Forensic discourse analysis 253B: No
Pc: When did you receive the red XR2
B: I registered it within a few days of receiving the car
Pc: How much did you pay for the car?
B: £500Obviously, if an interview is being fabricated it will be difficult to produce
follow-up questions as the necessary information will not be available; thus
we can notice in disputed interviews a predominance of one and two exchange
sequences, that is rapid topic shifts at points when to the analyst/ overhearer
it is inconceivable that a follow-up question was not posed:
Ds: What about the guns?
B: Down to him
Ds: Were they real
B: Don’t be a cunt, say they’re fake
Ds: Did you stop anywhere on the way to the motorway
B: No, why ask that?
Ds: What about these other jobs
B: What about them
Ds: Lets get those out of the way
B: I ain’t admitting those
Ds: What about the one in Wylde Green, the one where the car came
from Barnett?
B: Let’s just say I know about it
Ds: So it was you?
B: It was a London team
Ds: What about Hockley?
B: Is that the place by the flyover?
Ds: Yes, a GTi stolen from Harlow was used
B: London team again
Ds: You?
B: Maybe, look no more questions about those jobs I won’t talk about
them
Ds: OK That’s all for nowCONCLUSIONS
I return to my initial observation: there is no doubt that some forensic texts
are partially or totally fabricated, but linguistics does not yet have acknowledged
and reliable ways of testing for authenticity. What I have tried to present
here are notes towards an analysis of forensic discourse. As our insights
into discourse structure deepen, so will our ability to distinguish the authentic
from the falsified. Equally, in working on the non-authentic we should gain
more insight into how the authentic is structured.