The investigators often ask either the victim or the criminal to write statements on the incidents they witnessed or involved in. Then they analyze the linguistic and structural features present in written criminal statements for predictive value in determining the likelihood of veracity or deception (Adams & Jarvis, 2006). As the liars may adopt various strategies to conceal their lies, the investigators will have to alter their strategies in order to obtain the desired effect.
While implementing the linguistic methods generally the spoken (which represent reality as a process) and written methods (which represent language as an object) are adopted to unveil veracity and deception (Picornell, 2013). A comparative study of the two articles reveals that while Adams & Jarvis’ (2006) conducted a study on deception in written witness statements with the help of specific linguistic attributes associated with credibility assessment analysis, Picornell (2012) compared the effectiveness of linguistic cues (individually and collectively) and linguistic strategies as deception predictors (Picornell, 2013). The elite part of Picornell’s study is to analyze how the unique characteristics of witness statements as textual monologue narratives influence the role of deception cues.
He defines the written witness statement as, a narrative relating to an event witnessed or experienced by the individual writing the statement, and produced as a textual monologue without external intervention or influence (Picornell, 2013). He also proposes three aspects – narrative, textual, and monologue – in order to speak of the implications for deception analysis. In narrative, the witness is provided the chances to describe in writing their direct experience. These evidences are reinterpreted based on their emotional and social experiences (Picornell, 2013).
In textual aspect, the fundamental differences between the spoken and the written language are evaluated. The