Truth or lies in court? Analysing testimony.

The words used reveal a lot

The words used in court can be a challenge to analyse. Occasionally, the words used are very polished and rehearsed. Other times, people may misspeak under stress. You’ll often hear people use very formal language when it is not their natural style of talking.

Keep those points in mind as we break down the words of an accused person below.

The background: this is a transcript of a mother in court on a drink-driving (DUI) charge. She is giving her version of events and what she feels are the mitigating circumstances as to why she should be treated leniently. A pertinent fact is the event happened in January 2021 and was heard in court this week (middle of March 2022)

She is claiming that her reason for driving with excess alcohol in her system was that she needed to get to her one-year-old child, who was crying at her mother’s house.

Let’s break it down

When he cries, that is my trigger and I cannot be apart from him. I had been in a violent and abusive relationship and the violence took place in the presence of both of my children, and I was in between it all.

It’s easy to look at these words and wonder if the accused is playing the victim card, rather than jump to conclusions, let’s take time to look at the words she uses.

The first thing I notice is that she is talking in the present tense at the start. “When he cries”. The first sentence doesn’t quite work logically. If she is apart from him, how does she know he cries? If she had said “When I’m apart from him and I hear that he is crying then I cannot be apart from him” it would be reasonable, but she didn’t say that or anything close.

She’s also stated it in the negative “I cannot be apart from him” not “I have to be with him”. There are enough flags in the opening sentence to get me wondering if there is deception going on.

Next she says, “I had been in a violent and abusive relationship and the violence took place in the presence of both of my children, and I was in between it all.”

She takes ownership of the line by using the pronoun “I” twice, and puts it firmly in the past by using past tense. I believe there is an abusive and violent relationship in her past, although she doesn’t say she was the victim of abuse and violence, only that it existed in the relationship.

She says, “the violence took place in the presence of both my children”, again this is a passive description without saying who was violent; “and I was in between it all”. She is prioritising her experience over the children’s here and doesn’t expand on what being “between it all” entailed.

Was dropped

As a result of that, it caused me to suffer from mental health problems, including anxiety and PTSD. When I was assaulted during my relationship, my boy was dropped and it made him cry and I now have separation anxiety.

Often in deceptive tellings of events, we see the words in storytelling mode. The form is “and something happened, so that meant this happened”. Storytelling is an explanation of events more than a list of events.

In this testimony, the defendant goes further with two-step reasoning. The form is “something happened, so this happened, which means this happened”.

Consider, “as a result of that, it caused me to suffer from mental health problems”. It’s two steps, “as a result” and “it caused”. Why not say “as a result, I suffered from mental health problems” or “this caused me to suffer from mental health problems”? These would be straightforward and direct, which are indicators of the truth.

The two-step storytelling creates more distance from the cause and effect.

The distance continues. She does say “when I was assaulted” so she is now saying she was a victim of assault (not violence note).

“My boy was dropped” is passive once more. Who dropped the boy? What caused the boy to drop? Why was the dropped? “My boy fell” would be a more vivid description, but only if he fell.

She lists two reasons for her anxiety. It is “as a result of that” which is non specific (what is “that”?) and also caused by the the dropping. She uses the present tense saying “I now have anxiety”, she doesn’t say she had it at the time of the incident

This part raises questions for me about what did happen. It’s impossible to say from these words, but there is a suggestion that deception is happening.

PA time

That night my mum offered to have him, so I could go to my friend's home as she is also my PA for my tattoo business. I had done that in the past as I was confident enough in my mothering ability to entrust that care with my mum.

The storytelling mode continues here, and the two-step logic is present. Step one, her mum offered to have him so that she could go out; step two: because she was going to her friend’s house, but also because she was going to her PA’s house.

It doesn’t make sense. The words suggest the defendant is attempting to persuade us that there was not merely a legitimate reason for her mum looking after her son, but a VERY legitimate reason.

There is more two-step storytelling with having done this before (step one) and being confident enough in her parenting to entrust that care (step two).

Is this last sentence, I believe you can see someone using more formal language in court that they would in day to day life. Few of us use the word “entrust” regularly. However, broken down, this is another step to persuade us of something.

The phrase “confident enough” in her mothering ability suggests she isn’t fully confident in it, if so, we would expect her to say simply “I have confidence in my mothering ability”. Given she is trying hard with words to persuade us she has good “mothering ability” it’s reasonable to think she is not very confident in her skills.

Furthermore, there’s distance in this part. She describes her mum looking after her son as “that care”. The child is not mentioned here, it is functional.

Back in time

I had some wine, but my mum then rang me to say she was unable to settle him. He was crying, I could hear him in the background and I just got into the car because I just wanted to get back.

The word “just” always puts me on red alert for deception. It is used twice here, so what deception can I see?

It is in “he was crying, I could hear him in the background”. This is a reverse timeline. Often in deceptive stories, the person talking will say something then realise it doesn’t make sense and needs explaining with something that happened previously, so they have to jump back and cover off the discrepancy.

Truthful stories tend to be chronologically linear recounts of events.

If she had said simply “I could hear him crying in the background” I would find it more believable. Here, it sounds like the thought process was “I’ve said he was crying, how did I know that? I’ll have to explain I could hear it over the phone”.

Through the testimony, the defendant tries to give the impression that if they hear their son cry, they have to be with them to comfort him. She doesn’t say that here, she says, “I just wanted to get back”. She is explaining the journey (and the offence she is charged with) not the motivation for that journey.

Read more: the five words that indicate deception is taking place

Just react

I do not think clearly when he cries - I just react, and it is something that is ongoing. My anxiety was sky high and triggered my PTSD, and I was going to drive to my mum’s.

She is explaining an event in the past, and yet she starts in the present tense, saying “I do not think clearly” rather than “I wasn’t thinking clearly”. She tells us it “is ongoing” but doesn’t explicitly say that is what happened that night.

There is another indicator that her parenting ability may be lacking. She says she doesn’t think clearly when her son cries. One-year-old children cry a lot to indicate some care they need, that is when thinking clearly matters.

There are firm reasons given for getting in the car, “anxiety was sky high”, “triggered” and “PTSD”. However, these are all symptoms, once more she isn’t saying “I had to be with my son”.

Noise

I did tell the officer I was going to go to my mum’s house and I said to ring her and that I was going to my child. I remember the officer saying they may not keep me too long, but they held me for quite a while.

This is just noise, meaningless words, although they may have been relevant to a question asked in court. The ordering is noticeable here. She mentions going to her mums house before going to her child. Again she is prioritising explaining the journey not the problem she thought the journey would solve.

If you break down the literal meaning of the last sentence, it is complaining that she wouldn’t be kept too long and was held for “quiet a while” or as we might say, not too long.

(When asked why she did not call a taxi) I did not think of a sensible option because in that moment, I was hearing my son cry and that was my trigger. Also, in lockdown, I cannot imagine how long I would have waited for a cab.

This is key. Earlier, she claimed that she just reacted when she heard her son cry. Here, she says she “did not think” of a sensible option. In other words, there was no reasoning, just action.

What comes next is interesting. She says, “also in lockdown, I cannot imagine how long I would have waited for a cab”. It is in the present tense, so she is saying that she didn’t think about calling a taxi but if she had thought about that, it may have taken a long time.

She is trying to persuade that not calling a taxi was a reasonable thing to do, but her logic is that if she had considered it, she wouldn’t have done it anyway. I believe she wants to give the impression that she did think of the sensible thing but rejected it as impractical. But her words don’t say that.

Go and get

When I have rang for taxis in the past, I have waited a long time. I just did not think, I just panicked and went to go and get my son from my mum’s house.

The same logic is there again. She wants people to think she thought of a taxi but rejected the idea because it would take too long. But at the same time, she explicitly says she “just did not think” of calling a taxi.

It is interesting to note that anxiety, PTSD and so on have disappeared here. Her reason for getting in the car is “I just panicked”.

I often say about deception that the truth will leak out in words, as it does here. “I just panicked and went to go and get my son from my mum’s house”. She “went to go and get my son”, she didn’t go to comfort him, settle him, stop him crying, care for him. Why did she not mention any of these things that would meet her son’s needs and ease the problems she claims to have? Why just the functional “go and get”?

More worrying, what does “go and get” mean? The words imply she wanted to retrieve him for her mum’s house. That is, go and get him from her mum’s house and take him somewhere else. But she was drunk, she should not have been driving in the first place, was she going to put her son in the car once she had him? That is what her own words imply.

Finally what is missing that we would expect to hear? We should bear in mind other things could have been said in court but not reported, but there is no mention of what her plan was for getting home. She wasn’t getting a taxi, was she staying over?

Read more: when the truth leaks out

Conclusion

There are multiple indicators of deception in these words. At times, they are contradictory, there is distance in them and she is eager to persuade us of the severity of her plight.

She doesn’t not clearly state why she got in the car, drunk, and drove. She wants to give the impression it is to be with her crying son but her words don’t back that up. In fact her words suggest she was making a functional journey, not a mercy dash.

For me, the anxiety is stated too often in the present tense when it should be referred to in the past tense in these words. Is that because it is a recent discovery or even invention?

I believe she does tell the truth in one sentence “I just did not think, I just panicked and went to go and get my son from my mum’s house”. In other words, she did not think either she was too drunk to drive or that driving was a bad idea, she went to collect her son from her mother’s house as that was always the plan.

The court gave her a driving ban and a fine. There is nothing in her words to suggest she should have been treated more leniently.

The defendant's mother spoke in court too. I’ll do a bonus post on Facebook to look at those. Like the Facebook page here to make sure you don’t miss it.