This study proposes a statement credibility assessment technique focusing on the narrative styles employed in statements. The method examines the narrative schemas used by eyewitnesses or suspects when describing their experiences and evaluates their overall distribution patterns across the statement. Specifically, statements are divided into target statements (TS), whose credibility is under scrutiny, and baseline statements (BS). Two approaches can be used to select baseline statements: the actual-experience method, which uses statements grounded in verifiable experiences, and the stage method, which segments the statement into chronological episodes and designates stages without TS as BS.
When systematic and consistent structural differences are observed between TS and BS, possible explanations are considered: (1) situational conditions such as memory processes, motivation, impairment, or external pressures, and (2) the absence of an actual experience corresponding to the TS. If the latter provides the most parsimonious explanation, the observed pattern is classified as a "non-experiential indicator."
To illustrate the method, this report presents an analysis of a homicide case involving a false confession, in which the defendant's innocence was subsequently confirmed through DNA testing. The case demonstrates the procedure and effectiveness of the actual-experience method in identifying non-experiential indicators.