Teacher
Professional
- Messages
- 2,669
- Reaction score
- 819
- Points
- 113
Few people know that the methods of linguistic examination are used in the study of the materials of the criminal case to assess the completeness and reliability of the testimony. Most often this happens when conducting a psychological and linguistic examination of the testimony in terms of a comparative analysis of the testimony of one or several persons. To do this, it is enough to pose a question to the expert, implying the compilation and subsequent analysis of a comparative table of the testimony of the defendants in the case: How does the testimony of the witness ... date of interrogation), as well as with the testimony given during the verification of testimony on the spot?
Of course, all case materials that are relevant to the situation under investigation and contain a description of the same incident are suitable for analysis. When compiling a comparative table of case materials, the expert finds common points, compares them with each other and separately, draws attention to the syntactic and lexical features of the text. Often, this is enough to draw conclusions that may later influence the results of the investigation.
So, for example, when carrying out a comparative analysis of the testimony of the victim K., the protocols of investigative actions and K.'s written appeals, available in the case materials, were used. K. claimed to have been a victim of fraud. Her appeals to the investigator have a complex structure and are interspersed with lyrical digressions and emotional sketches, therefore they make it difficult to isolate factual material for analysis. When comparing thematic sections that are significant for the investigation, a comparative table was compiled, which allows us to see some significant discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim, namely:
- the victim gives different reasons for giving the money to the witness: in the “Explanation” dated 10.10.2017, she reports that she gave money for repairs, and during additional interrogation of 10.07.2018, she says that N. asked her money for keeping the house, as she feared her son's illegal actions.
- the victim names a different number of missing jewelry and describes them differently.
- the victim expresses all sorts of material claims, gradually adding additional amounts to the required 300 thousand rubles and accusations of embezzlement of jewelry.
In the course of a comprehensive psychological and linguistic examination of the victim's testimony, the experts concluded that the testimony about the event under investigation was deliberately edited and memorized, including on the basis of significant discrepancies in the testimony.
It is worth noting that not only the testimony of one person is analyzed, but also the testimonies of persons with different status within the same case, or a group of accused. For example, when compiling a comparative table of the testimony of two suspects (men and women) under Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (theft), it was established that the testimony of the suspect, recorded at different periods of time, is not identical in substance and has some discrepancies. Attention is drawn to the description of the search for money by the victims, described in detail by the suspect and denied by the suspect. Also, the description of "some white paper" given to the suspect differs from the wording of the suspect: "a flyer that looks like a banknote." The expert thought that the message that the victim “did not consider the flyer” seemed unusual to the expert, although she calls it similar to 5,000 rubles. Such a description suggests that the suspect's explanation is unreliable. As well as the witness testimony of the suspect, where he claims that he did not know about the situation with the raised bill, but at the same time repeatedly describes how the wife saw "a piece of paper that looks like a banknote", and the suspect reports that they had a fight with her husband because of the fact that she threw this piece of paper.
According to the general structure of the answers, the expert can determine how the persons involved are oriented in time intervals, have knowledge of the space of the scene of the incident. However, only a close comparison reveals minor discrepancies not only between the testimonies of the defendants in the case, but also within each person's own testimonies. These indications may have insignificant discrepancies regarding the location of the participants in the events relative to each other, actions and the content of conversations. All this helps in resolving the questions posed for research within the framework of a comprehensive psychological and linguistic examination.
