointed', 'picked up', 'made a move', 'grabbed', 'struggled', 'ran') to the present tense ('decides') for the most critical action of violence. This change indicates a departure from memory and an entry into fabrication.
BEFORE: this person strikes me on the shoulder
AFTER: When he picked up the phone

Change Analysis: The subject begins by referring to the assailant with the distancing phrase 'this person' and then shifts to the more personal pronoun 'he' for the remainder of the narrative. This may indicate an initial attempt to create distance that is later dropped as the story progresses.

❌ Deception Indicators (3):

Tense Inconsistency: "He decides to hurt me before he ran out of the unit."
The subject switches from past tense ('ran') to present tense ('decides') when describing the assault. This is a highly reliable indicator of deception, as the subject is likely inventing this part of the narrative in the present moment.
Pronoun Omission: "Asked me for my phone"
The subject omits the pronoun 'He' before the action verb 'Asked'. This occurs at a critical point in the narrative (the initial demand) and serves to distance the speaker from the event they are describing, reducing psychological ownership of the statement.
Weak Denial: "I am not sure if I will be able to recognize him."
The statement 'I am not sure if I will be able to recognize him' is an equivocal and non-committal assertion. A truthful victim typically expresses more certainty, whether positive ('I'll never forget his face') or negative ('I couldn't see him at all'). This phrasing suggests a lack of commitment to the facts.

🌫️ Evasion Indicators (2):

Distancing Phrase: "this person strikes me on the shoulder"
The use of 'this person' instead of a more direct noun like 'a man' or 'the attacker' creates psychological distance between the subject and the alleged assailant.
Vague Language: "He decides to hurt me"
The phrase 'to hurt me' is highly non-specific. A truthful account of an assault would likely include specific actions (e.g., 'he punched me,' 'he kicked me'). This vagueness allows the speaker to avoid committing to details that could be scrutinized or disproven.

🔑 Guilty Knowledge Indicators (1):

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

"He decides to hurt me"
The abrupt and illogical shift to present tense ('decides') during the description of the assault suggests the subject is fabricating this detail. This 'slip' can indicate guilty knowledge that the event did not happen as described, forcing the subject to invent it on the spot.

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

        The statement exhibits multiple, strong indicators of deception and narrative fabrication. The account begins with a persuasive framing ('Now look,'), suggesting an attempt to manage the listener's perception rather than simply recounting an event. The narrative is characterized by significant psychological distancing, evident in the use of 'this person' and the unnatural description of the assailant's internal state ('He decides to hurt me'). The most critical red flags are the two separate shifts into the present tense ('strikes', 'shoves', 'decides') during the core actions of the assault. This linguistic pattern strongly suggests the event is being invented in the moment rather than recalled from experiential memory. Furthermore, key details of the assault are conspicuously vague ('to hurt me'), and the statement concludes with a non-committal sentence about recognition, which may be a preemptive attempt to manage future expectations. Collectively, these indicators point to a statement that is likely not a truthful account of a real event.
      

🧪 Leakage Severity Score: 85/100

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

🔍 Deception Indicators:

Persuasive Framing: Now look,
The statement begins with a command that attempts to control the narrative and persuade the listener. This is not typical of a spontaneous, truthful account of a traumatic event.
So What? This suggests the speaker is more focused on the listener's perception and belief in the story than on simply relaying facts from memory, which is often an early sign of a constructed narrative.
Verb Tense: Present Tense Shift: this person strikes me on the shoulder and shoves me inside.
After establishing a past-tense context ('as I was locking up'), the speaker shifts to the present tense ('strikes', 'shoves') for the most critical action. A truthful memory is recalled in the past tense.
So What? This shift is a highly reliable indicator of deception. It suggests the speaker is not drawing from memory but is creating the event in their mind as they speak, causing them to narrate it in the 'here and now'.
Word Choice: Distancing Language: this person
The use of the demonstrative pronoun 'this person' instead of 'a person' or 'he' creates a sterile, detached description of the assailant.
So What? This emotional distancing suggests the speaker is not reliving a genuine, traumatic memory but is describing a character in a fabricated story, which reduces the psychological stress of the lie.
Verb Tense: Present Tense Shift & Psychological Framing: He decides to hurt me
This is a second, highly significant shift to the present tense ('decides'). Additionally, the speaker claims knowledge of the attacker's internal thought process ('decides to'), which is something they could not know.
So What? A truthful victim describes what was done to them ('He hit me'), not the perpetrator's decision-making. This framing is unnatural and strongly indicates the speaker is inventing the motive and action for a character in their fabricated story.
Missing Information/Vagueness: to hurt me
The specific nature of the assault is completely omitted. 'Hurt' is a vague summary word that lacks the sensory detail expected in the description of a physical struggle.
So What? Deceptive accounts often gloss over key events with vague language because the speaker has no experiential memory to draw from. The lack of specific detail about the core of the supposed crime is a major red flag.
Lack of Commitment: I am not sure if I will be able to recognize him.
This is a weak, conditional statement about a crucial future action. It is non-committal and lacks the conviction one might expect from a victim.
So What? This language preemptively creates an excuse for a future failure to identify a suspect. It's a way for a deceptive person to control the narrative and avoid being caught in a lie later if no identification can be made, because there was no one to identify.

🧠 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.

✨ Forensic Annotation Key

I Pronoun Commitment (Circled)

^ Pronoun Omission (Caret)

<is> Present Tense (Brackets)

car Synonym Drift (Square)

with Unique Word (Double Underline)

leak Major Pattern (Bold Underline)

* Chronological Anomaly (Out of Order)

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