1952年11月的一个傍晚,Derek Bentley和Chris Craig在爬到一个仓库的房顶时被一名妇女发现。报警后,警察及时赶到,包围了仓库,爬上屋顶捉拿这两人。Bentley束手就禽,而Craig 开枪打死一名警察。法庭判决结果非常意外,Craig由于是未成年人而判终身监禁,而Bentley当时已经19岁,故被判死刑。为什么会这样判决呢?虽然是Craig开枪打死了警察,但法庭认为Bentley参与了这一起杀人案。原因就出在Bentley的口供笔录上。这份口供笔录所记载的Bentley的供词对他极为不利,致使法庭判处极刑。Bentley被判死刑二十年后,Malcolm Coulthard对这份口供笔录进行了语体分析,从中发现了许多问题。首先,Bentley是文盲,而且智商很低,然而在这份口供笔录中,用词正规,时态和语态等运用非常准确,不可能出自一个文盲及低智商的19岁青年之口。下面摘录几句作为例证: 

　　 I have known Craig since I went to school. 

　　 We were stopped by our parents going out together, but we still continued going out with each other —— I mean we have not gone out together until tonight. 

　　 I could see that he was hurt as a lot of blood came from his forehead just above his nose. 

　　 I did not have a gun and I did not know Chris had one until he shot. 

　　 I now know that the policeman in uniform that was shot is dead. 

　　上述例句语态和时态准确,从属句运用自然,否定时用“did not”而未用口语化形式“didn't”,语体显得十分正式。显然,这样的供词不符合Bentley的社会背景及教育背景。其次,在这份口供笔录中,还出现了典型的警察语言特征标记,即习惯在主语后加上then。例如: 

　　Chris Craig and I then caught a bus to Croydon. 

　  Chris then jumped over and I followed. 

　  Chris then climbed up the drainpipe to the roof and I followed. 

　　The police and I then went round a corner by a door. 

　  The police man then pushed me down the stairs and I did not see any more。 

　　这样的句式根本不可能出自Bentley之口。这份有争议的口供笔录显然是警察的“杰作”。Coulthard在其提交的报告中,对Bentley口供笔录中的疑点做了陈述。这在1998年英国上诉法庭上推翻对Bentley的指控起到了重要作用。 

　　(摘于《法律语言学》,刘蔚铭/著,中国经济出版社,2003:157-158)