Investigative analysis of written and spoken communication: authorship, credibility, threat, and the source of a leak.
Language carries identity and intent. Our linguistic work is investigative and grounded in what was actually written or said, rather than in supposition about who might be responsible.
We assess anonymous, hostile, or threatening communications for authorship, credibility, and the writer's posture, weighing indicators of grievance, fixation, entitlement, and the risk of escalation. The purpose is to inform decisions and support prevention, particularly where an executive or an organisation is the target, and to do so calmly and without alarm.
When sensitive information reaches the media or a third party, the language of the disclosure, and of the people around it, can help narrow who is responsible. By comparing style, phrasing, and the linguistic fingerprints that writers leave without realising, we help organisations identify a likely source and bring an investigation to a defensible conclusion.
This work is informed by genuine study of how people manage the impressions they project when they are being less than truthful. Our Managing Director's postgraduate research examined impression management and deception among public figures, and that understanding of how deception is dressed up, and where it shows through, informs how we read credibility and concealment in real engagements.
Linguistic analysis supports our insider threat, credibility, and executive threat work, and it is frequently the discipline that turns a behavioural suspicion into something an organisation can act on.